The Dark Knight Rises The BB3 Batsuit Discussion Thread

[Spider-Who?]

Making the symbol more prominent does help.
SOme of the more recent discussions in this thread included (as I'm sure some of you may remember) NUMEROUS posts suggesting that Batman could wear tights over the TDK suit in order to "hide the weak spots". At the time I found this utterly absurd, but now I neither fully endorse nor fully reject this idea.
When I lived in Chicago, I took notice of how the police had adopted these light blue protective vests, to be worn over their uniforms. I thought this was a dumb move, as it tells criminals exactly where NOT to shoot. Protection that is advertised is a tactical disadvantage. A less obviously armored look would benefit Batman. I think ths Robocop/Swatbat look just detracts from what he's supposed to be, and makes his need for protection all too obvious & clear.

I get what you're saying. I lean towards NOT having a cloth suit covering the armor since it, IMO, makes for an aesthetically boring outfit, especially when how the director lights the shoot is important. But at the same time, having all those segments like in the Dark Knight suit is too busy. The way I imagined it was a middle ground between looking like a standard suit, but having the pleasing aesthetic of armor for light to play with. That's the key here, I think. You have to balance what would work in the most real world, logical sense, and what looks good for film. Going full in one way or the other won't cut it; it needs to be a balanced concept, which is what I was shooting for there.

In reference to the cop comment, I think there's a difference between a cop walking around wearing just a kevlar vest in broad day light, and a guy in a cape wearing armor covering 90% of his body lurking in the shadows.

 

[Visceral]

Thanks a lot!
And yeah we have only seen it in Spiderman, but never in Batman movies.

he did get lit on fire once

 

[Chris Wallace]

I get what you're saying. I lean towards NOT having a cloth suit covering the armor since it, IMO, makes for an aesthetically boring outfit, especially when how the director lights the shoot is important. But at the same time, having all those segments like in the Dark Knight suit is too busy. The way I imagined it was a middle ground between looking like a standard suit, but having the pleasing aesthetic of armor for light to play with. That's the key here, I think. You have to balance what would work in the most real world, logical sense, and what looks good for film. Going full in one way or the other won't cut it; it needs to be a balanced concept, which is what I was shooting for there.

In reference to the cop comment, I think there's a difference between a cop walking around wearing just a kevlar vest in broad day light, and a guy in a cape wearing armor covering 90% of his body lurking in the shadows.

True, but Batman did a hell of a lot less shadow lurking in TDK than in Begins.

 

[Paste Pot Pete]

I think TDK had a fair amount of sneaking, though. It's weird because he didn't technically utilize shadows as much, and the locales were often more brightly lit than in Begins, but it's obvious that Bruce is still a master at being unseen until the right moment. Using those ninja skills to seemingly appear and disappear at will.

...Almost to the point of ridiculousness! How did he sneak up on the Joker and his men during the party scene? It's almost literally impossible, but was that a flaw in the movie? Or just Batman being...impossibly awesome? t:

Appearing and disappearing at the rooftop meeting. At the bank. In the car garage. At the crime scene. In the alley, catching Dent's coin. At the very end, during the Two-Face/Gordon showdown. In the assault on Lau's building - he smashes through the window (the element of surprise!), knocks out a few, then disappears into the shadows again. Pops back out, takes out the rest.

The only time we see him kind of just muscle his way through instead of stealthing is at the club, looking for Maroni. And in that scene, we don't see how he entered. Nolan starts the scene in medias res, so it's plausible that he entered by other means than paying the cover charge and waltzing in. t:

Point is, yeah, maybe he didn't stick to the shadows, yanking victims into the darkness as much as he did in Begins. But that's not the way Batman usually fights. It makes for a cool and creepy intro for the character, but his M.O. is usually exactly what he does in TDK - showing up out of nowhere, taking you by surprise, and beating you up.

 

[ALP]

Making the symbol more prominent does help.
SOme of the more recent discussions in this thread included (as I'm sure some of you may remember) NUMEROUS posts suggesting that Batman could wear tights over the TDK suit in order to "hide the weak spots". At the time I found this utterly absurd, but now I neither fully endorse nor fully reject this idea.
When I lived in Chicago, I took notice of how the police had adopted these light blue protective vests, to be worn over their uniforms. I thought this was a dumb move, as it tells criminals exactly where NOT to shoot. Protection that is advertised is a tactical disadvantage. A less obviously armored look would benefit Batman. I think ths Robocop/Swatbat look just detracts from what he's supposed to be, and makes his need for protection all too obvious & clear.

