MovieChat Forums > The Batman (2022) Discussion > The only explanation I could come up wit...

The only explanation I could come up with, regarding the often complained scenes

posted 3 years ago by actionkamen (23176)
43 replies | jump to latest

1. The worst offender: Bomb blasts inches from Batman's face yet his jaw comes out pristine.

2. Thugs never hit nor shoot his exposed mouth (or eyes.)

3. The police didn't try to open his cowl earlier when he was unconscious.

Those scenes contrast with the whole hyper-realistic tone the movie seemed to try achieving.

I think... and this is only my wild guess... is that the script was originally written with Batman wearing a full-face helmet in mind, Iron Man style.

I mean, it would be more realistic that way. Having exposed parts like the eyes and mouth is needlessly dangerous and in this age of face-recognition tech we can get Batman's identity in like 10 minutes.

This leads to my assumption that in the original script, Batman's suit must have been designed with a completely closed-up tactical headgear. It'd make total sense, in my opinion.

But maybe the producers thought it ruins Batman's iconic look and they couldn't alter the story so much without entirely rewritting it. Therefore, they simply make the movie as if Batman is wearing full head protection, but keep the original script / story intact, and just treat the actual Batman's cowl design used in the final product (with classic openings and everything) as an arstistic license.

It elegantly solves almost every major complains those bizzare scenes created. What do you think?

[–] BenStrousers (969) 3 years ago

We've lost the art of suspension of disbelief. Why do you have to pick everything apart? The batman films are popcorn movies, you'll be better off if you treat them as such.

[–] 123Guy (7841) 3 years ago

Is a curse from the internet, making people overthink everything.
Ever movie has plots holes and issues.
We need to just accept them as entertainment, not reality.

[–] FootOfDavros (8715) 3 years ago

I think you don't need to worry about it. It's a comic book movie.

I'm just realising that some people believe Bruce Wayne survived being blown up by a nuclear bomb at the end of Dark Knight Rises. This is VERY small potatoes by comparison...

[–] 123Guy (7841) 3 years ago

(You knew he wasn't IN the explosion, right?)

[–] FootOfDavros (8715) 3 years ago

It was pretty clear he wasn't far enough away from the nuclear explosion to survive.

[–] 123Guy (7841) 3 years ago

wait... you missed the whole 'auto pilot' thing??

[–] FootOfDavros (8715) 3 years ago

No. I didn't miss that at all. However I did watch the film.

[–] 123Guy (7841) 3 years ago

so you think he died? even though they obviously setup the autopilot thing? he jumped out god knows when in movie-time, and they show him alive and well at the end?

[–] FootOfDavros (8715) 3 years ago

The autopilot line was obviously put in to give Alfred hope, to allow him to "see" Bruce at the end. It's a touching, bittersweet moment.

However us, the viewers, have seen the events with Bruce firmly "at the wheel" just before it detonates. There's no way he survives, it would be ludicrous.

Nor should we wish him to. It would take away the gravity of his sacrifice, which ends the trilogy with the ultimate expression of Bruce saving Gotham. Its the perfect ending.

[–] [deleted] 3 years ago

Alfred knows nothing about the auto-pilot thing. Only Lucius Fox knew about it.

Christian Bale has stated that he believes the ending of the movie was as we saw it. Nolan has said that it was left open ended.

[–] damocci (1516) 3 years ago

Then you must have walked away before the movie ended. I literally just rewatched the ending of the movie just so I could reply to you. Here's what happens:

Batman flies off to the ocean with the nuke dangling under the Batplane. There's a shot of his face looking like he has accepted his impending death accompanied by mournful female vocals, followed by a shot of the nuke's timer counting down from 5 seconds. Another shot of the Batplane flying off into the distance, then the nuke detonates.

The editing is very manipulative because it definitely looks like there's absolutely no way he could have survived or gotten far enough away to survive, not with 5 seconds on the clock. But at exactly 2hrs 36min into the movie, right before the end credits there are these two screenshots that I just captured myself:

https://pixhost.to/show/120/281515303_vlcsnap-2022-05-05-20h36m06s384.jpg
https://pixhost.to/show/120/281515311_vlcsnap-2022-05-05-20h36m18s635.jpg

Batman "died" in that nuclear explosion, but Bruce Wayne is very much alive.

