The Dark Knight Batcycle

[El KnightoDarko]

Exams are over just now? You still in high school?

Naw. I'm in college. Just wrapped up my first year exams. Got a long vacation now.

 

[scifiwolf]

Wow, I've been out for 7 weeks and taking summer classes for 5 weeks. Guess I've gotten too used to getting out earlier than everyone else.

 

[Hunter Rider]

Thanks! Exams are over, and I'm a free bird! t:

Congratsup: just in time for the madness this summer when the teaser hits

 

[ravana]

The Batcycle in 'action'... kind of looks like cartoon 'joke'... where a vehicle gets stripped down the internals but keeps running until the character realises whats happened -...... but what do I know.

 

[ultimatefan]

The Batcycle in 'action'... kind of looks like cartoon 'joke'... where a vehicle gets stripped down the internals but keeps running until the character realises whats happened -...... but what do I know.

Not much apparently. I also hear a number of times that The Tumbler looked like it was all broken in pieces or whatever and it works just tine.

 

[TheComicbookKid]

It still looks like Mr. Garrison's bike on South Park.

 

[bunk]

Who is that?

I'M IN LOVE! :heart:

That's hot.

 

[GoogleMe94]

do you want to ride my bat-pod

wow, where was this taken?? and nice tshirt! is that gonna be the new look of the movie? will it have a "blueish" hue now instead of brown?

 

[Conebone69]

Who is that?

I'M IN LOVE! :heart:

Thats batmans new "side-kick" if ya know what I mean

 

[Nepenthes]

she looks like kiera knightly

 

[El KnightoDarko]

she looks like kiera knightly

I was just about to say that.

 

[Kleric]

She also looks a future ex-wife. I am sure in the divorce she will get the bike...

 

[Cyrusbales]

To provoke you to respond. Seems like it worked.



Of course, I too agree that the needless exposition in Begins was more than a bit annoying and dragged the film down a bit, but it's still not a travesty like you're crying about. I mean, with you chimps anything has to be either divine or disastrous. There is no middle ground.



And first of all, I find it curious as to why you are discussing a topic in the wrong forum.

And I find it curious as to why you had the thread we were discussing this subject earlier closed.

And I find it curious as to why you didn't respond to my arguments in the BB forum that clearly exposed your unsubstantiated and ill-conceived arguments for what they were.

And I find it curious as to why your own condescending treatment of people who liked Begins by implying they are ignorant of the art of cinema simply because they don't have pretentiously sophisticated tas



If you hadn't indulged so much in your girlish sensitivities, you would have realized that I am not objecting to your opinion of certain aspects of TDK, but rather the shameless recycling of the same tired old points in a forum they don't belong in, points that were more than adequately refuted earlier.

I mean, have some dignity and at least stop lying to yourself. I know there are people who think that Nolan isn't the genius mastermind revolutionary some people hail him to be, but in all fairness he is still a very talented and respected filmmaker by all accounts in the moviemaking industry, both arthouse and commercial. Accusing him of using gimmicks in his films only shows how downright illiterate you are yourself on the subject, considering the fact that the unconventional structure of his films (particularly Memento and The Prestige) is a deliberate choice and actually have a purpose, such as the reverse narration being used as a device for the audience to empathize with Leonard's condition in that they too don't know what happened before and are just as confused he is while in The Prestige, it's clearly utilized as a method of misdirection to keep viewers off balance which too is very much in keeping with the central theme of the film.

This, alongside many other arguments, have been dealt with in greater detail before, and I find it a rather incorrigible exercise on your part for needlessly repeating the same old drivel again.

I didn't have the thread closed, I didn't respond to your other thing because by the time I came to it after logging out, it was about 15 pages or so back, and didn't want to clog up a thread by rehashing old stuff etc.

As for my opinion, I express it, which is the point of the boards, I never insult anyone or hurl abuse, commenting on someone, only on what they actually post.

A talented film-maker? Highly bland, any director would make the same level of film or better, choosing very simple decisions, usually the wrong ones. The 'style' is appealing to the lower pleasure elements, there is no expanding of the story or telling of a different story at all, not even things to enhance the actual story, just move it along. Mis-direction in the prestige was an attempt to liven up a bland affair, and really didn't work too well, there was no confusion and the twist was rather obvious.

