The Dark Knight Batcycle

[itsthebatman]

Sort of like what he did with the Tumbler? As detailed by Nathan Crowley, the Tumbler was designed to resemble the shape of a live bat: the nose cone being the head, and pieces that hold the front tires being the "wrists" (the joint at the upper side of the bat's wing the branches into the fingers that give the wing it's scalloped look). It's actually an incredibly clever design, and resembles a bat with it's wings folded around it. Take a look:

In the future you may want to look into these things before making such comments.

Ah, I remember that discussion. Good times.

 

[MacLeod]

Sort of like what he did with the Tumbler? As detailed by Nathan Crowley, the Tumbler was designed to resemble the shape of a live bat: the nose cone being the head, and pieces that hold the front tires being the "wrists" (the joint at the upper side of the bat's wing the branches into the fingers that give the wing it's scalloped look). It's actually an incredibly clever design, and resembles a bat with it's wings folded around it. Take a look:

In the future you may want to look into these things before making such comments.

First of all, I don't make comments without knowing the facts before hand. Second of all, just because the Tumbler is supposed to look like a bat doesn't mean it actually does. If I have to look at a vehicle from on only one or two angles to tell what the inspiration was than that inspiration was not used to its fullest. Looking at the Tumbler makes me see a lot of things however none of them is a flying bat or a Batman related vehicle. I can create a vehicle and have my artistic friends create how it looks like an animal in one particluar pose. The design of the flying bat is as closely related to the Tumbler as the movie Batman and Robin is a true representation of what Batman really is. Neither are Batman related.

 

[sasquatchs]

First of all, I don't make comments without knowing the facts before hand. Second of all, just because the Tumbler is supposed to look like a bat doesn't mean it actually does. If I have to look at a vehicle from on only one or two angles to tell what the inspiration was than that inspiration was not used to its fullest. Looking at the Tumbler makes me see a lot of things however none of them is a flying bat or a Batman related vehicle. I can create a vehicle and have my artistic friends create how it looks like an animal in one particluar pose. The design of the flying bat is as closely related to the Tumbler as the movie Batman and Robin is a true representation of what Batman really is. Neither are Batman related.

Why would you give the Tumbler more than a subtle hint of a bat shape? Makes no sense seeing as he didn't build it.

 

[itsthebatman]

Why would you give the Tumbler more than a subtle hint of a bat shape? Makes no sense seeing as he didn't build it.

None of his Batmobiles ever actually look like a bat. They might have fins, and be more outlandish than the tumbler, but they don't look like a bat. Only the Batwing does.

 

[MacLeod]

None of his Batmobiles ever actually look like a bat. They might have fins, and be more outlandish than the tumbler, but they don't look like a bat. Only the Batwing does.

I also said Batman related. That meant it showed that it was Batman's vehicle. The fact that Tumbler was created by Wayne Industries for the military only proves why I don't consider it a Batmobile. The fact that the Tumbler only has a subtle hint of a bat, which I still feel is a huge stretch to see and I'm an artist, is the perfect reason to make it more Batman related. It's a great vehicle just not a Batman vehicle.

 

[sasquatchs]

None of his Batmobiles ever actually look like a bat. They might have fins, and be more outlandish than the tumbler, but they don't look like a bat. Only the Batwing does.

I give you, the new and improved Batmobile! Glory at its stealthy curves

 

[MacLeod]

I give you, the new and improved Batmobile! Glory at its stealthy curves

Ok, that's just disturbing. On the plus side though at least it looks like a bat compared to just a military vehicle.

 

[DeaDheaD]

Woohoo^^

 

[itsthebatman]

I give you, the new and improved Batmobile! Glory at its stealthy curves

LOL. That thing looks the business. Nolan always has fresh and interesting ideas.

 

[Doc Holliday]

None of his Batmobiles ever actually look like a bat. They might have fins, and be more outlandish than the tumbler, but they don't look like a bat. Only the Batwing does.

God I love the Burton Batmobile so much. It's just gorgeous.

 

[MacLeod]

God I love the Burton Batmobile so much. It's just gorgeous.

I can't get enough of that car either.

 

[Killing Joke926]

I give you, the new and improved Batmobile! Glory at its stealthy curves

Poor bat; although once those wheels come off that bat is going to be severly pissed. I can probably imagine that bat ripping out the owner's eyes out of his sockets on a Youtube video.t:

 

[Saint]

First of all, I don't make comments without knowing the facts before hand.

Apparently you do. Either that or you simply ignored the facts because they did not suit your false premise that the Tumbler has no bat-motif.