The difference is that cops only wear kevlar vests over their chests whereas Batman is fully covered in kevlar from head to toe. Thus there is absolutely no reason to cover the TDK suit in cloth. Because Batman is so protected it doesn't tell criminals where not to shoot. Unless they aim for the only open area on him the mouth and eyes and the chances of him getting shot in those areas while he is moving quickly is very very slim.

A less armored "LOOK" is not going to benefit Batman whatsoever. You can aim for his cowl, chest, arms, or legs, and it won't effect him no matter what the material he's wearing looks like.

 

[Saint]

It's full of his body, and his muscles.

And rubber.

It's not always going to be skintight in every single shot, and it would be silly to expect it to.

Obviously. Part of looking like real equipment is, well, looking real. That means bending and buckling, and that's fine--so long as it makes it look more like real equipment, not less. A piece of armour is going to have areas designed specifically for mobility. When you look at many of the bends and buckles of the Begins suit, the impression is distinctly that this equipment isn't designed for that (the exception being the arms and legs, which always looked great). They solved that problem quite capably on the TDK suit--except for the weird bulges that could occur on the TDK-legs, but fortunately those were even less prominently featured on screen than the bulges of the Begins suit. Of course, the price of the solution was apparently ugliness. The happy medium is the Tron suit.

I'm really wondering which shots in the film some of saw that made you think otherwise. The fact that we know the suit has pockets for water doesn't make it actually look any less like he's wearing armor that's tight to his body, without his musculature against it.

That's right; it's the fact that you could see it that made it look that way. Really, I don't know how, at this stage, we're arguing about the problems with the chest and shoulders. Everyone has seen the pictures. I mean, we remember the infamous Shakrbat image, yes? And that's hardly the worst offender.

I'm not even understanding why people are suggesting that the chest and torso are not fitted to him in most shots.

I didn't say anything like that about "most shots." I said the opposite, actually.

 

[Chris Wallace]

The difference is that cops only wear kevlar vests over their chests whereas Batman is fully covered in kevlar from head to toe. Thus there is absolutely no reason to cover the TDK suit in cloth. Because Batman is so protected it doesn't tell criminals where not to shoot. Unless they aim for the only open area on him the mouth and eyes and the chances of him getting shot in those areas while he is moving quickly is very very slim.

A less armored "LOOK" is not going to benefit Batman whatsoever. You can aim for his cowl, chest, arms, or legs, and it won't effect him no matter what the material he's wearing looks like.

Bearing that argument in mind, why, then, does he have to LOOK like a damn cyborg? The original suit, in which he tackled 4 ninjas with ease, was too cumbersome to defend himself against dogs (who could bite through it, despite its guarantee to stop a knife). So then he trades up for better freedom of movement, and what does he get? Stabbed by the Joker, (who could easily see where Batman was vulnerable) despite having had the element of surprise on his side, popped in the face by Maroni's men in the club, and shot by Two-Face. Not to mention it STILL didn't do him a damn bit of good against the SAME DOGS that prompted him to redesign in the first place!

 

[The Watchman]

Pretty badass compromise between the movie suit and the comics suit.

 

[Mr. Earle]

I doubt the Joker's knife made it through the titanium weave.

 

[Saint]

Bearing that argument in mind, why, then, does he have to LOOK like a damn cyborg?

Ugly the TDK suit may be, but it doesn't look like a cyborg... at all. I mean, not even a little, by any stretch of the imagination. Ever.

The original suit, in which he tackled 4 ninjas with ease, was too cumbersome to defend himself against dogs (who could bite through it, despite its guarantee to stop a knife).

It's pretty plain to see that the bite was around the elbow--where, looking at the costume, we can see there is the least protection of anywhere on the costume. You didn't really think the thing was bulletproof and knife-proof from head to toe, did you? That would be preposterous.

So then he trades up for better freedom of movement, and what does he get? Stabbed by the Joker, (who could easily see where Batman was vulnerable) despite having had the element of surprise on his side, popped in the face by Maroni's men in the club, and shot by Two-Face.

