The Batman (June 25, 2021)

[davejames]

How did the buckshot not kill him. Its another thing that loses me. They want to make a point of this world being grounded even more grounded than nolans! But they cant seem to stick to what they have.

It may have been grounded, but grounded in much more of a stylish film noir kind of world than the Nolan movies were, so I can accept certain leaps like that myself.

 

[Hando]

It's Batman he has access to high graded materials the strongest armor ever created..plot armour. jk Also he basically took a dozen of machine gun rounds and an explosion he should have died ten times over. Lol

Yes that scene where he is just walking smug and taking bullets is ridiculous to me. All of that would be fine if it wasnt conflicting with the tone they layed down.

 

[Luisenigma1]

Yes that scene where he is just walking smug and taking bullets is ridiculous to me. All of that would be fine if it wasnt conflicting with the tone they layed down.

I wouldn't say it was super grounded like the Nolan films were. It was but probably had a bit more leeway with the fantastical element of the character. Plus it's not far fetched for him to have spent close to a million on his armor in truth it's what saved him throughout the film. He would have died if he never had it on, and it's character development since he is still young and not agile or a master at stealth just yet. It's why they took inspiration from Batman Earth One.

 

[Hando]

On a positive note the parts of the film that feel grounded I really like.

Ive seen people saying the wingsuit looks stupid compared to the wings he usually glides with. But I actually love how..... Normal ..... it is


And now Im wishing Inart threw it in lol

 

[user 72759]

Yeah the ridiculous durability of the suit does bug me a bit. I think mostly because it cuts some tension when a character feels invulnerable. Walking straight into full auto fire just doesn’t seem very Batman to me.

Does anyone know the guns they were using in that scene? I want to say they were 9mm smgs which makes it a little more believable but I’m pretty sure he got shot later with some M16 style rifles and the close up shotgun shot. You have to have specific armor for rifles due to the extra charge/velocity in a rifle round. It’s possible to have armor like that but you’d still be knocked on your *** if it hit a rifle plate and usually the plates are not super durable after a shot or two. For a 9mm SMG a Kevlar vest could stop them but the problem is the volume of bullets would probably hit an unarmored spot.

 

[Hando]

Yeah the ridiculous durability of the suit does bug me a bit. I think mostly because it cuts some tension when a character feels invulnerable. Walking straight into full auto fire just doesn’t seem very Batman to me.

Does anyone know the guns they were using in that scene? I want to say they were 9mm smgs which makes it a little more believable but I’m pretty sure he got shot later with some M16 style rifles and the close up shotgun shot. You have to have specific armor for rifles due to the extra charge/velocity in a rifle round. It’s possible to have armor like that but you’d still be knocked on your *** if it hit a rifle plate and usually the plates are not super durable after a shot or two. For a 9mm SMG a Kevlar vest could stop them but the problem is the volume of bullets would probably hit an unarmored spot.

Not to mention he is walking into spraying bullets with half his face fully exposed

 

[user 72759]

On a positive note the parts of the film that feel grounded I really like.

Ive seen people saying the wingsuit looks stupid compared to the wings he usually glides with. But I actually love how..... Normal ..... it is


And now Im wishing Inart threw it in lol

View attachment 595725

I like the idea of the wing suit to help him maneuver around buildings but they don’t do that much to slow your fall. AFAIK base jumpers use them primarially for maneuvering as they fall and a minor amount of glide. They still use a normal full size parachute to land.

The wings in TDK are not realistic either but they’re much closer to a hang glider in wingspan so I’m able to suspend my disbelief.

 

[BigWayne]

Im pretty sure thats not how armor works in real life. A shot like that would have killed him for sure

It’s exactly how ballistic armor works.

Assuming he wore soft armor (level 3a ballistic armor) it could withstand several .44 magnum hits.

I have only heard of one shotgun round capable of penetrating that level of ballistic armor and that’s the brenneke extreme shock slug, which goes 1.5” through level 3a armor at 15 feet. It’s what the police used to use to shoot out engine blocks.