I'd gladly continue this conversation civily somewhere, please let me know where, I do not wish to further subject other people in this thread to somethign that is off at a tangent.

Thanks.

 

[The Caped Knight]

The Bat-pod from TDK looks almost exactly like The Bat-cycle from BTAS (Without the slick covering on the top )

Bat-pod

Bat-Cycle

http://www.worldsfinestonline.com/WF/batman/btas/bios/batcycle/

 

[GoogleMe94]

the batcycle makes more sense then the batpod. at least it has a covering in the front. nice hirez pic though, i hope to God this thing works out.

A talented film-maker? Highly bland, any director would make the same level of film or better

agreed. burton was much more original and unique. nolan is pretty bland and average filmmaker, mostly with aesthetics but also with scriptwriting.

 

[Batman>all]

Ok , the article mentioned that the Bat pod is steered by shoulders rather then arms.

So do you think the big tires are more purpose then looks when it comes to steering and manuevering?

I don't see how the front fork will work in terms of moving from side to side, does it even move?

 

[Phaser]

I didn't have the thread closed, I didn't respond to your other thing because by the time I came to it after logging out, it was about 15 pages or so back, and didn't want to clog up a thread by rehashing old stuff etc.

Ah, but you did exact the same thing in this thread. More than a blatant expression of your hypocrisy, wouldn't you say?

As for my opinion, I express it, which is the point of the boards, I never insult anyone or hurl abuse, commenting on someone, only on what they actually post.

Please. You have an almost infamous reputation as a snobby, pretentious critic who thinks of himself as a cinematic elite by condescendingly downplaying the opinions of people who he thinks don't have as "sophisticated or educated" a taste in films.

A talented film-maker? Highly bland, any director would make the same level of film or better, choosing very simple decisions, usually the wrong ones.

OK, I didn't want to start this up again but since you haven't learned anything from our previous encounter, let's go back to square one:

You say that 'any director' would make the same level of film or better - then tell me, why didn't they? It's nothing but a BS hypothetical claim that any half-wit chump can pull out of his rear end and has no substantial value. 'Choosing very simple decision, usually the wrong ones'? Really? Why don't you elaborate a bit more on that, skippy?

The 'style' is appealing to the lower pleasure elements, there is no expanding of the story or telling of a different story at all, not even things to enhance the actual story, just move it along.

See what I meant by condescending? I mean, surely what if Cyrusbales thinks that a particular film appeals to the lowest common denominator only because he says so, then it simply must be true, eh? And don't even think about trying to talk your way out of this with some copout excuses sonny, because this isn't the first time you attempted something like this.

And please, do refrain from using such lame general arguments like 'no expanding the story', 'no enhancing the actual story' and mindless drivel like that. As a self-proclaimed critic you should know that they are nothing more than meaningless catchphrases that that can be easily thrown at anyone or anything, and are hence, weak and instantly inadmissible. I mean, it's exactly blunders like these that completely sack your points. I'd simply love for anyone here to read your laughable examination of consumerism in B89 and my subsequent refutation of it.

Mis-direction in the prestige was an attempt to liven up a bland affair, and really didn't work too well, there was no confusion and the twist was rather obvious.

If that alone does not prove how downright ignorant and illiterate you are, then nothing will. Misdirection is never used to confuse the audience, but rather diverting their attention to something else so that they can be easily deceived or caught off-guard. Please, go back to elementary school and brush up on your basic language skills before coming back here and commenting on more advanced topics you have shown to completely lack an understanding of.

I'd gladly continue this conversation civily somewhere, please let me know where, I do not wish to further subject other people in this thread to somethign that is off at a tangent.

Oh I'd like you to keep in mind that the only one who was inclined enough to incessantly babble on and on about off-tangent topics was you, my dear. But I guess those screw-ups always come back to bite you in the ass, don't they?

 

[Yurka]

^

i dont see it..

they are both motorcycles thats the only similarity I see

 

[Juanigi]

do you guys ever notice how in these long quote by quote arguments nobody cares except for the two people involved

 

[DieSmiling]

agreed. burton was much more original and unique. nolan is pretty bland and average filmmaker, mostly with aesthetics but also with scriptwriting.