[–] FootOfDavros (8715) 3 years ago

Sorry but your pictures aren't showing?

[–] damocci (1516) 3 years ago

Not sure what the problem is but the second last sentence from the plot outline on Wikipedia is:

While vacationing in Florence, Alfred discovers that Bruce is alive and in a relationship with Kyle.

That's what the two screenshots show.

[–] FootOfDavros (8715) 3 years ago

Yeah, I've discussed that above.

Clearly that is what Alfred "sees" but, as per what you've elaborated on above, it's pretty much impossible he survived the nuclear explosion...

[–] [deleted] 3 years ago

Same with Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. He was killed by the nuclear explosion. Nobody could have survived that shock wave, heat blast and fridge crash.

The whole movie -- plus the new one coming out -- are just products of Indie's dying brain in the minutes before he succumbs to his injuries in the refrigerator.

[–] FootOfDavros (8715) 3 years ago

Obviously you are being facetious but its a pretty poor analogy.

1. Alfred literally tells Bruce his fantasy outcome for him earlier in the same film.

2. We literally see Bruce still in the plane seconds before a nuclear explosion goes off - absolutely miles of the coast of Gotham no less, so what even accounting for the absurdity of number 3 (next) he swam back to shore? 😂

3. Bruce discovers there's a nuclear device about to destroy Gotham, with literally seconds to spare. So he puts the bomb into the plane and uses the autopilot to safely send the bomb over the sea? No wait! At that exact second he thinks "You know what, this would be a good time to kill two birds with one stone. I'll fly it out over the harbour, then jump out leaving the autopilot for the final five seconds! No problem! Then I can go into hiding". LOL really...

[–] [deleted] 3 years ago

The final scene is on youtube. Watch it again. There's nothing conclusive that sez he didn't eject and leave it on auto-pilot.

We see a close up shot of his face looking thoughtful. But is he still even in the Batwing at that point? Who knows? He could have ditched before even leaving the city via a mini-wing similar to the way the Batmobile housed a smaller vehicle within it.

I'm going with Bale's interpretation.

[–] FootOfDavros (8715) 3 years ago

We see a close up shot of his face looking thoughtful. But is he still even in the Batwing at that point? Who knows?

You can see light still flickering over his face, as we see when he's very clearly still piloting while going out over the harbour.

Sure the autopilot fix line makes it ambiguous enough if you want to go with he literally used it and survived but if you do rewatch that scene it seems an incredible reach to see where and when he would have set and used the autopilot and got out - with everyone watching him flying it out over the harbour to sea - and while having literally seconds to spare in getting the bomb out of Gotham.

At this is all after he has gone to the trouble of telling Selina the autopilot is bust as well! What's going on with that line?

[–] [deleted] 3 years ago

After he lifts off, you don't see any shot that explicitly shows him at the helm of the craft. No exterior shots that show him through the craft's cockpit glass. If he does have some clever mini-craft, he could have exited and flown away under cover of the explosion witnessed by Robin for example.

It would take mere seconds to set a direction and distance in the autopilot. Neither has to be accurate, e.g. fly 1000 miles due east.

The autopilot comment... Anyone overhearing that will report that he had to fly the craft manually, and therefore everyone concludes he died in the explosion. He may have told Selina that specifically because in that hurried instant he was undecided on what his future with her would be.

You have no smoking gun. Neither do I. As the director intended.

Nothing more I can add.

[–] FootOfDavros (8715) 3 years ago

After he lifts off, you don't see any shot that explicitly shows him at the helm of the craft.

That simply isn't true. Here's the seen in question here:-
https://youtu.be/YR8xj7dacKs

We clearly see him in the cockpit, buildings in the background, at 1:44 into that clip (after Blake has seen him coming through the explosion).

That's after the bomb has been lifted and the bat wing is going out over the harbour.

[–] Ace_Spade (9659) 3 years ago

Yeah. At the very least the film is edited disingenuously so that it looks like he explodes.

[–] FootOfDavros (8715) 3 years ago

The funny thing is (and I mentioned this in other thread earlier) if you look at that clip it says 1:57 left on the bomb at the beginning and it explodes at something like 2:25, so it actually plays out SLOWER than real time. i.e. there's some extra cut back time, presumably from getting to see Blake and the kids POVs.

So there's no missing time, where we can go "Oh, he did it here...", we see Bruce, at the helm, as the bat wing flies out over the harbour.

