He set a clown on fire with the Batmobile's afterburner, didn't he?
I like the design, but I'd have expected the guns to be a little less prominent. Maybe they pack away?
It seems pretty similar to the design in Arkham Knight. Were they sharing notes, or is this just coincidence?
Yeah his vehicles often have weapons on them for distraction and crowd control.
We saw this in The Dark Knight as well with it's "intimidate mode".
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
+2
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
I think that actually is a pretty great look for the batmobile. I wish the turret was retractable or something, but it's a nice mix between Burton's and Nolan's vehicles.
Confirmation that this is a shared universe with the Burton/Schumacher batman I should think.
It looks potentially promising with the deciding factor being how Batman actually USES it. That said, I think the design of the Batmobile should be one of the least worrisome parts of BvS, given how MoS was.
If the machine gun shoots rubber bullets, I'm fine with that. And since this movie does some serious Dark Knight Returns worshiping, that may be likely.
That machine gun ain't gonna retract without some pretty egregious ignoring of physical realities.
That's cool, though.
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
+1
Options
FakefauxCóiste BodharDriving John McCain to meet some Iraqis who'd very much like to make his acquaintanceRegistered Userregular
I wonder, is Kryptonite going to make an appearance in this movie?
Did Kryptonite not exist in TDK:Returns that Bruce had to figure it out and make his own? Or did he makes his own with the specific reason of disabling supes enough that he could win a fist fight?
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
Iirc, he didn't even use kryptonite. Superman had recently been weakened by a nuke and Batman just beat him up via power armor that was hooked into the cities electrical grid.
Yeah, but it wasn't synthesized or anything. I think Bruce just had it lying around from the good old days.
It wasn't easy to make, Clark. It took years and cost a fortune. Luckily, I had both.
Did this line just exist in the movie? He's implying he had to make it. He goes on to say that if he used a different method for creating it, he could permanently remove his powers. That man beat the god.
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
It wasn't a kryptonite arrow, it was some form of aerosolized kryptonite serum, delivered via arrow (he actually catches the arrow, it explodes in his face). And then Bruce goes on to say that he could have upped the dose and killed him if he really wanted to.
"The sausage of Green Earth explodes with flavor like the cannon of culinary delight."
If it took years to develop that Kryptonite then when did Bruce do it? He had just recently returned to being Batman. Did he think that he was going to fight Superman when he was retired?
Also, Bruce is such a dick. Sure Superman was a government tool but he did just save the world from a nuclear war.
0
Options
AstaerethIn the belly of the beastRegistered Userregular
I assume Bruce spent part of his "retirement" preparing for the handful of events it would take to get him back in the costume, and number one on that list would be "Superman goes rogue."
If it took years to develop that Kryptonite then when did Bruce do it? He had just recently returned to being Batman. Did he think that he was going to fight Superman when he was retired?
Also, Bruce is such a dick. Sure Superman was a government tool but he did just save the world from a nuclear war.
They were both dicks.
Superman was basically acting like a glorified cop.
Batman was being a vigilante. Nothing Batman did required Superman to "put him down" like Reagan wanted to do, though. So, he was less of a dick, he was just defending himself from an assault.
He developed the Kryptonite because batman always has a plan. And like Astaereth said, that was probably in case Superman went rogue. Him saving the world from nuclear war was mostly his own doing, escalation of power and all that. Bruce has always taken the stance that they shouldn't really involve themselves in the matters of state or diplomacy, only saving lives and stopping crime.
He calls Superman a fool for even letting them get to the point where they thought nuclear weapons was the answer to defeating Superman and the USA.
bowen on
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
+2
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
The lack of narration in the movie makes that work a lot better. A person with a semi understanding of how nuclear weapons work would assume Superman is causing blight because he's pretty much a walking nuclear fallout zone.
The comic make no sense whatsoever.
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
If it took years to develop that Kryptonite then when did Bruce do it? He had just recently returned to being Batman. Did he think that he was going to fight Superman when he was retired?
Also, Bruce is such a dick. Sure Superman was a government tool but he did just save the world from a nuclear war.
They were both dicks.
Superman was basically acting like a glorified cop.
Batman was being a vigilante. Nothing Batman did required Superman to "put him down" like Reagan wanted to do, though. So, he was less of a dick, he was just defending himself from an assault.
He developed the Kryptonite because batman always has a plan. And like Astaereth said, that was probably in case Superman went rogue. Him saving the world from nuclear war was mostly his own doing, escalation of power and all that. Bruce has always taken the stance that they shouldn't really involve themselves in the matters of state or diplomacy, only saving lives and stopping crime.
