ya, there should of been a scene where he falls or someone hits him in the head with something, and his mask splits in half, and he had to hide, or leave, so, not to risk his identity, allowing whoever attacked to get away (or maybe even identify him)
Another, line I thought was kinda odd, was when fox was talking about he suit, and pointed out "that he can take anything but a straight shot" again, realism, no armor can take a straight shot, and it shows that he's not fully protected, and is still putting his life at risk...yada yada
but, I thought maybe it was going to be a set up line, for him to actually get shot by some villain or whoever, or they just get close enough to hold the gun right to his chest to threaten him, and he knows that if they shot the suit wont protect him, so,... idk ? whatever happens
(it can possibility still happen the sequels, I guess) not that I what to see it happen, just it could have been set up for farther down the line
Watching at Goyer's work on BB, he might have written the seen merely as an excuse for Alfred's one-liner.
Meaning behind it? Connected to a deleted scene? Slowed the movie down?!?!
Yes, meaning. Purpose for the scene as any screenwriter knows every scene should have. This one had none that wasn't already explained. And the helmet thing didn't go anywhere.
Connection. Everything in a mvoie happens for a reason, oftenly connected to things that happens in the future or have happened in the past. Thios scene prepared people for something happening with the helmets. Nothing happened leaving the scene as a cut loose.
Slowed the movie down a lot. At this point of the movie we had too many scenes giving us the very same redundant thing: whatever Batman got, he got it from Luicius Fox. One good scene could have shown us that brilliantly. But Goyer gave us many with nothing new. And in spite of that, this pointless scene slowed things down even more and for no reason.
Buttman is right: it was simply there to show that he didn't automatically become Batman with no trials and tribulations.
He didn't become Batman at once? Really? Maybe that's why of the first 60 minutes of the movie? 60 minutes or more of troubles and tribulations and they needed to state that again?
But let's say Goyer in his adoration of endless repetition, wanted to make that helmet's scene. Doesn't he know the scenes have to cover many aspects? If he's writing a scene to state soemthing that has been stated in every scenen before, couldn't he at the very least give us someting new that was realted to the actual actions of the movie?
In the Fox's scenes we learnt about the electric cloth. Several minutes later we see Batman with the rigid cape and we know why is that. fantastic, the scene was useful. Same with the Tumbler, the suit and the belt. The helmet? Nothing.
Everything didn't "just work".
Like the suit. He used it and understood he needed a mask.
Then he tested it and understood he needed something to "fly."
The helmet? Nothing. Ra's didn't break the helmet or did the helmet mean any problem for Batman. The scene of the helmet was there for nothing that wasn't fully explained (and over explained) before.
And even so, they found out the helmet didn't work and what did they do? They used it anyways. *shrugs*
Plus, it showed was a nice little moment showing the playful nature between Alfred and Bruce.
Again, nothing that wasn't shown once and again multiple times and that, even for the sake of repetition, could have been used in a useful meaningful scene instead.
How hard is that to comprehend?
What is hard to understand is how a writer with experience working for such a big-budget film about such a popular character with such a tremendous name as Nolan could make such a lousy writing work sometimes.