Buckshot would probably just ricochet off. It’s energy is much less focused than a slug.

Also, I’m guessing that the “machine gun rounds” are 9mm, which is also way weaker than the body armor rating.
Still, it’s all going to hurt like hell

 

[willy156]

All this talk has gotten me more hyped about the Inart joker

Hopefully it comes out by end of the year

 

[BigWayne]

Yeah the ridiculous durability of the suit does bug me a bit. I think mostly because it cuts some tension when a character feels invulnerable. Walking straight into full auto fire just doesn’t seem very Batman to me.

Does anyone know the guns they were using in that scene? I want to say they were 9mm smgs which makes it a little more believable but I’m pretty sure he got shot later with some M16 style rifles and the close up shotgun shot. You have to have specific armor for rifles due to the extra charge/velocity in a rifle round. It’s possible to have armor like that but you’d still be knocked on your *** if it hit a rifle plate and usually the plates are not super durable after a shot or two. For a 9mm SMG a Kevlar vest could stop them but the problem is the volume of bullets would probably hit an unarmored spot.

The good armor is all nij rated. That is, testing is done at certain calibers and a fixed number of hits. Just because a plate is rated for 30 caliber doesn’t mean you can get hit in the same spot three times and not have it go through.

It also has a shelf life (expiration date).

Kevlar alone doesn’t mean it’s the strongest. It’s lightweight, but it’s often bonded with some other material, such as steel.

An “m16” is just a .223 remington, probably around 60-70 grains traveling at around 2900 fps. The 9mm is bigger, but slower (less energy), so to me, it’s plausible that they could be defeated. I assume that’s what was in the “smgs” (not my term).

Believe it or not, it’s the hunting rifles that I would think would do the most damage. A 30 caliber is nothing to sneeze at and they would dump the most energy (damage) on their target.

Most of what you see on the screen involving a firearm is just hollywood fantasy anyway.

 

[Sevreed]

Yes that scene where he is just walking smug and taking bullets is ridiculous to me. All of that would be fine if it wasnt conflicting with the tone they layed down.

That was my main gripe with the movie. Batman is supposed to be smart. He fights using surprise, the shadows and every advantage he can get. Even with body armor he could not take that many straight shots and he never would. Even in that fight with the thugs at the beginning of the movie, he would have taken out half of them from a distance, hidden from plain sight. I liked a lot about The Batman, but that wasn’t one of them.

 

[lordnastrond]

Well this is wrong - Riddler tells him who his targets are after a side character gives him the hint he needs to find a pretty obvious password that he was clearly meant to find. So, no, my original statement stands. Batman doesn’t figure out anything, Riddler tells him. You can’t argue with what’s explicitly on screen.

1. Saying Batman doesn't figure anything out is hyperbole, so I will choose not to respond to it at length by pointing out the numerous cyphers and riddles throughout the movie he DOES figure out - but I will simply point out the obvious that if he figured nothing out then neither the plot nor Riddler's plan would work.
2. Riddler doesn't explicitly say who the target is at all - nor does he say that they are to kill anyone - he merely says "that's where you come in" after talking about how the celebrations of Real's win will turn to panic when the sea walls fall. Is it obvious? Yes. But it in no way changes my point that both Pattinson and Bale reach their respective villains/threats by making a judgment from the information given. If you want to be specific Bale Batman figures nothing out at all - its Fox that triangulates the Joker's position and tells him where to go in TDK. But I still credit him as Lucius is using Bale's alterations to Lucius' tech and idea.
I know what is on screen and have been strictly truthful to it - perhaps avoid statements like this as it can come across as a little rude and I hope its merely the obvious barriers in communicating non-verbally.

I think you’re focusing a little too much on my use of the word intellectual.

It was the active adjective of the sentence you used? If you had said something differently it would have completely changed the meaning of the sentence and therefore my response.