He calls Superman a fool for even letting them get to the point where they thought nuclear weapons was the answer to defeating Superman and the USA.
Batman returning did cause the Joker to come back and kill a bunch of people.
I assume Bruce spent part of his "retirement" preparing for the handful of events it would take to get him back in the costume, and number one on that list would be "Superman goes rogue."
Wasn't superman becoming a tool of the givernment what out Bruce into retirement in the first place.
I imagine him taking Ollie's arm alone would be enough justification to start making that thing.
If it took years to develop that Kryptonite then when did Bruce do it? He had just recently returned to being Batman. Did he think that he was going to fight Superman when he was retired?
Also, Bruce is such a dick. Sure Superman was a government tool but he did just save the world from a nuclear war.
They were both dicks.
Superman was basically acting like a glorified cop.
Batman was being a vigilante. Nothing Batman did required Superman to "put him down" like Reagan wanted to do, though. So, he was less of a dick, he was just defending himself from an assault.
He developed the Kryptonite because batman always has a plan. And like Astaereth said, that was probably in case Superman went rogue. Him saving the world from nuclear war was mostly his own doing, escalation of power and all that. Bruce has always taken the stance that they shouldn't really involve themselves in the matters of state or diplomacy, only saving lives and stopping crime.
He calls Superman a fool for even letting them get to the point where they thought nuclear weapons was the answer to defeating Superman and the USA.
Batman returning did cause the Joker to come back and kill a bunch of people.
Joker is responsible for his own actions, but he did put an end to that threat as well, eh?
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
If it took years to develop that Kryptonite then when did Bruce do it? He had just recently returned to being Batman. Did he think that he was going to fight Superman when he was retired?
Also, Bruce is such a dick. Sure Superman was a government tool but he did just save the world from a nuclear war.
They were both dicks.
Superman was basically acting like a glorified cop.
Batman was being a vigilante. Nothing Batman did required Superman to "put him down" like Reagan wanted to do, though. So, he was less of a dick, he was just defending himself from an assault.
He developed the Kryptonite because batman always has a plan. And like Astaereth said, that was probably in case Superman went rogue. Him saving the world from nuclear war was mostly his own doing, escalation of power and all that. Bruce has always taken the stance that they shouldn't really involve themselves in the matters of state or diplomacy, only saving lives and stopping crime.
He calls Superman a fool for even letting them get to the point where they thought nuclear weapons was the answer to defeating Superman and the USA.
Batman returning did cause the Joker to come back and kill a bunch of people.
Joker is responsible for his own actions, but he did put an end to that threat as well, eh?
I don't think someone who is as insane as the Joker can really be responsible for their own actions.
The Dark Knight Returns is pretty significant since it's the thing that was largely responsible for Batman getting grittier in the late 80s and 90s. After years of Batman being more or less a normal superhero, the tone was a revelation.
Much of the actual plot and content of The Dark Knight Returns is self-serious, ham-handed and silly, though.
I wonder if people taking TDKR seriously was what made Frank Miller go crazy. There is so much satire in TDKR and the story can be taken as a commentary against all the grim-dark and "badass" heroes/anti-heroes. He makes fun of Reagan, a teenage girl saves Bruce from himself, and the whole thing ends with Bruce operating in the shadows but casting aside the dark persona of Batman and having learned to live again.
It's like Miller was trying to say that the dark, gritty, badass Batman is pointless and counterproductive but then people took it all seriously and began to revere the grimdark Batman. So Miller just threw up his hands and decided to go with the flow and give people what they want.
I wonder if people taking TDKR seriously was what made Frank Miller go crazy. There is so much satire in TDKR and the story can be taken as a commentary against all the grim-dark and "badass" heroes/anti-heroes. He makes fun of Reagan, a teenage girl saves Bruce from himself, and the whole thing ends with Bruce operating in the shadows but casting aside the dark persona of Batman and having learned to live again.
It's like Miller was trying to say that the dark, gritty, badass Batman is pointless and counterproductive but then people took it all seriously and began to revere the grimdark Batman. So Miller just threw up his hands and decided to go with the flow and give people what they want.
I'd buy that if The Dark Knight Strikes Again wasn't so batshit insane.
That really bothered me when I saw the movie as a kid, the one thing I knew about Batman was that he didn't kill and I didn't like that in that movie he did.
It still bothers me, honestly. Not that it offends my delicate sensibilities or anything, but stuff like Batman driving into a building filled with thugs, dropping a huge incendiary bomb, and then just peeling out of there, leaving everyone to die as the entire place explodes really doesn't work for me, nor does Batman strafing the Joker with missiles and machine gun fire while he's literally surrounded by civilians.
