The Batman Spoiler Discussion Thread

[antsman41]

...the suit can handle a lot, but Bruce can't. Kevlar for cops/soldiers works the same. It's not as efficient of course, but those people get knocked out/bruise/etc. even if the bullet is stopped.

 

[AntonGobbs89]

This film really does set itself up for criticism with how much of a beating Batman takes - that doesn't really do much to him.

• Literal bomb in the face? Not even a scratch. (All the more perplexing when a bomb several feet away hospitalized Alfred)
• Wipe-out, ram body into bridge and crash land/roll on pavement? Perfectly fine in next scene.
• Direct shots to chest armor? Doesn't even make him slow down.
• Shotgun blast to the chest? He's sore for a bit, but is still able to lead people to safety and pull an all nighter helping.

There's no tangible stakes for the main character because he's pretty much unable to be injured.

Even the Penguin - whose car flips and rolls in a way that would kill most people, isn't even hurt. Not even a cut.

Or the new Mayor - she takes a gunshot to the chest and not long after, she's walking around in neck deep water as she's got to be still bleeding - and now contaminated water is likely in her wound. Outside of the first scene where she's shot, she doesn't act hurt from it.

As real as this film's world feels, its characters are never really in danger.

That’s the weird thing to me Reeves wanted this to be so real world with his aesthetics, but also includes cartoony things like that in there. Kinda feels at odds with itself.

 

[AntonGobbs89]

I know there are plenty of people who still think this doesn't come close to the Nolan trilogy, but I've been thinking, this is probably a much stronger first movie for Reeves than Batman Begins was for Nolan.

There's a lot that I love about BB, but it was TDK that really stole the show. I think my love for BB grew after that, with subsequent viewings, because they complement each other really well. But I honestly don't think I came out of the cinemas for Batman Begins feeling as satisfied as I did with The Batman. I wonder if anyone else here feels similarly?

It definitely makes me excited to see how Reeves can raise the stakes even higher for this one. As a huge fan of his Apes movies, this guy does not phone in sequels.

In my ranking I put Begins right above The Batman so there isn’t a huge gap in quality between the two for me. In Begins I find Bruce Wayne to be a very likable character and I love the journey that he takes in the film. Also, unlike the new film, I can follow his arc in that movie and where he ends up at the end makes sense to me.


Another thing I appreciate is that Batman at the end of Begins is fully formed. Anytime someone brings up an aspect of the character that’s missing in the new film it’s followed up with “That’s ok because this is a young Batman. We’ll get a better Batman/Bruce in the sequels.” However, it’s not like that in Begins. The Batman that’s presented at the end of Begins is carried forward in Dark Knight and Rises.

Also, an area where The Batman is lacking for me is spectacle. When I think back to something like The Dark Knight I look forward to the opening bank robbery, Batman getting Lau in Hong Kong, Joker blowing up the hospital, etc…. I hope Reeves just goes all out in that department for the next film.

 

[chintai80]

Anybody got favorite quotes? I feel like this has to be the number one quote for me:

"Vengeance won’t change the past, mine or anyone else’s. I have to become more. People need hope. To know someone is out there for them."

this quote. hits on the central theme of the movie.

loved how the movie was punctuated by pattinson's narration.

 

[codesveburn]

This film really does set itself up for criticism with how much of a beating Batman takes - that doesn't really do much to him.

• Literal bomb in the face? Not even a scratch. (All the more perplexing when a bomb several feet away hospitalized Alfred)
• Wipe-out, ram body into bridge and crash land/roll on pavement? Perfectly fine in next scene.
• Direct shots to chest armor? Doesn't even make him slow down.
• Shotgun blast to the chest? He's sore for a bit, but is still able to lead people to safety and pull an all nighter helping.

There's no tangible stakes for the main character because he's pretty much unable to be injured.

Even the Penguin - whose car flips and rolls in a way that would kill most people, isn't even hurt. Not even a cut.

Or the new Mayor - she takes a gunshot to the chest and not long after, she's walking around in neck deep water as she's got to be still bleeding - and now contaminated water is likely in her wound. Outside of the first scene where she's shot, she doesn't act hurt from it.

As real as this film's world feels, its characters are never really in danger.

I thought Batman here is younger and more reckless than anyone before. The sheer drive he showed make an argument that despite that some of the unbelievable thing he did isnt without consequences, he just didnt care about himself like he said, at least thats the impression i get. His back and chest looks hurt/injured enough though. Reeves said, he has the ability to endure. (and i can pretend he fast enough to protect his face and that his armor was strong enough).
Well for the villains, usually i always thought that theyre strong enough than usual human, that including penguin and batman himself too.

