Pain's one thing, haha. Ignoring pain isn't going to do you much good in a situation like that though, your insides'd be hamburger patty.
But hey, again, comic book movie. I don't give a ****, plenty of equally-ridiculous stuff in the Nolan movies.
Oh yeah for sure, but you understand what I was saying. That scene means something for the character in the context of the story, and that's what matter the most.
Otherwise, I agree that playing this little game of wanting everything to be "realistic" in those movies is incredibly silly. I think it never was the appropriate term anyway. What is aimed in most of these modern takes is consistency and plausibility. And on those, there are much crazier things in movies with seemingly much more grounded context and visuals, like the James Bond films or even, you're right, the sacrosanct TDK where Batman and Rachel fall from an entire building without cracking a single bone ... (again I didn't had a problem with it but it's to illustrate the idea)
Personally, I can suspend my disbelief on the functionality of a featured universe as long as the film doesn't have plot holes or contradict its internal logic. To me, everything is more than fine on everything we saw from The Batman.
Yeah, I totally get the criticism of the scene and it is perfectly legitimate. When filmmakers lean into a veneer of realism and set limitations or rules for their world, more fantastical moments that seem to break the rules established by the filmmakers will seem dissonant and take people out of the illusion. I mean I cannot watch the big truck chase scene in TDK without cringing when the blatantly CGI Bat-Pod drives up the wall and flips around at the end seemingly against all rules of physics. It bugs me in particular because it is a cheap thrill and looks really bad and fake.
Now this hallway scene of Batman doesn't bug me in the same way... At least not yet. First, despite JubJub being totally right about kinetic trauma of those shots when wearing conventional bodyarmour, we don't know everything about Bruce's armour in this movie. There is real advanced fabric bodyarmour in development that uses nanofibers to dissipate the kinetic impact of a shot. Bruce could have an undersuit of that on this movie.
Second, that can be combined with the idea that this Bruce is unhinged and hyped up on adrenaline, etc. It reminds me of the line in The Terminator when the cops explain away Arnie's imperviousness to gunfire as the combo of body armour and being hopped up on PCP.
Third, the fantasy of it will seem less objectionable if the movie shows the consequences of it, which I have every expectation it will. We have shots of Bats in the trailer where his chest armour is shot and dented to hell. We also have Alfred expressing to Bruce that if he keeps going like this, he will die, to which Bruce basically makes it sound like he has a death wish and doesn't care.
If the movie shows this as a moment of extreme recklessness and that Bruce takes serious damage from it (ie. Basically bruised all over, possible broken bones, internal bleeding, etc.), I can accept the fantasy of it for storytelling purposes.
Also, Reeves has been hanging out with JJ Abrams for the last 20 years, although he is a much smarter and detail oriented filmmaker, JJ's devil may care attitude when it comes to physics and science has probably rubbed off on the guy through no fault of his own.