If you want to go with the "he really lived" version, one has to somehow fit in him getting out within 9 seconds of the bomb exploding - which is what we see in that scene...

[–] Ace_Spade (9659) 3 years ago

I think he's meant to really be alive at the end, I just think they edited it to trick us - which is obnoxious and "cheating".

It's like a detective story that is "impossible" and then the detective, while wrapping up, reveals a piece of information that was never given out and couldn't possibly be known. It's cheating at storytelling.

[–] FootOfDavros (8715) 3 years ago

I suspect in terms of the actual film making the issue is that they changed their minds and added on the ambiguous ending, e.g. that Fox scene hearing that the autopilot patch had been put in months before is just so, so clunky.

But in terms of what we see, bad editing or not, he's in the cockpit before that blast through the building and he's still in it after as it passes the harbour and flies out to sea.

So the film actually presented makes it pretty hard to reasonably believe he survived, unless of course he is "magic". But this is supposed to be a more realistic vision of a guy who's probably the most realistic superhero (i.e. no powers) of them all.

[–] Ace_Spade (9659) 3 years ago

Rr? I know a lot of abbreviations, but I'm drawing a blank here.

[–] FootOfDavros (8715) 3 years ago

Ha ha, sorry - It was just a placeholder.

Typing on my phone it reduces it to one character per row when it get this indented. So I just put some random characters in and hit "edit" so I can see what I'm typing...

[–] Ace_Spade (9659) 3 years ago

Ww?

[–] actionkamen (23176) 3 years ago

Wonder Woman

[–] Ace_Spade (9659) 3 years ago

Is it possible Nolan made an ending that killed off Batman and the studio said, "Over our dead bodies," and made him do some reshoots (like the Fox scene)?

The film's editing shows us that, yeah. It's possible that it's just cutting to Batman "before he ejected" and we're basically watching a flashback? But that's what I mean by "manipulative editing".

Frankly, I sorta think they should have killed him. Having the guts to do that would have felt more satisfying, I think.

[–] FootOfDavros (8715) 3 years ago

Is it possible Nolan made an ending that killed off Batman and the studio said, "Over our dead bodies..."

Yeah, I kind of wondered that just in terms of that Fox scene. It just seems like an after thought tag on, but tbh I've no idea as to whether there was an original intention for him to die. Personally, though (although the hero suicide is now way over used!) I do think him sacrificing himself for Gotham after his speech to Gordon makes it a lot more moving conclusion.

As to the editing, I'm not convinced it can be a flashback to an earlier moment in flight. Why?

Because we see the bat wing is flying lower through the building while dragging the bomb and attempting to get it off the ground. Next it bursts through that building, still lifting, while the explosions in the building are left behind. We THEN get the cockpit shot and we can see he's high up, with the skyscrapers visible. There's no earlier time when that view would be possible.

Therefore he's still in the cockpit as it goes over the harbour. That in turn makes it impossible, for me, to see where he supposedly gets out.

[–] Ace_Spade (9659) 3 years ago

Yeah. It's pretty much impossible. Unless he had a Bat-sub he dropped into. And it was a remote Bat-sub so it was already moving REALLY fast so it could escape the bomb blast by going down or something?

Maybe he set up an underwater escape route while he was painting the flammable bat symbol on the bridge? How much time did Bruce take before he actually bothered saving Gotham?

[–] acidraindrop (3055) 3 years ago

lmao i busted up laughing at your screenshot proof.

Yeah, I don't know if some ppl actually believe this "bruce wayne died conspiracy theory" or if it's just some over-involved trolling effort.

[–] damocci (1516) 3 years ago

Yeah, there's zero ambiguity. This movie isn't Inception where the ending is open to debate.

[–] Ace_Spade (9659) 3 years ago

1. Standard-issue action-movie wound levels. Get a knockout punch? No brain damage (or yellow-purple bruises). Get shot through the shoulder or hip? No arteries there; you're fine! Bomb blast near face? Ouch! Walk it off! My suspension of disbelief carries me through this one.

2. Ever try to hit a target in the dark? Ever try to hit a moving target in the dark? While you're moving? Oh, and the target is two-by-four inches? How 'bout trying to do it while the target is actively punching you, electrocuting you, and throwing smoke grenades?