Joker has almost always been portrayed as a character equal to Batman in his ability to enact plans and and traps and think several steps ahead. I didn’t mean to say he challenges Batman intellectually.

I can only respond to what you say, not what you mean.
Yes this is a more accurate reflection of Joker - he is Batman's archenemy after all.

My point was that this Batman NEVER outwits or gets ahead of the Riddler in the slightest. His brightest moment in the film is saving some people at GSG after finding a clue HE missed because a side character gave him the information he needed in an offhand comment.

Again you seem to be reducing the most heroic and triumphant moment of the movie - wherein Batman saves a few hundred people - which is exactly an equivalent to the triumphant moment of TDK - as doing so helps your argument.
Yes, it would be nicer if he pieced that part together himself. But it doesn't really "steal" his win, saving those people, from him.

I get that the point is a child from privilege wouldn’t know what a carpet tucker is but since Batman doesn’t have any deductive wins anywhere else in the film it’s annoying that the only detecting he does is with the explicit aid of the police or Riddler outright telling him what he needs for the plot to move along.

He actually does have quite a few deductive moments in the film that work out for him - the only problem why these don't result in a "win" for him against Riddler is sadly that Batman figuring these pieces out for himself is actually PART of the Riddler's plan - like Batman figuring out the Melvin White fingerprint leaads him to the apartment with the newspaper clue & false sniper rifle, Batman capturing Joker, Batman choosing the "right" victim between Rachel/Harvey etc are also all part of Joker's plan in TDK - both Batmen are to a degree all part of the plans their respective villains have laid out for them.

I don’t know why you’re focusing on the people on the boats’ choice since I didn’t bring it up so I’ll only address what I did bring up.

I am focusing on it as you DID bring up the notion that Joker's plan was foiled by Batman here and credited this as his win only. Specifically you did so to contrast this as an incident of Bale outsmarting Joker in contrast to Pattinson with Riddler.
I wanted to be a little clearer - Joker's plan was for the civilians to blow each other up - which failed. Batman saved the civilians from Joker's retribution. He did not outsmart Joker, he did not foil Joker, Joker's plan failed in of itself. Yet Batman did have a win by saving all those lives.

After their decision not to blow each other up the people on the boats are only alive because of Batman, and Batman alone. There’s no way to argue otherwise.

As you will note I didn't argue otherwise. All I did was correctly remind you that the actual plan was for the civilians to kill each other.
I THEN noted how saving hundreds of civilians from the villains killing them all is IDENTICAL in both the Batman and The Dark Knight - it is YOU that has insisted one is a victory whereas the other is not.

Batman repurposed the sonar device, on his own Batman used it to locate Joker, Batman then informed the police as well as responded himself so that, if he failed, the police would be there to help to. Batman was the only one able to get to Joker in time to stop the manual detonation. That victory is Batman’s alone. He had comms help from Fox but the whole plan and technology was put in place by Batman for this purpose. He didnt go there because Joker said “Hey imma be up in the Pruitt building come get me Batman!!!”

You will note, once again, that I did not argue otherwise regarding Batman getting there and informing the police - but I do hope you can honestly see the internal paradox of simultaneously saying that Batman was the only one who could stop Joker in time AND that if he wasn't there then the police would have prevented it. It can't be both, so pick one.
Did Batman being there save those people? Or was calling the police in the end irrelevant to the outcome?
For what its worth I think he did save those people's lives. But this again is the point YOU are asserting, I never argued otherwise and have only ever said that this is near-identical with the Riddler's plan in that both heroes saved hundreds of lives.
On that final bit you are creating a false analogy - Riddler had no intention of Batman being there to stop him as he saw Batman as his accomplice - he even intended for them to watch Gotham drown together from Arkham, which he states clearly.

He, just like the whole plot, relied on Riddler explicitly giving him what he needed.

