|
Just curious as to people's views on this. I had a lengthy talk with someone on another forum about this, and thought I'd see what other people think.
I don't like Batman wearing armour in the movies. Batman, to me, survives by not being shot, not having bullets bounce off his rubber suit. The suit also restricts movements too much for someone who is supposed to be an awesome fighter (I hated how, at the end of the first film, Michael Keaton had to bend over backwards to look up the bell tower...)
The guy I was talking to said he felt movie audiences wouldn't accept Batman being able to dodge bullets and so he needed armour. I countered with "Die Hard". People just enjoyed the action and didn't get too stressed about Bruce Willis not having armour. His reply was that the movie has a certain amount of leeway in terms of suspension of disbelief. He figures most of it is used up in having the audience accept the fact that he'd put on a bat-suit to begin with, so there "wouldn't be enough" left to believe he can stay out of a bullet's path on his own.
I still don't like it.
Thoughts?
__________________
Est Sularis oth Mithas 
|