The one with mayor kinda irked me at first time but i dont think about it that much after. Lets be real in Reeves's Cloverfield, they got hurt and even with broken legs or so the protagonist can run etc but the amount of stress and anxiety made me believe enough that they could and should did it. Maybe because i had an experience before. I hurt my legs pretty bad at one time, and when theres fire notice in the neighborhood, suddenly its feel okay to run lol, regret that decision later though

 

[The Lazarus Pit]

Been thinking constantly about this movie, and I truly believe this is the best Batman movie yet. Can’t believe how well they have developed this world. Burton’s, Schumacher’s, Nolan’s and Snyder’s Batman all featured glaring issues that hindered my enjoyment of those iterations. Pattinson and Reeves both came together to create the best Batman ever.

I’ve been watching a lot of BTAS and The Batman is the only iteration that comes close to capturing the magic of that goated series.

 

[OnLeatherWings]

Some pretty selective criticisms there. How can characters not be in danger when several are killed off in the film?

Both Batman and Selina had moments where they'd be absolutely dead if the other didn't save them, and that includes the shotgun blast that obviously slowed him down despite you saying shots to his armor not doing so.

Also, didn't the shots he took from Penguin drop him for a bit?

How is it selective? It's literally what happens.

The plot requires certain characters to be killed off.
The plot requires Selina to almost be killed by Falcone and Batman to almost be killed by a Riddler goon.

But outside of that - Batman is unstoppable.
Penguin is uninjured from a car flipping a dozen times.

Batman being slowed down and taking a breather =/= actual consequences for gunfire.

It's hard to take it seriously that this guy with a shotgun got a good hit on Batman when he was literally walking into a hail of machine gunfire without so much as his walking pace slowing down.

The stakes just feel hollow and it's one of the issues I have with the film. There's no explaining this away.

 

[KaijuDude1992]

I remember leaving Batman Begins very excited and hopeful for the future of the series. I think The Dark Knight largely fulfilled the promise that Batman Begins left us with.

I left The Batman feeling very mixed and just...disappointed. I felt there were things about it that looked really good and certainly better than Batman Begins; action and fight choreography specifically. I think I prefer the overall cinematography and look of Gotham City in The Batman.

Also, you can actually understand what Pattinson is saying when he's in the costume.

Sorry to hear that Vile, especially since I remember you being pretty excited for this movie when that first trailer dropped at DC FanDome almost two years ago like many of us were.

Hopefully, you give it another chance at some point down the line but if you don't, I can completely understand that as well, but there is definitely a lot to process when it comes to this movie.

For me personally, I haven't been this enthusiastic coming out of a Batman film since TDK and just like how I felt going into TDKR my expectations for the sequels are incredibly high.

I feel like Reeves will definitely deliver again though and I couldn't agree more about how much he nailed the dark, gritty, atmosphere of Gotham which is easily my favorite live action portrayal yet.

 

[Stringer]

How is it selective? It's literally what happens.

The plot requires certain characters to be killed off.
The plot requires Selina to almost be killed by Falcone and Batman to almost be killed by a Riddler goon.

But outside of that - Batman is unstoppable.
Penguin is uninjured from a car flipping a dozen times.

Batman being slowed down and taking a breather =/= actual consequences for gunfire.

It's hard to take it seriously that this guy with a shotgun got a good hit on Batman when he was literally walking into a hail of machine gunfire without so much as his walking pace slowing down.

The stakes just feel hollow and it's one of the issues I have with the film. There's no explaining this away.

You aren't making sense. So there's criticism for the movie following a script where certain characters are killed off and others aren't? What did you expect, for Batman to die?

Yes every character in any medium is indestructible as long as they aren't being hurt, this makes no sense either. As stated before, Batman gets hurt plenty in this and almost gets his whole head blown off in a weakened state.

Are you one of those people that watches John Wick and complains about him being alive at the end of the movie?

 

[OnLeatherWings]

You aren't making sense. So there's criticism for the movie following a script where certain characters are killed off and others aren't?

You're seemingly missing the point deliberately.

I'm saying that Batman is vulnerable only when the script requires him to be.

There's no reason a shotgun to the chest should be more pain-inducing/debilitating than the endless machine gun fire he took in the hallway yet the film wants you to think so.