Your argument, then, is that because Batman has lighter armour, he should have never been injured and should be able to avoid all attacks--including bullets while standing still? That seems pretty absurd (not to mention lame; I expect Batman to take some hits in his work).

Incidentally, it never seemed to me that the dog bite prompted the upgrade. If Batman was carrying too much weight on his armour and felt it was slowing him down, then this is a concern he would have been noticing for a while--not something he only noticed because a dog managed to bite him. I don't care how fast you are, a group of attack dogs are always going to be perfectly capable of biting your ass.

 

[ALP]

Bearing that argument in mind, why, then, does he have to LOOK like a damn cyborg?

Only thing I can think of is b/c Nolan and Linda Hemming like the robo Bat. Notice that Batman was in shadows far more in BB than in TDK. It seemed to me that Nolan wanted to show off Hemming's cool design as much as he could.

The original suit, in which he tackled 4 ninjas with ease, was too cumbersome to defend himself against dogs (who could bite through it, despite its guarantee to stop a knife). So then he trades up for better freedom of movement, and what does he get? Stabbed by the Joker, (who could easily see where Batman was vulnerable) despite having had the element of surprise on his side, popped in the face by Maroni's men in the club, and shot by Two-Face.

Yeah, shot by Two Face, stabbed by Joker, crowbarred by Joker, hit by gangsters, and yet none of those things led to any fatal damage whatsoever. If Batman had started bleeding or gotten his bones broken then those would be very strong points but as far as his health, that had little impact on him.

Not to mention it STILL didn't do him a damn bit of good against the SAME DOGS that prompted him to redesign in the first place!

lol

 

[Mr. Earle]

Hate me all you want but i think that the fight scenes should not just be better, but fancier as well. I have some martial arts classes and you wouldnt believe how useful a roll on the ground can be. I'd expect some backflips, kicks, and generally fancier moves. I dont mean ridiculous ones, but not super realistic ones either.

And here's my point. I think that when Batman is doing a really fancy move his cape should be CGI. In that case they could remove the practical one and CGI one up there so that the stuntman will able to do the move.

And if you re gonna use CGI, then you can use a little more to take care of any flaws the suit might have. What? The cowl doesnt allow neck movement? Put a cut into it and remove it later through CGI. Would you rather have the robo neck?

And here... we... go...

 

[Figs]

Not to mention it STILL didn't do him a damn bit of good against the SAME DOGS that prompted him to redesign in the first place!

Actually it did. They were all over him so of course he has to wrestle with them a bit but the key thing is that he didn't yell or scream due to being bit down to the flesh. He wrestled a bit threw them to their deaths without noticeably taking any wounds.

 

[The Guard]

When I think about what Batman should be, I think about a simpler suit. Why the hell would you ADVERTISE how techy and cool and expensive your stuff is? But maybe they're not thinking on that level about the suit and his mission.

The BEGINS suit was described as flexible armor. That's what it looked like. Not looking like traditional plated armor shouldn't even enter into it (nevermind that in some areas, it does), because it was described as some sort of futuristic, flexible armor. Yes, it's rubber, but it doesn't LOOK like it most of the time. It looks like he's wearing flexible armor.

Not sure why the shoulder buckling is even an issue in that context. It was described as flexible material. And a crease in material does not visually equal "I have water inside my costume".

Frankly, when you actually look at the TDK suit, many of its elements look like rubber too. Some of them look downright flimsy.

Frankly, when you actually look at the TDK suit, its elements look like rubber too.

http://i127.photobucket.com/albums/...ages/FIDM entry pics/tdk_batsuit_sideview.jpg

http://www.hollywoodchicago.com/uploaded_images/batsuit_front-753005.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3051/2614762731_b4722dcb1f.jpg?v=0

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2304/2477807075_5807e932c5.jpg

 

[TheBatman072]

The BEGINS suit looks inflated in the sense that it looks like it is filled or expanded by something, sure.

It's full of his body, and his muscles. And it's supposed to resemble muscles, which flex and expand. I'm fairly certain that was the point of the design. But there's nothing to suggest it's full of air or anything like that. It's armor. It's not always going to be skintight in every single shot, and it would be silly to expect it to. Even spandex creases and doesn't always fit tight to the body in places. Not every element of the suit will always match up with his frame perfectly, but the suit itself does generally, in most shots, appear to be quite tight to his form. I'm really wondering which shots in the film some of saw that made you think otherwise. The fact that we know the suit has pockets for water doesn't make it actually look any less like he's wearing armor that's tight to his body, without his musculature against it. I'm not even understanding why people are suggesting that the chest and torso are not fitted to him in most shots. The thing is actually shaped and tapered to formfit to his chest, hips and waist. If anything, it's the mask that looks like it has extra room in it.