3. Gordon stopped them. When Bruce wakes up, Gordon is losing the battle, but he has been successful up to that point.

I doubt the script mentioned the mask, but maybe. I'll see if I can find a copy of it somewhere and check it out. Design decisions aren't usually the scriptwriter's purview.

The first two problems are action-movie non-issues (for me) and they aren't too bad. Okay, 1's bad. But bomb blasts in a lot of movies should cave in chest cavities, too - they don't. Batman and Rachel in The Dark Knight should have been ground-paste after falling out of the party window, but they're not (I know, "the cape deployed" - waaaay too late). It comes up in action flicks all the time.

A closed cowl wouldn't automatically solve 3, either, since they could still remove parts of his suit. If they wanted his identity, for instance, they could have taken off gloves, fingerprinted him, grabbed some DNA samples, and called forensics.

[–] actionkamen (23176) 3 years ago

A closed cowl wouldn't automatically solve anything actually, but it helps the suspension of disbelief.

In other thread, I mentioned how Iron Man would be a human slushie inside his armor when it accelerate incredibly quickly. But the guy that I replied to said, "nobody in the audience think that."

And he was right. I only think about how silly Iron Man suit is in hindsight. But when I was watching the movie it never came to my mind. Not with The Batman, when the bomb exploded I was like whaa...? My disbelief now suddenly only suspended on a very thin string. Suspension of disbelief is a spectrum.

Even when they could take off the gloves or grab some DNA samples, Iron Man style helmet would help the suspension of disbelief better than an open rubber cowl. Most people would just think, oh the police officers couldn't find the button to open the mask.

Design decisions aren't usually the scriptwriter's purview.

But as a concept (hyper-realistic bulletproof Batman with closed off helmet) I think it would be in the writers' domain.

It would still need to pass the producers decission though. Maybe closed off Batman cowl sounds logical in text, but looks stupid in real life. Or it looks too similar to Black Panther and they don't want to risk lawsuits (from Disney, no less!)

[–] Ace_Spade (9659) 3 years ago

I agree, SoD is a spectrum. With Iron Man I wasn't thinking about inertia and acceleration (if I remember my physics terms correctly?) But I did wonder how he (and the other dude) managed to assemble a suit of high-tech battle armour under the noses of their captors while being like, "No, no, this is totally a missile. It's just...shaped like a person. So it can give your enemies the finger while it blows up..."

And, yeah, the bomb was a bit hard to swallow, but the rest of the movie was going so well that I was willing to give it a pass.

The main reason they didn't remove any of the batsuit to try to ID Wayne is because of Gordon, not because of the removability of the armour.

The writer could put it in, but there wouldn't be much point. The design team controls it. He could talk to the director, I guess?

As far as changing Batman's look goes, I don't think it's needed. We're buying a ticket with the idea that this will be a Batman movie. I'm not the type to go, "Oh, it's just a comic book movie, so they should write it lazy!" but I also know which movie I bought a ticket for. To me, it's kinda like asking why nobody notices Clark Kent and Superman are the same guy. Apparently a spit curl and a lack of glasses are enough, and I bought the ticket (or comic book or whatever) knowing that that's the case and I've already made my peace with it.

Put it this way: I know some people who don't like Love Actually. It's too schmaltzy, they say. Fair enough, but why did they finish watching the movie? Did they not know?

So, again: I agree that some things are harder to believe/suspend disbelief on, and I know that the bomb thing is hard to buy. I also am with you in terms of some stuff is noticed and some stuff isn't (at least until the car ride back from the theatre).

Ultimately, I don't think there's a point. Batman comes with certain rules attached, like "they can't tell it's Bruce Wayne in there," and I'm okay with that.

It wouldn't look stupid, but as to a lawsuit from Marvel/Disney, I think that would be a mistake. If I were Warner Bros./DC and Marvel's guys tried that, I think I'd file a countersuit saying, "Apparently the only difference between Batman and Black Panther is that one has a face covering, and since we had Batman WAY longer than you had Black Panther, I think you guys owe us money, not the other way around."

[–] actionkamen (23176) 3 years ago

Yeah, what you said is probably why they chose to keep Batman's open cowl design intact. Closed helmet Batsuit may help some problems but also would bring other problems that's unsolvable by having a closed helmet. And maybe they thought it's pointless anyway, just make it back into the tried-and-true classic design.