The only reason the shotgun is more debilitating is because the script requires it to be - which makes the scope of what hurts him wildly inconsistent. Need I mention he took a bomb to the face, too without injury?

Why is point blank fire from automatic weapons somehow unable to even make him flinch yet some buckshot takes him to the point of blackout and severe injury?

And then, he's totally fine after he takes the adrenaline shot for not only the scene itself - but presumably for the rest of the film as he spends hours rescuing people.

It's not consistent. And it makes the stakes hollow.

As stated before, Batman gets hurt plenty.

No, he doesn't.

Him grunting and limping away only to be back in perfect shape a scene later that's chronologically within the hour isn't being 'hurt plenty'.

 

[TheVileOne]

You're seemingly missing the point deliberately.

I'm saying that Batman is vulnerable only when the script requires him to be.

There's no reason a shotgun to the chest should be more pain-inducing/debilitating than the endless machine gun fire he took in the hallway yet the film wants you to think so.

The only reason the shotgun is more debilitating is because the script requires it to be - which makes the scope of what hurts him wildly inconsistent. Need I mention he took a bomb to the face, too without injury?

Why is point blank fire from automatic weapons somehow unable to even make him flinch yet some buckshot takes him to the point of blackout and severe injury?

And then, he's totally fine after he takes the adrenaline shot for not only the scene itself - but presumably for the rest of the film as he spends hours rescuing people.

It's not consistent. And it makes the stakes hollow.



No, he doesn't.

Him grunting and limping away only to be back in perfect shape a scene later that's chronologically within the hour isn't being 'hurt plenty'.

The protection the suit offered did seem a bit crazy at times. I think in a movie that leaned so heavily onto the realism aspect, yeah it was a bit much.

On one hand, I think it adds to Bruce's rage and inexperience. He's still relatively new at this and getting the hang of it.

On the other hand, it looks like he's basically trying to block bullets with his body rather than trying to AVOID them. To me, even if Bats is wearing heavy armor, the armor is not perfect, and he can't always trust it.

The explosion was goofy as well. Like at least show him trying to obtain a little cover or use his cape to protect his face. But it's just that far-fetched type of stuff you often see in movie action.

 

[BatsAndNights]

This film really does set itself up for criticism with how much of a beating Batman takes - that doesn't really do much to him.

• Literal bomb in the face? Not even a scratch. (All the more perplexing when a bomb several feet away hospitalized Alfred)
• Wipe-out, ram body into bridge and crash land/roll on pavement? Perfectly fine in next scene.
• Direct shots to chest armor? Doesn't even make him slow down.
• Shotgun blast to the chest? He's sore for a bit, but is still able to lead people to safety and pull an all nighter helping.

There's no tangible stakes for the main character because he's pretty much unable to be injured.

Even the Penguin - whose car flips and rolls in a way that would kill most people, isn't even hurt. Not even a cut.

Or the new Mayor - she takes a gunshot to the chest and not long after, she's walking around in neck deep water as she's got to be still bleeding - and now contaminated water is likely in her wound. Outside of the first scene where she's shot, she doesn't act hurt from it.

As real as this film's world feels, its characters are never really in danger.

I will say this is the one criticism I have with the film, but the Mayor definitely doesn't get shot in the chest. In the speech scene at the end of the movie, her arm's in a sling so I'm pretty sure she got shot in the shoulder. (I also remember her clutching the side of her stomach when Gordon dragged her backstage, so it might've been there too. Still would've been the issue of the contaminated water, but that's not exactly something I can't look past)

The bomb's a little weird, but I think that's more just an issue with the editing.

You can see here, he covered his face. Reeves likely just cut a quick part to that scene showing him doing that before the bomb went off so the scene flowed better. Which I think is fair enough to slightly sacrifice the scene's continuity

Everything else I do agree with. But given the movie's focus was on Bruce's emotional turmoil rather than physical, I was okay with suspending my disbelief a little bit there.

 

[SwordOfMorning]

It’s an action movie that for all its realism is also clearly taking place in a heightened world, I see no contradiction there. The visual language of the shotgun blast directly to the chest conveys why it’s a more serious injury than the machine gun fire. Reeves is setting the rules of how much Batman can take and the level of realism in his action scenes here, it’s obviously heightened.

It is the most Bruce ever gets hurt on screen outside of TDKR. Of course he recovers quickly and there are no real stakes for his survival, there were never going to be real stakes there because he’s Batman in a movie called The Batman.