I think TDK had a fair amount of sneaking, though. It's weird because he didn't technically utilize shadows as much, and the locales were often more brightly lit than in Begins, but it's obvious that Bruce is still a master at being unseen until the right moment. Using those ninja skills to seemingly appear and disappear at will.

...Almost to the point of ridiculousness! How did he sneak up on the Joker and his men during the party scene? It's almost literally impossible, but was that a flaw in the movie? Or just Batman being...impossibly awesome? t:

Appearing and disappearing at the rooftop meeting. At the bank. In the car garage. At the crime scene. In the alley, catching Dent's coin. At the very end, during the Two-Face/Gordon showdown. In the assault on Lau's building - he smashes through the window (the element of surprise!), knocks out a few, then disappears into the shadows again. Pops back out, takes out the rest.

The only time we see him kind of just muscle his way through instead of stealthing is at the club, looking for Maroni. And in that scene, we don't see how he entered. Nolan starts the scene in medias res, so it's plausible that he entered by other means than paying the cover charge and waltzing in. t:

Point is, yeah, maybe he didn't stick to the shadows, yanking victims into the darkness as much as he did in Begins. But that's not the way Batman usually fights. It makes for a cool and creepy intro for the character, but his M.O. is usually exactly what he does in TDK - showing up out of nowhere, taking you by surprise, and beating you up.

Goddammit these are awesome ****ing posts.

I just want to read Paste Pot Pete's post over and over again.

It's so rare.

 

[Mr. Earle]

I think TDK had a fair amount of sneaking, though. It's weird because he didn't technically utilize shadows as much, and the locales were often more brightly lit than in Begins, but it's obvious that Bruce is still a master at being unseen until the right moment. Using those ninja skills to seemingly appear and disappear at will.

...Almost to the point of ridiculousness! How did he sneak up on the Joker and his men during the party scene? It's almost literally impossible, but was that a flaw in the movie? Or just Batman being...impossibly awesome? t:

Appearing and disappearing at the rooftop meeting. At the bank. In the car garage. At the crime scene. In the alley, catching Dent's coin. At the very end, during the Two-Face/Gordon showdown. In the assault on Lau's building - he smashes through the window (the element of surprise!), knocks out a few, then disappears into the shadows again. Pops back out, takes out the rest.

The only time we see him kind of just muscle his way through instead of stealthing is at the club, looking for Maroni. And in that scene, we don't see how he entered. Nolan starts the scene in medias res, so it's plausible that he entered by other means than paying the cover charge and waltzing in. t:

Point is, yeah, maybe he didn't stick to the shadows, yanking victims into the darkness as much as he did in Begins. But that's not the way Batman usually fights. It makes for a cool and creepy intro for the character, but his M.O. is usually exactly what he does in TDK - showing up out of nowhere, taking you by surprise, and beating you up.

Maybe he did the disappearing thing but it doesnt change the fact that he looked goddamn aweful and he dropped the theatrics. You might as well have had Ironman pulling the disappearing act.

Oh and it is practically impossible to sneak up on the Joker in the party scene because it was a big and brightly lit space. Its just that Nolan did it and expects us to like it. He should have killed the lights. Period.

 

[ALP]

When I think about what Batman should be, I think about a simpler suit. Why the hell would you ADVERTISE how techy and cool and expensive your stuff is? But maybe they're not thinking on that level about the suit and his mission.

The BEGINS suit was described as flexible armor. That's what it looked like. Not looking like traditional plated armor shouldn't even enter into it (nevermind that in some areas, it does), because it was described as some sort of futuristic, flexible armor. Yes, it's rubber, but it doesn't LOOK like it most of the time. It looks like he's wearing flexible armor.

Not sure why the shoulder buckling is even an issue in that context. It was described as flexible material. And a crease in material does not visually equal "I have water inside my costume".

Frankly, when you actually look at the TDK suit, many of its elements look like rubber too. Some of them look downright flimsy.