Second of all, just because the Tumbler is supposed to look like a bat doesn't mean it actually does.

Correct: the fact that it looks like a bat is what "means it actually does."

If I have to look at a vehicle from on only one or two angles to tell what the inspiration was than that inspiration was not used to its fullest.

Then we're fortunate you didn't say "Maybe next time they should use the bat inspiration to it's fullest," eh? You insinuated the car was not Batman inspired, and that's incorrect. Your opinion on the degree of inspiration is completely irrelevant, because that is not what you said. If it is not bat-styled enough for your tastes, perhaps you should have said that instead of the blatantly false implication that it's not bat-styled at all.

 

[MacLeod]

Apparently you do. Either that or you simply ignored the facts because they did not suit your false premise that the Tumbler has no bat-motif.


Correct: the fact that it looks like a bat is what "means it actually does."



Then we're fortunate you didn't say "Maybe next time they should use the bat inspiration to it's fullest," eh? You insinuated the car was not Batman inspired, and that's incorrect. Your opinion on the degree of inspiration is completely irrelevant, because that is not what you said. If it is not bat-styled enough for your tastes, perhaps you should have said that instead of the blatantly false implication that it's not bat-styled at all.

Wow, it's like I hurt your feelings or something like you designed the military vehicle yourself. I love when people try to tell me my opinion is false or use my own words against me as if I didn't know what I was saying or how I said it. If it wasn't coming from such a place of desperation to defend what they believe I would find it funny. Of course it's not to my liking hence the "I" in my statments. It's not bat enough for me, I can't see the bat, I hope for something different, I would like it to more bat-ified. If you're going to correct me at least have the insight to see that it's my opinion and what my opinion is really stating. It's pointless to continue saying, "In my opinion," over and over again if I've said the same thing in many differnet posts. The true hard facts though is that not everyone sees Bat related things in Begins, it's not just me. If someone else had to draw how the Tumbler may look like a Bat is proof enough to me that it's not easily seen. Also, everyone everywhere when they look at any other Batman vehicle, comics to movies, knows it's a Batman related vehicle. If "I" saw the Tumbler outside the context of Begins I would have no idea what it's for. It does not have any indication of being a Batman related vehicle FOR ME.

 

[Saint]

Wow, it's like I hurt your feelings or something like you designed the military vehicle yourself.

I don't care either way: I am only explaining your mistake.

I love when people try to tell me my opinion is false

Then I can imagine how relieved you must be that I never said a word about your opinion. As I said, if you think the bat-motif is too subtle, or just don't like the car in general, that's great. That wasn't my concern. I was only addressing your erroneous claim that the car is not bat-styled. Like I said: your opinion is irrelevant. I am not talking about your opinion, only your misrepresentation of fact.

If you're going to correct me at least have the insight to see that it's my opinion and what my opinion is really stating.

The problem is not my lack of "insight," but rather your failure to differentiate between these separate matters of fact and opinion. The fact of the matter is that the car is bat-styled (this is not debatable). You implied this was not true, so I pointed out the truth of the matter. Your opinion is another matter entirely, one which I have not addressed, nor do I care about. If it's your opinion that the stylization is too subtle, fine. I've not said a word to the contrary. I am only correcting your misrepresentation of fact, which has nothing to do with your opinion.

 

[itsthebatman]

I thought it was pretty clear it was his opinion, wrong as it may be. it's pretty tedious to have to prefix everything with 'IMO' just to avoid being told you are misrepresenting the facts.

 

[Saint]

How can it be his opinion when it is not a matter of opinion? It's a matter of fact. One cannot peddle falsehoods under the guise of opinion. I can't say "Two plus two equals five," and say "That's just my opinion" when somebody corrects me.

His opinion is that the bat-motif is too minor or subtle. That's fine, I have no problem with that. I understand that position entirely. However, he also implied that the Tumbler has no bat-motif whatsoever, which is not a matter of opinion, it's a matter of fact. Therefore, I corrected him.

it was his opinion, wrong as it may be

This is a logical fallacy. An opinion cannot be wrong, which is why we call it an opinion. An opinion is a position on a matter that cannot be proven (such as the quality of a thing, or the beauty of a thing). A fact, on the other hand, is something that can be proven right or wrong. The existence of a bat-motif on the Tumbler is fact: the man who designed it has told us explicitly that it is there, and we have seen it demonstrated (as in the picture above). So implying the Tumbler has no such motif is not opinion, it is simply incorrect. I posted to correct this mistake, not to belittle Macleod's opinion of the Tumbler.