 

[OnLeatherWings]

It’s an action movie that for all its realism is also clearly taking place in a heightened world, I see no contradiction there.

The only reason why there's a contradiction isn't because the universe feels 'real' - it's because the film's rules for what hurts Batman isn't consistent.

You said Reeves is setting rules about how much Batman can take - but it's not even clear what those rules are because there's no clear pattern.

 

[SwordOfMorning]

The only reason why there's a contradiction isn't because the universe feels 'real' - it's because the film's rules for what hurts Batman isn't consistent.

You said Reeves is setting rules about how much Batman can take - but it's not even clear what those rules are because there's no clear pattern.

Yeah there is, he’s able to get the ever loving **** kicked out of him and largely bounce back up to a point. The only thing that, arguably, feels inconsistent is the shotgun blast where the intention is that it’s point blank dead centre to the chest. Apart from that he’s pretty much got your standard comic book Batman thing of being basically fine but battered, presumably because of the body armour.

And, again, I feel like expecting stakes to come from worrying about Batman’s safety is just not how this kind of story works.

 

[Sharkboy]

Yes because in all the other Batman movies, I was very worried for his safety /s

Call me childish but I thought it was freaking cool to see this Batman get blasted and shot point blank and keep getting up. Like a horror character.

 

[emielaen]

I for one thought Batman should've died 15 minutes in.

 

[Kane52630]

 

[antsman41]

...with Bruce probably building out his "entrepreneur" side of Bruce. He might need a stronger Batman alias when prowling without the cowl.

I could really see Reeves pull off Matches Malone in the sequel.

 

[Luigi]

Alternate ending.

 

[Marvel united]

 

[WayneMB]

i'm genuinely confused as to why so many of you think this is a "realistic" approach. this movie is stylized as hell and comic-booky as hell. I don't know who told you this is supposed to be realistic.
The grounded and "realistic" approach is just a style. This isn't Nolan, who had to explain every little gadget and vehicle's existence. Here, they just are.

 

[flygerr5]

i'm genuinely confused as to why so many of you think this is a "realistic" approach. this movie is stylized as hell and comic-booky as hell. I don't know who told you this is supposed to be realistic.
The grounded and "realistic" approach is just a style. This isn't Nolan, who had to explain every little gadget and vehicle's existence. Here, they just are.

Lol I came out of this movie thinking it was the most realistic Batman we've ever had. And that's because it was. There were still things in Nolan's world that felt way more comic booky than anything we've seen in this world so far. Scarecrow and his mask, The League of Shadows and Two Face's CGI burnt face for example. This movie was the most grounded, gritty, street level realistic Batman we've ever had. Also, in a lot of the interviews given by the cast, they explain that Matt wanted to create a Batman world where everything was grounded in reality and felt like it could exist in our world. And that's obviously the case.

You are confusing aesthetic with realism. Yes this movie has a very stylized aesthetic, but that's Reeves signature and what he was going for with the noir detective, gritty style. That has nothing to do with how realistic the movie is.

 

[Matt Parker]

So, I’ve seen some heated arguments about whether Batman killed anybody in that movie.

There’s a few specific moments in the last fight where he lets a few thugs get shot in the crossfire. I didn’t get a great look, but we’re those explicitly supposed to be shoulder shots? Also, in the Riddler’s stream earlier, did his followers mention bringing any armor? Is the idea that Batman saw there that they’d be armored up and was cutting lose on them a little more because he knew they could live?

Everyone making this seemed to acknowledge the no kill rule so I’m just curious if these are assumptions Reeves wanted us to make.

 

[TheGDBatman]

So, I’ve seen some heated arguments about whether Batman killed anybody in that movie.

There’s a few specific moments in the last fight where he lets a few thugs get shot in the crossfire. I didn’t get a great look, but we’re those explicitly supposed to be shoulder shots? Also, in the Riddler’s stream earlier, did his followers mention bringing any armor? Is the idea that Batman saw there that they’d be armored up and was cutting lose on them a little more because he knew they could live?

Everyone making this seemed to acknowledge the no kill rule so I’m just curious if these are assumptions Reeves wanted us to make.

Batman killing VS a thug getting caught in the crossfire are two very different things imo. It's not the same thing that we've seen with other iterations (Keaton blowing people up, Bale refusing to save people, Affleck gunning people in the batplane, etc). Is it possible that people died during a confrontation with Batman? Yes. I wouldn't label that as murder though.