Frankly, when you actually look at the TDK suit, its elements look like rubber too.

http://i127.photobucket.com/albums/...ages/FIDM entry pics/tdk_batsuit_sideview.jpg

http://www.hollywoodchicago.com/uploaded_images/batsuit_front-753005.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3051/2614762731_b4722dcb1f.jpg?v=0

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2304/2477807075_5807e932c5.jpg

But...none of those are shots from the movie or from a professional photographer.

Get me shots of the suit looking like fake rubber in the actual film and then we can cook the goose.

 

[The Guard]

http://moviesmedia.ign.com/movies/i...06/the-dark-knight-20080626110541114_640w.jpg

http://thecoolgadgets.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/dark-knight-suit.jpg

http://wondersinthedark.files.wordpress.com/2008/11/the_dark_knight03.jpg

http://filmfries.com/wp-content/gallery/the-dark-knight/dn9.jpg

http://i48.tinypic.com/2na0g0x.jpg

http://a.yfrog.com/img688/1848/dk100268.jpg

http://a.yfrog.com/img820/7974/dk100247.jpg

http://desmond.yfrog.com/Himg249/sc...249&filename=dk100241.jpg&xsize=640&ysize=640

http://img97.imageshack.us/img97/1203/dk08cb0056.jpg

http://img85.imageshack.us/img85/3620/dk08cb0054.jpg

http://img202.imageshack.us/img202/4535/dk08cb0053.jpg

http://desmond.yfrog.com/Himg541/sc...541&filename=dk100287.jpg&xsize=640&ysize=640

http://yfrog.com/j2dk100298j

http://yfrog.com/j8dk100289j

 

[Saint]

When I think about what Batman should be, I think about a simpler suit. Why the hell would you ADVERTISE how techy and cool and expensive your stuff is? But maybe they're not thinking on that level about the suit and his mission.

The rest of this post seems to be directed at me--but this has nothing to do with anything I said, so I'm not sure if this is supposed to be directed at me. In any case, yes, I agree that simpler is generally better, with the caveat that there may be exceptions I'm prepared to accept.

The BEGINS suit was described as flexible armor.

Yeah, but that doesn't really change my position. The suit bends and buckles in weird places and awkward ways that it really doesn't look like it should if I'm to believe it's what it claims to be. It bends in ways that say to me "Rubber one-piece," not "Flexible armour technology."

Not looking like traditional plated armor shouldn't even enter into it

I didn't say anything about plated armour.

Yes, it's rubber, but it doesn't LOOK like it most of the time.

Yes, I know that you think it looked like armour most of the time. I think it looked like rubber most of the time. This exchange is becoming pretty tired. You're going to say "It looked like armour, it looked like armour," and I'm going to reply "It looked like rubber, it looked like rubber." I don't usually call the "Agree to disagree" card in a debate, but this is going nowhere, and it's arriving there with alarming speed.

And a crease in material does not visually equal "I have water inside my costume".

I did not bring up the water to suggest that the costume looks like it's filled with water, but to explain that there are areas of this suit designed with significant excess space (filling these with water was an afterthought, not the design goal, as per my understanding). We can reason that this excess space exists because the suit was designed to artificially inflate parts of the physique. So: the costume looks artificially inflated because it is.

This may also be the reason for some of the awkward buckling (along with the fact that the upper body is one piece).

The arms and legs seem to showcase a more conservative approach, rather than the bulky chest and shoulders. Not surprisingly, they look much better, and do not suffer from the same awkward buckling.

 

[returntovoid]

I maniped the BB cowl into HUMANIMAL's manip.

 

[The Joker]

I think TDK had a fair amount of sneaking, though. It's weird because he didn't technically utilize shadows as much, and the locales were often more brightly lit than in Begins, but it's obvious that Bruce is still a master at being unseen until the right moment. Using those ninja skills to seemingly appear and disappear at will.

...Almost to the point of ridiculousness! How did he sneak up on the Joker and his men during the party scene? It's almost literally impossible, but was that a flaw in the movie? Or just Batman being...impossibly awesome? t:

Appearing and disappearing at the rooftop meeting. At the bank. In the car garage. At the crime scene. In the alley, catching Dent's coin. At the very end, during the Two-Face/Gordon showdown. In the assault on Lau's building - he smashes through the window (the element of surprise!), knocks out a few, then disappears into the shadows again. Pops back out, takes out the rest.