Honestly, Batman is the worst part of most of the Batman movies I've seen, which sucks because I really like the character in the (regrettably few) comics that I have read.
It still bothers me, honestly. Not that it offends my delicate sensibilities or anything, but stuff like Batman driving into a building filled with thugs, dropping a huge incendiary bomb, and then just peeling out of there, leaving everyone to die as the entire place explodes really doesn't work for me, nor does Batman strafing the Joker with missiles and machine gun fire while he's literally surrounded by civilians.
That whole sequence is kind of painful to look back on: The Joker stands absolutely still, the batplane is on a direct approach, and nothing touches him.
Meanwhile the Joker takes the plane out with a single shot from a comically sized revolver.
+1
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
Honestly I liked the first couple of batman movies more then the dark knight trilogy; sure they were campy and silly, but at least I didn't feel like the film maker was trying to make citizen kane with a guy who dresses up like a bat.
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
There's nothing wrong with trying to make Citizen Kane with a guy who dresses as a bat.
Posts
He set a clown on fire with the Batmobile's afterburner, didn't he?
I like the design, but I'd have expected the guns to be a little less prominent. Maybe they pack away?
It seems pretty similar to the design in Arkham Knight. Were they sharing notes, or is this just coincidence?
We saw this in The Dark Knight as well with it's "intimidate mode".
Confirmation that this is a shared universe with the Burton/Schumacher batman I should think.
That's cool, though.
Clearly it's his hood ornament.
it looks like maybe it rotates under the front of the hood or something.
there's a lot of what look like open flanges and mechanisms etc
Did Kryptonite not exist in TDK:Returns that Bruce had to figure it out and make his own? Or did he makes his own with the specific reason of disabling supes enough that he could win a fist fight?
Did this line just exist in the movie? He's implying he had to make it. He goes on to say that if he used a different method for creating it, he could permanently remove his powers. That man beat the god.
It wasn't a kryptonite arrow, it was some form of aerosolized kryptonite serum, delivered via arrow (he actually catches the arrow, it explodes in his face). And then Bruce goes on to say that he could have upped the dose and killed him if he really wanted to.
Also, Bruce is such a dick. Sure Superman was a government tool but he did just save the world from a nuclear war.
They were both dicks.
Superman was basically acting like a glorified cop.
Batman was being a vigilante. Nothing Batman did required Superman to "put him down" like Reagan wanted to do, though. So, he was less of a dick, he was just defending himself from an assault.
He developed the Kryptonite because batman always has a plan. And like Astaereth said, that was probably in case Superman went rogue. Him saving the world from nuclear war was mostly his own doing, escalation of power and all that. Bruce has always taken the stance that they shouldn't really involve themselves in the matters of state or diplomacy, only saving lives and stopping crime.
He calls Superman a fool for even letting them get to the point where they thought nuclear weapons was the answer to defeating Superman and the USA.
I hate everything about it.
LET ME ABSORB SOLAR ENERGY BY MAKING THESE PLANTS DIE
I AM SUPERMAN
The comic make no sense whatsoever.
Batman returning did cause the Joker to come back and kill a bunch of people.
Wasn't superman becoming a tool of the givernment what out Bruce into retirement in the first place.
I imagine him taking Ollie's arm alone would be enough justification to start making that thing.
Joker is responsible for his own actions, but he did put an end to that threat as well, eh?
I don't think someone who is as insane as the Joker can really be responsible for their own actions.
Much of the actual plot and content of The Dark Knight Returns is self-serious, ham-handed and silly, though.
It's like Miller was trying to say that the dark, gritty, badass Batman is pointless and counterproductive but then people took it all seriously and began to revere the grimdark Batman. So Miller just threw up his hands and decided to go with the flow and give people what they want.
I'd buy that if The Dark Knight Strikes Again wasn't so batshit insane.
My only problem with Peter Weller is it sounds like he has no emotion or range. It's like he's a robot.
Which makes him perfectly cast for that piece of artistic integrity.
I really dislike that book to an unreasonable degree.
Let's be clear.
Burton's Batman killed a huge amount of dudes.
That really bothered me when I saw the movie as a kid, the one thing I knew about Batman was that he didn't kill and I didn't like that in that movie he did.
Honestly, Batman is the worst part of most of the Batman movies I've seen, which sucks because I really like the character in the (regrettably few) comics that I have read.
That whole sequence is kind of painful to look back on: The Joker stands absolutely still, the batplane is on a direct approach, and nothing touches him.
Meanwhile the Joker takes the plane out with a single shot from a comically sized revolver.