Which you will find is the entire point of the Riddler - its why he sends the riddles, he always gives the solution - this isn't new to the character. He gives his puzzles and Batman solves them - which he does. Batman's agency is in solving the riddles and then foiling the overall plan. As is the case with pretty much every Riddler story ever written.

Batman has three victories over the Joker in TDK. He stops him from blowing up the armored truck with Dent in it

Given that 2/3 of Joker's entire endgame - the simultaneous kidnapping/choice/switcheroo and the corrupted hero are ESSENTIAL to Joker's endgame then it is very clear that Joker was not really trying to kill Dent - how do I know? because he pretty much effortlessly kills everyone else and stops every other vehicle in the convoy pretty quickly. Dent is Joker's bait for Batman - not just Batman's bait for Joker - as Joker himself says when he finally shows up "there's the Batman", showing that he was primarily waiting for that moment.

he stops his semi causing him to be captured

Which - again is ESSENTIAL for the Joker's plan. He needs to be caught for any of his plan to work.
So not really Bale's victory is it? Or are we now going to count all the times Pattinson also plays along with Riddler's plan victories also?
You can't have it both ways.
Again, for what its worth I count both the times when Batman captures Joker/Riddler in either movie "victories" despite it being part of the villains plan, its not their fault that the villain's endgame is not yet obvious.

and he stops his plot to destroy the ferries while capturing Joker.

Again - the destroying of the ferries is not the plan - having them destroy EACH OTHER is the plan.
What Batman stops is the consequence of the plan going awry and stopping Joker's tantrum over being proven wrong by the ordinary people of Gotham.
Batman saves hundreds of lives, and this is no question a victory in my eyes, but no he is not the one to derail Joker's plan, he does not outsmart Joker here. Also Once again there is clearly no difference between this and the endgame situation in The Batman and I don't understand why you draw a false difference between them to be honest.

He clearly wanted to blow up the armored transport

As I've shown - no he clearly didn't or 2/3 of his plan simply don't happen.

and wanted to blow up the ferries.

Yes - AFTER his plan already fails through the actions of someone other than Batman, with no input by Batman, whose choice is in no way affected by Batman.
Then he saves their lives.
Same as in The Batman

Batman was the only thing that stopped him in both instances.

No to 1 and yes to 2 - but I haven't ever said differently - only noting how the second situation is IDENTICAL to the one with Pattinson. Its you who keeps insisting that isn't a victory because he didn't know what the carpet tucker was!

Joker having a plan for getting out of prison and taking the opportunity to grab Lau doesn’t mean he wanted that outcome, it was just one he was prepared for.

The movie itself makes it EXTREMELY clear that yes "The Joker wanted to be caught!" as Gordon says ad-verbatim.
Joker was hired to retrieve Lau and the money and the first half of his plan was to put him in the situation to do so.
This was plan A, not some backup plan.

In The Batman, there’s no instance where Batman, of his own will and preparation, stops anything Riddler is doing without direct aide from Riddler.

He prevents Riddler from murdering hundreds of people!! WHY do you keep ignoring this??!?!
Joker's endgame is - corrupt Batman and/or Gotham = partially succeeds! Two face becomes a murderer, Gotham loses hope in its institutions once this gets out, Batman and Gordon venerate a criminal and perpetuate a lie just to prevent Joker's victory from being immediate.
Riddler's endgame is - kill all of Gotham's elite in GSG = total failure. Batman save the vast majority, if not all, of the people
So tell me - which one of the two Batmen achieves the greater victory in their respective movies?

Well this is wrong - In The Batman Batman has almost no agency and only responds to things that are put right in front of him. Again, as the movie makes clear, he wouldn’t have even made it to the climax if Riddler didn’t leave clues telling him exactly what was happening.

This just isn't true as I have discussed at length by this point. Also, to repeat myself, - leaving clues is the Riddler's WHOLE THING.
Batman still figures them out and completely foils Riddler's endgame.