The only time we see him kind of just muscle his way through instead of stealthing is at the club, looking for Maroni. And in that scene, we don't see how he entered. Nolan starts the scene in medias res, so it's plausible that he entered by other means than paying the cover charge and waltzing in. t:

Point is, yeah, maybe he didn't stick to the shadows, yanking victims into the darkness as much as he did in Begins. But that's not the way Batman usually fights. It makes for a cool and creepy intro for the character, but his M.O. is usually exactly what he does in TDK - showing up out of nowhere, taking you by surprise, and beating you up.

I love how someone with a username named after such a lame villain makes such great posts

 

[RustyCage]

Hate me all you want but i think that the fight scenes should not just be better, but fancier as well. I have some martial arts classes and you wouldnt believe how useful a roll on the ground can be. I'd expect some backflips, kicks, and generally fancier moves. I dont mean ridiculous ones, but not super realistic ones either.

What do you mean by 'martial arts classes'? Cause things like American Karate generally teach you flicky (as in all show and no power) and uselessly dramatic moves. Bruce Lee would wag his finger. An example of 'flicky' would be that cliche dozens of kicks without lowering your leg thing you'll see in a lot of amateur stunt reels.

I'm with you on the rolling and kicking, but I'll take an enormous helping of 'pass' on the backflips. Completely unnecessary/silly in a fight. Leave you vulnerable against a worthwhile opponent.

I think martial arts on film can have lots of visual excitement without being ridiculous or cartoony or unnecessary. See 'Unleashed' for example (it's called Danny the Dog in some places), really good Jet Li film.

And here's my point. I think that when Batman is doing a really fancy move his cape should be CGI. In that case they could remove the practical one and CGI one up there so that the stuntman will able to do the move.

It would just end up looking better too. It's important to have a sort of visual iconography to a character like Batman when he fights. Having the cape be a CG product makes this much more possible.

The cowl doesnt allow neck movement? Put a cut into it and remove it later through CGI.

Another great suggestion. I used to frequently offer up a similar solution for armor mobility. Just have it missing some less obvious pieces so the actor can function with a better range of motion, then discreetly CG the missing parts in afterward. t:

 

[RustyCage]

How do you know that? I mean even artists that draw it like podypaint show the kevlar when its torn.

That's true, but it simply wasn't a concept that was really in play at the time. That was like the early 80's wasn't it?

If you look at all the manips posted here, the most common change they do is alter the cape attachement. The TDK suit pushed the cape even further to the back, so its the suit's fault as well.

Okay, that's a valid complaint. I agree with you that the attachment needs work (although it looks fine in some instances). Before though, you were talking about him using it or not using it, and I figure that as a separate subject.

But that's the comics batsuit isnt it?

There's more than one imagining of the comics Batsuit though. I don't like to generalize them.

No problem man. t:

Its just that the facepalm isnt the friendliest smily out there.

Yeah, I can see why you'd interpret it that way. It can also be used for humility though, which was what I was going for. Sorry again for the confusion.

No, its about the suit, being smoother and subtler so you dont know what's going on with this dude. With TDK you know he's armoured and he's compensating for his lack of guns and powers.

Valid argument. I think our misunderstanding on this part of the matter comes from the way you phrased it before. The whole 'trying too hard' thing. This makes a lot more sense - I guess I read things a bit too literally.

Maybe (hopefully) he'll wisen up a bit about it after the events of TDK.

 

[namtaB]

Hate me all you want but i think that the fight scenes should not just be better, but fancier as well. I have some martial arts classes and you wouldnt believe how useful a roll on the ground can be. I'd expect some backflips, kicks, and generally fancier moves. I dont mean ridiculous ones, but not super realistic ones either.

I've been in martial arts for almost 20 years now and I remember back in the day one new student asked my sensei if he could do a backflip to which my sensei, a middle aged ripped okinawan man, said "Why would I do that? So I can give my opponent multiple targets to attack?"

 

[RustyCage]

I've been in martial arts for almost 20 years now and I remember back in the day one new student asked my sensei if he could do a backflip to which my sensei, a middle aged ripped okinawan man, said "Why would I do that? So I can give my opponent multiple targets to attack?"

Exactly. Your sensei is wise.