Tim Burton sucks. I don't think I've ever seen a movie of his that I've liked besides Batman and Batman Returns.

He's original, I'll give you that... But he sucks.

 

[GoogleMe94]

^i think your being pretty narrowminded to say "he sucks". if you said "i just dont prefer his directing style", that would be different. but to just flat out say he sucks is pretty ignorant, since hes considered to be one of the great visionaries of our day. personally, i love his neo gothic, expressionistic style, and his quirkiness in most of his films. sure some of his films were kinda dumb like mars attacks and planet of the apes, but those are really the only films ppl consider to be his "worst". but even those are more entertaining for me to watch then the prestige or memnto insomnia. those to me are boring. burton is way more fun to watch, at least for me. i didnt say nolan "sux", but i dont think hes one of my favorite directors out there.

 

[The Game]

That thing looks.....weird. Not bad, not bad at all but...weird.

The thing looks bad weird and hideous to me, now it may be very functional, but I don't really give a monkeys, the design is awful

 

[Seraphartman]

Just saw the batpod. Interesting it reminds me of the tumbler

 

[GoogleMe94]

The thing looks bad weird and hideous to me, now it may be very functional, but I don't really give a monkeys, the design is awful

what i said, and still say, about the tumbler. they really need to ditch this whole concept of batman HAVEING to need a tank to defeat evo.

 

[Cyrusbales]

Ah, but you did exact the same thing in this thread. More than a blatant expression of your hypocrisy, wouldn't you say?



Please. You have an almost infamous reputation as a snobby, pretentious critic who thinks of himself as a cinematic elite by condescendingly downplaying the opinions of people who he thinks don't have as "sophisticated or educated" a taste in films.



OK, I didn't want to start this up again but since you haven't learned anything from our previous encounter, let's go back to square one:

You say that 'any director' would make the same level of film or better - then tell me, why didn't they? It's nothing but a BS hypothetical claim that any half-wit chump can pull out of his rear end and has no substantial value. 'Choosing very simple decision, usually the wrong ones'? Really? Why don't you elaborate a bit more on that, skippy?



See what I meant by condescending? I mean, surely what if Cyrusbales thinks that a particular film appeals to the lowest common denominator only because he says so, then it simply must be true, eh? And don't even think about trying to talk your way out of this with some copout excuses sonny, because this isn't the first time you attempted something like this.

And please, do refrain from using such lame general arguments like 'no expanding the story', 'no enhancing the actual story' and mindless drivel like that. As a self-proclaimed critic you should know that they are nothing more than meaningless catchphrases that that can be easily thrown at anyone or anything, and are hence, weak and instantly inadmissible. I mean, it's exactly blunders like these that completely sack your points. I'd simply love for anyone here to read your laughable examination of consumerism in B89 and my subsequent refutation of it.



If that alone does not prove how downright ignorant and illiterate you are, then nothing will. Misdirection is never used to confuse the audience, but rather diverting their attention to something else so that they can be easily deceived or caught off-guard. Please, go back to elementary school and brush up on your basic language skills before coming back here and commenting on more advanced topics you have shown to completely lack an understanding of.



Oh I'd like you to keep in mind that the only one who was inclined enough to incessantly babble on and on about off-tangent topics was you, my dear. But I guess those screw-ups always come back to bite you in the ass, don't they?

If you can't be civil I suggest you refrain from posting. A quick overlook shows you have not understood what I have written, your comment about lower pleasures etc, I was refferring directly to the established higher and lower pleasures set out by J S Mill and other utilitarians, commenting on the basic levels, which was further built upon in terms of the filmic world by critics such as Nada Al-Sanjari. Whereby the empty or "hollow" use of cinematography used merely to move the story along, with use of aspects that whilst have some aethetic quality, lack any further metaphoric or symbolic depth, being only basic and appealing to the lower pleasures, rather than the deeper higher pleasures of extrapolation and contemplation of further meaning, beyond the film in question, extending outside of the film world etc.

Please can we stop this now? I will not reply to any more of your posts in this thread, if you wish you continue, link me to a more suitable thread where we can continue to discuss this without highjacking this thread on a different matter. And perhaps we can put these incivilities behind us, as I'm sure you do not mean to offend or accuse.