This isn’t Batman’s failure, it’s Dent’s. Batman’s only failure in TDK was choosing to save Rachel over Dent, choosing love over duty, which was a very human and relatable mistake to make. Joker’s victory was in that deceit.

1. My point was actually that the Joker succeeds in these goals - not that they are Batman's failures. I did so to contrast that by the end of the movie Joker is triumphant while Riddler is defeated and dejected
2. Once again, surely you can see the internal failure of logic here for you to say that Joker's success was not Batman's failure only for you to say that Joker succeeded only because of one of Batman's failures?

Well this is wrong - Joker didn’t plan to be found in the Pruitt building, he didn’t leave Batman a convenient little note explaining his location. Batman found him in spite of his hiding. There’s absolutely nothing contained in the film that implies joker planned to be stopped by Batman in the Pruitt building. He was prepared if Batman found him, but there’s no suggestion he intended to be found.

Yes he did as otherwise his switcheroo of the hostages, his displaying them in a "shooting gallery" and his desire to prove his point to Batman doesn't make sense. These are called contextual clues. He trusted that Batman would find him, like he trusted that he would do the same on the day he intended to shoot the mayor by following the Melvin White fingerprint despite it being on a shattered fingerprint. The news that Joker was threatening to blow up the ferries was going to travel on the radio quick and reach Batman. How do I know? Because it DID - in the film Batman is scanning the frequencies when he tells Fox that "something's going on at the ferries" and Fox then triangulates the Joker. Did the Sonar-map-thing mean that Batman might have found Joker a bit quicker? Absolutely. But when we compare it to the Melvin White clue trial and the nature of his preparations - its clear that Joker wasn't hiding.

You just made that up.

You have a problem with having a friendly debate and till now I have refrained from calling you out on some of your - less polite - habits. There is no need to be rude.

Batman chose to tarnish his own image because he viewed himself as less important than the memory of his ally and friend before he was corrupted.

Yet - to use your own line of reasoning against you - this wasn't what he wanted and planned for, this was only necessary due to the Joker's actions in an attempt to prevent the Joker's final victory - which itself ultimately failed as the sequel demonstrates.
This was Joker's victory and there is no credible way to try and spin Batman choosing to take the blame for Dent's murders into something other than a blow to Batman that, in the end, didn't succeed in its purpose in denying the Joker his final victory.

Tactically Batman wins at the end of TDK, strategically Joker wins

This feels like it's just playing with semantics - would you explain what you mean by these terms? And why you consider them substantially different?

Batman’s victory is in being incorruptible himself and saving everyone he had the opportunity too. You can leave that film seeing that Batman was tactically successful and saved the day even though Joker’s broader plan still plants the seed for the unrest at the beginning of Rises. Batman and Joker are both able to win in a way at the end of the movie.

Yes - Batman is incorruptible and this is a victory for him - I never said otherwise.
What I have been trying to point out though is the cognitive dissonance going on, when you consider the ending of TDK a victory and the ending of The Batman as anything other than a victory.
To summarize - you are arguing that a movie where the villain is entirely defeated and the hero is completely victorious is somehow a patsy and that he "never has a real victory" whereas the Batman film where the villain mostly wins and the hero's victory is temporary is somehow the more triumphant/effective one?
I have never, at any point in this argument said that Batman achieves nothing in the Dark Knight - all I have said is that he is NEVER ahead of Joker and that, objectively, the Batman has its hero outright win more unambiguously.

The difference with The Batman is that Batman didn’t do any of it on his own.

And Bale didn't use Lucius Fox's tech and have Lucius himself help find the Joker or co-ordinate how to tackle the hostage/police situation?
And Bale didn't have Gordon's help in covering up the truth about Dent?
Did Bale capture Joker on his own? Or was he unconscious while Gordon did the final capture?
Trying to take Pattinson's Batman's victory away from him by pointing out he has allies seems a little unfair when you are doing so to compare him to the live-action Batman with the biggest support net outside of the comics themselves.