 

[itsthebatman]

How can it be his opinion when it is not a matter of opinion? It's a matter of fact. One cannot peddle falsehoods under the guise of opinion. I can't say "Two plus two equals five," and say "That's just my opinion" when somebody corrects me.

His opinion is that the bat-motif is too minor or subtle. That's fine, I have no problem with that. I understand that position entirely. However, he also implied that the Tumbler has no bat-motif whatsoever, which is not a matter of opinion, it's a matter of fact. Therefore, I corrected him.


This is a logical fallacy. An opinion cannot be wrong, which is why we call it an opinion. An opinion is a position on a matter that cannot be proven (such as the quality of a thing, or the beauty of a thing). A fact, on the other hand, is something that can be proven right or wrong. The existence of a bat-motif on the Tumbler is fact: the man who designed it has told us explicitly that it is there, and we have seen it demonstrated (as in the picture above). So implying the Tumbler has no such motif is not opinion, it is simply incorrect. I posted to correct this mistake, not to belittle Macleod's opinion of the Tumbler.

Two plus two is four. This is fact. Nathan Crowley designed the Tumbler to look like a bat, or have a subtle bat-motif. Fact. Not everyone thinks it does, or knew that it was designed that way. I certainly didn't.
My apologies for the grammatical error. To err is human.

 

[MacLeod]

I never knew that everyone here were so devout to the IMO phrase and what it means or doesn't mean. I would hope that when someone on this thread says something everyone else would pretty much already automatically realize that they are Batman fans to a large degree. If a statment is made it's based on what they know or feel. If someone says the car is not bat-ified they are not wrong they simply didn't state the all powerful words, "In my opinion." A person can't be wrong if they don't see the bat look so to say it's not a bat would be accurate. What people tend to miss is the background to the statement, people are taking everything at face value rather than understanding that things are not always what they seem.

 

[Saint]

Not everyone thinks it does, or knew that it was designed that way. I certainly didn't.

That's exactly why I made the correction: so individuals who did not know, would know.

 

[itsthebatman]

That's exactly why I made the correction: so individuals who did not know, would know.

Would you agree that the motif is subtle and not immediately obvious to those not in the know? From a story-telling point view, it is also a coincidence that Bruce's company just so happens to have a spare military vehicle with a bat-motif. It would make more sesne for him to have designed it himself.

 

[MacLeod]

I thought it was pretty clear it was his opinion, wrong as it may be. it's pretty tedious to have to prefix everything with 'IMO' just to avoid being told you are misrepresenting the facts.

Eventhough you said my opinions were wrong thank you for reading my previous post the correct way. Thanks.

 

[Saint]

You can't correct a mistake that wasn't made. My whole post was based on my belief system, and like I mentioned before saying IMO everytime is pointless. Just becuase I'm straightfoward in my statements does not give anyone the right to try and correct my way of thinking. I, among others, do not see a Bat in the Tumbler. If there are a number of people whom do not see something than perhaps it wasn't done to the fullest.


As far as being relieved, I never thought twice about it. However, you did in fact mention my opinion is irrelevant which in fact is discussing my opinion which you said you didn't. It's pretty obvious that I don't like the car but what is also obvious is that the car is still not bat-ified in the sense that Batman did nothing to it other than paint it. Black does not make something Batman related. If it looks like a bat flying that's convienent for Bruce Wayne and sad,"IMO" to make a military vehicle like a flying bat.

The car being bat-ified is easily debatable, we're doing it right now. The insight here is still in question because you believe your "fact" is more on target than my opinion. It's not because you can't be wrong on an opinion, especially an opinion based on something you're a fan of. You think it looks like a bat, great, the creators said it supposed to look like a bat, even better, does it look like a bat, no not to me. My view of it, among many others, is that it does not look like a bat which would be the debatable factor compared to those that do. Even if Nolan flat out said, "Yes, we made the Tumbler to look like a bat," doesn't mean it looks like a bat. Trying something and succeeding is different than trying something and saying it succeeded. You see a bat, good for you, many do not however, I'm one of them, hence the easily debatable nature of what people see and think. Next time someone goes against something you hold so dear perhaps you should try proving your case with a little more of a gentle nature that way it won't be perceived as a playground taunt of, "I'm right you're wrong, na na na na." That's just childish.