It reminds me of the Tumbler Batmobile design. It solves some problem with classic Burton's Batmobile design (like mobility on rough terrain, or even just making a U-turn lol.)

But in the end, the Tumbler still has very exposed giant rubber wheels in front and back which is a clear weakness point for such a highly armored battle tank. It solves one or two problems only to get another one or two different problems.

Ultimately, Nolan's Batmobile is solely an aesthetic decission but has nothing to do with realism.

About the similarity to Black Panther. Well, comic Batman looks very different to comic Black Panther so they don't count. Only this version of Batman would be too similar to MCU Black Panther, which predates The Batman.

Maybe they just don't want the uneeded risk. It's just not worth pursuing the idea of closed off helmet Batman.

[–] Ace_Spade (9659) 3 years ago

Yeah, there will never be a perfectly realistic Batman because the premise itself demands some element of the fantastic.

I wasn't saying Black Panther was like Batman, but more that a lawsuit saying, "Batman looks like Black Panther" would open the door to a return suit basically forcing them to either admit that one design element isn't enough to make the characters the same, OR the characters are actually super-similar, in which case it isn't DC that owes money.

[–] acidraindrop (3055) 3 years ago

lol that's an amusing explanation. For me, the only one that's intolerable is (1). (3) is kind of bothersome but...I'm more of confused why he wasn't sent to the hospital. It's just very hard for me as a viewer to figure out what went on during those minutes that he was unconscious. I wish we could have seen some of the dialogue there. For me, it comes off like Christian Bale getting onto the sub in Terminator: Salvation. Like, they just didn't even try to explain how that would even work.

(2) is fine. None of the ppl shooting him were marksman. That falls within my suspension of disbelief.

[–] actionkamen (23176) 3 years ago

I'm more of confused why he wasn't sent to the hospital.

I think it was needed for the story to have Batman brought into the police station (instead of a hospital.)

At the beginning it was depicted that Batman works alongside the police. In this version, Batman believes he and the police are on the same side, working againts criminals which are on the opposite side.

The police station scene was to show that they were not exactly on the same side.

That's a very important plot point in my opinion, because later after Batman finds out that the police is being controlled by Falcone, the movie shows that not all of them worked for him. And they were many, not just Gordon.

I actually like the depiction of a more complex relationship between Batman and the police here, that the police is not one single monolithic entity with a hive-mind and Gordon isn't the only good cop in the entire Gotham City, unlike the usual more simplicistic take in other Batman movies.

None of the ppl shooting him were marksman.

Still an unecessary weak points. Stray bullets or richocets could hit him if he's unlucky. Batman would also be vurnerable to tear gas or poison, etc.

I'd imagine when they were thinking about a hyper-realistic concept of Batman, one which is completely bulletproof, a closed-off helmet must have been considered at some point. It would be surprising if it was never touched / discussed by the writers.

[–] mitzibishi (2013) 3 years ago

I'm all for a scaled down suit, and avoiding bullets all together. Flee's into the darkness and uses the shadows as his weapon rather than tanking bullets as if he was Robocop.

I would be cool with Batman as we see him in this one on the bike, wearing a hoodie, and a bikers mask with only a few home grown gadgets. Make him elusive, he clings to the shadows then pops out, disarms, knocks out, and then back in the shadows within seconds. He uses smoke and mirrors to avoid being detected.

The bad guys are afraid, like there's a ghost after them. An apparition, just like in the games. Sprinkle in more detective work, listening in on cops for information, and checking out crime scenes after the cops have left to see if there are any other clues.

I can see this version happening, soon, hopefully.

That's what I like about the start of Batman '89. Nobody knows if Batman exists, like he's folklore, a scary story criminals tell each other when round the camp fire. When they do see him, they're not sure if it's a ghost or not.

[–] howgamer (3989) 3 years ago

Worst offender was either bomb to face or the gliding scene. For a film that was going for realism those two things were way out of context. Also, I like that the Batsuit is more durable, but just taking machine guns at point blank range with no recoil was kind of comical.

[–] actionkamen (23176) 3 years ago

But at least the gliding scene was exciting. It's still an action movie afterall. Also, it was not entirely CGI.
https://youtube.com/shorts/0fEqY-kFQ78

The bomb-to-the-face scene, on the other hand, was just unnecessary. It's not exciting, not action-y, and not smart.