This is probably the only redeeming philosophical aspect of The Batman IMO. It’s a story about a Batman that doesn’t know why he’s Batman until the movie is over. My take was that Batman isn’t offended by the henchmen calling themselves vengeance but that he sees a reflection of himself and realizes that without a purpose he’s not much different.

This is absolutely true - I really liked this theme.

 

[Hologram AI]

Didn't really have any issues with him being "amateurish" in how he fought or from getting shot at. Even in that first fight scene at the train station, the thugs get a few hits on him from behind. It's quite clear that he hasn't finessed his fighting style yet being that this is a year 2 Batman. He's not meant to be the super OP Batman that clears the entire room from the shadows. I imagine we'll get more of that from the second movie as he continues to hone in on his abilities with new gadgets as well.

 

[Wor-Gar]

That has to be some kind of record post. I can't believe I read the whole thing.

 

[lordnastrond]

No sane person should read it and no sane person would write it.

 

[Wor-Gar]

Passion is in full view here tonight.

 

[lordnastrond]

I tell my therapist "passion"
he tells me "violent psychotic episodes".

 

[Luisenigma1]

Didn't really have any issues with him being "amateurish" in how he fought or from getting shot at. Even in that first fight scene at the train station, the thugs get a few hits on him from behind. It's quite clear that he hasn't finessed his fighting style yet being that this is a year 2 Batman. He's not meant to be the super OP Batman that clears the entire room from the shadows. I imagine we'll get more of that from the second movie as he continues to hone in on his abilities with new gadgets as well.

We also find out Alfred tought him how to fight as he says during their scene in the hospital "I didn't know how to take care of you, I tought you how to fight, but I didn't know how to raise you, you needed a father" so again using Earth one as inspiration for certain things this being one of them. I also believe he did learn more styles later, but also Alfred wasn't the family Butler but Bodyguard then eventually became a Butler to Bruce after his parents death.

 

[BigWayne]

It will be interesting to see how his fighting style develops in the second movie. As @Hologram AI pointed out, at some point, he has to start using the shadows and stealth. He might learn that from alfred, or he might have to spend some time with the league of shadows. He can’t keep standing in front of gunfire hoping nobody hits his head.

 

[user 72759]

You have a problem with having a friendly debate and till now I have refrained from calling you out on some of your - less polite - habits. There is no need to be rude.

Removing the other content because there was way too much of it.

My original points were:

1. That Batman saves both the people on the ferries and Dent’s son and ends Joker’s reign of terror because of actions and foresight on the part of Batman himself: expanding the capability of the sonar device, alerting the police as a contingency, investigating the hostage situation before sniper fire, and reaching Joker before midnight when he was going to blow up both ferries regardless of the decision. Batman got there barely in time and definitely wouldn’t have without those measures. You haven’t refuted any of this.

2. Batman in The Batman couldn’t and wouldn’t have saved the day without too-conveniently timed insights from side characters or the main villain himself. Without Riddler hinting at his larger plan Batman wouldn’t have gone back to his apartment, without the carpet tool line he wouldn’t have found the password in time, without the password and Riddler’s device he wouldn’t have gotten to GSG in time.

My reason for bringing them up was that I find the latter to be not very Batmany and boring to watch. The Batman’s Batman never thinks ahead, he just shows up and is invited into the door by police or mobsters and given what ever he needs through notes or dialogue. There’s no mystery or theatrics to how he operates. The riddles felt more like devices to move the plot along and weren’t very compelling or creative, the central mystery was not compelling at all, and Batman barely saves the day after being given everything he needs to by others in the film.

You haven’t said anything that changes my mind on anything I’ve said here and I doubt anyone could since they’re simply factual context from the films that I have subjective feelings about.

Again for the record I’m generally positive on The Batman and am hopeful for the sequels to improve on what they built. Hopefully Batman is a bit more proactive and strategic in the next films because idk if I could sit through another three hours of Batman knocking on doors before asking to be invited in.