For someone who doesn't care about my opinion you sure are trying too hard to prove me wrong. You're coming off as if my opinions are hurting the law that is Begins. Relaxing a little will allow these threads to thrive without people trying to bash each others opinions with what they consider fact even though everything is up for discussion. Defending my beliefs, which are not going to change, is becomine annoying when people feel that they are right and no one else can be. Do me a favor, after you read this don't respond to it because you'll just try to say my statements are false, I'll prove they're not, and we'll continue this vicious circle until one of us is too tired to even care. There is no reason for us to get to that point just because one of us feels like we have to be right and prove the other one wrong. That's not the reason for these threads.

Jesus, it's like talking to a wall.

MacLeod: "Five is an even number, which is bad, so I don't like five!"
Saint: "Actually, five is not an even number."
MacLeod: "Shut up, Saint! It's my opinion! You can't tell me my likes in dislikes are wrong!"
Saint: "I didn't say anything about your opinions: I only corrected your mistake. I don't care about your opinion, it has nothing to do with what I said."
MaLeod: "Shut up! It's opinion! And if you don't care about my opinion, why did you mention it? So there!"
Saint: "I mentioned it because you acted as if it was what I was talking about, which is not accurate. How could I tell you that your opinion is not what I'm talking about without mentioning it?"

Five is an odd number. The Tumbler was designed to have a bat-motif. Whether you dislike five, or think the motif is too subtle, or "wasn't done to the fullest" is irrelevant to any of comments. Allow me to refresh your memory.

You said the following:

How about by the third film Nolan creates a Batman inspired vehicle?

The insinuation here i that Nolan--and his team--did not design the Tumbler to have a bat-motif. This is not opinion, because we know they did design the car with a bat-motif. Crowley--who designed the thing with Nolan in Nolan's garage--has said outright that it was designed with a bat-motif, and we have seen it demonstrated. As such, I posted to correct your mistake. Inexplicably, you decided this was an attack on your opinion. I don't care about your opinion. If you think the Tumbler is crap, that the bat-motif is a failure, or that it's too subtle, that's great. It does not, however, have anything to do with my original post, which is why I said it's irrelevant when you repeatedly brought it up.

If it was not your intention to say that Nolan and Crowley did not incorporate a bat-motif into the car, then I have misread your comment, and it's my mistake. If you do mean to say that, though, then you are mistaken, and your claim that it's a matter of opinion is also a mistake.

 

[Saint]

Would you agree that the motif is subtle and not immediately obvious to those not in the know?

I absolutely would agree to that. That, however, is not what I read in MacLeod's original post. He suggested that the car was not designed to have a bat-motif, so I corrected that mistake. If he meant to say something different, then it's my mistake.

From a story-telling point view, it is also a coincidence that Bruce's company just so happens to have a spare military vehicle with a bat-motif. It would make more sesne for him to have designed it himself.

Which is arguably why the motif is so subtle: anything more obvious would have made no sense. Of course, they could have re-written the script (to have Bruce build the car from scratch, or modify it after acquiring it from Fox).

 

[AdmNelson]

I’m just putting a bunch of pieces in place here, for discussion (warning: massive potential spoilers ahead):

1. We know that the Joker in TDK seems to enjoy blowing things up, and we’ve heard talk that the Tumbler gets “destroyed.”

2. Based on the most recent filming descriptions, the Tumbler seems to get “hit” by something (from the Joker, during the truck chase) and “bursts into flame” – but it still drives off.

3. We’ve heard that Bats gets both the Batpod and the new suit after his first suit is “damaged by water.” Rumors were that the Tumbler “gets knocked into water” or something like that.

4. So, here’s the theory: what if the Joker either damages the Tumbler so much that it’s in danger of exploding (from ruptured fuel lines feeding the “afterburner”), or he actually attaches a bomb to it so that, in order to keep the car from exploding and killing both civilians (and himself), Batman has to drive/jump the thing deliberately into Gotham Bay to put the fire out/stop the explosion? (Or, worse: the car hits the water and still explodes, and Batman barely escapes with his life.)

5. Note: If the former idea holds true, the car may NOT be completely destroyed, but its crime-fighting days are over without a major overhaul. However, what if Bats ends up salvaging the vehicle (getting it out of the bay, getting it back to the Batcave), and then builds the Batpod as quickly as possible out of its pieces? (Or else, Fox helps him, unless Fox supplies an already-completed Batpod.) This would explain the idea of the Batpod “emerging” from the Tumbler – it doesn’t actually come out of the car, but is built from it as an emergency measure to provide Bats with immediate transportation.

6. This could also mean that a new, improved, more “batlike” Tumbler could come in the 3rd film… the original car (or at least, design) is “rebuilt” to be even more formidable, rather than simply discarded in favor of a completely new car.

-- Admiral Nelson