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?

Anyone who says that the Batman movies have no sense of disbelief is a complete moron. I agree with you, my don't they stick a ski mask on him and throw on some kevlar, it'd be much more realistic then a guy running around dressed like a giant rubber bat.

As a purist I also dislike tampering with the image of the dark knight, I'm very glad Tim Burton held true to the character of the 30's Batman when making the two movies he did. As a fan of a spiffy action movie, I can deal with the body armor, The wire technology used in movies like the Matrix, Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon, etc wasn't widely used back in the late 80's, at least not in american cinema, and it would have to have been used in order to believably have Batman not get shot at point blank range (Tim Burton also doesn't have a whole lot of experience with well choreographed fight scenes, Sleepy Hollow aside - which was released more than a decade after Batman)

So essentially, I don't particularly care for it, but it doesn't detract from the movie, and the ambience of the Bat, especially when compared to the mockery Joel Schumaker made of the franchise, I swear the Adam West Batman was less corny than Schumaker's "vision" (more like bad acid trip)

Well, the way I see it, in movies its either the bodyarmor or the spandex from the 60ies TV-series. In my not at all humble opinion the bodyarmor looks far, far better.

Real clothes just don't act nor look like those drawn in costume comics. Largely that's because the artist drawing super heros tend to be either mediocre, lazy or both.

<font color=plum>I don't really have a problem with the body armor. Batman's outfit WAS reinforced with a kevlar-like substance in the comics. In one issue in particular, he ran towards a crook pointing a rifle at him. As he ran he thought to himself "That's right, point your gun right at the bat on my chest". That's because he had that area more heavily reinforced than the others. And he had the yellow and black symbol on his chest to act as a deliberate "target" to shooters.

Body armor does help explain the "ripped" look of characters in the comics, and would especially make sense in the case of Batman, since he doesn't actually have any "super powers".

He does have incredible physical strength. In another long ago issue, a drug lord was on his yacht and working out with some weights. He was bench pressing what looked to be 200-250 lbs. Batman walks up to him, grabs the bar, and starts doing CURLS with one arm. [img]graemlins/wow.gif[/img]

So he DOES have the physique in the comics, but it's hard to find a quality actor with that type of real life physique. So the next best explanation is mutable body armor.

Works for me.</font>

I loved the orignal series. But then I look at the orginal series as a comedy.