The Dark Knight Batcycle

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:


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.

I agree, it is frustrating to talk to people when they just don't get it or jump to the wrong conclusion. The wall is talking back now. I hate to say it was your mistake but it was never my intention to say they didn't design it with a bat motif it's just that I don't see it clearly and don't like it. Your insinuation is that I am stating things that I dont' know anything about where in fact I do and just wanted to express my opinion of such material with those that wanted to read it. I don't feel it's necessary to say my opinion over and over again especically since my last post stated that it was designed to be a bat motif I just don't like it. By saying something in this thread means I know what I'm talking about in reference to information, as I thought we all do, so I just jump to what I see, feel, and think. By saying my statements I would hope that everyone already would know that a Batman fan knew the facts and just wanted to praise them or gripe about them. So, without beating an already dead horse yet again, technically all we are discussing here is my opinion of the car because I knew very clearly what Nolan and team were thinking and tried to do. By saying the third film should have a more bat-ified vehicle does represent my distaste for the previous vehicles eventhough I knew the intention of the film makers.
 
Is there a chance to, oh I don't know, discuss the batcycle compared to trying to discuss something that not only has been overdone but is going in circles because the parties are too caught up on proving their points rather than reading things the way they are supposed to be.
 
I agree, it is frustrating to talk to people when they just don't get it or jump to the wrong conclusion. The wall is talking back now. I hate to say it was your mistake but it was never my intention to say they didn't design it with a bat motif
Then I misread you. Apologies.
 
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

Good ideas.
 
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.

Christ you take this a bit seriously, its called a joke when you say someone's opinion is wrong
 
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

I love it. As usual, you are the voice of good ol' fashioned common sense. :up:

I never bought the idea of the batpod physically emerging from the Tumbler, as it sounds too much like the BR Batmissile...ugh....
 
The niggle is that the batpod has been seen down on Lower Wacker, although not sure if it's been involved in a shot yet
 
The niggle is that the batpod has been seen down on Lower Wacker, although not sure if it's been involved in a shot yet

Yeah, I forgot about that....It's a mystery trapped in a riddle, wrapped in an enigma, and suffering from ADD.
 
I can't see Nolan going all Transformers on us, it would be cheating to do that now. Maybe they were just testing it, its a really long car-free straight they've got there. On the other hand the stuntguy was apparently in a Batman costume
 
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

all improbable ideas. From my sources on the set, the tumbler pursues the joker down an innertube ride at a waterslide park. unfortunately, batman didn't consider the ride's finale, and the tumbler is soon waterlogged in the splash-down pool. And batman's threads are moist and uncomfortable. Then comes the new suit and batpod.

Oh and the joker escapes through a concession stand, and steals a warm corndog to nibble on as he leaves. :ninja:
 
I wish the tumbler/batpod worked with voice activation like the 89 batmobile i always thought that was cool
 
But one step further, the sexy computer voice talks back to him. Then Joker tapes over it with his own voice. (J/K)
 
Christ you take this a bit seriously, its called a joke when you say someone's opinion is wrong


Ok, one, a joke is, "Why did the Tumbler cross the road? To see what a real Batmobile looks like." Putting down someones opinion is actually taking a stab at their way of being. Sorry if I don't see someone telling me I'm flat out wrong when I'm not as a joke. It's a little hard to digest. I'll accept a difference of opinions, I'll accept jokes, but there is no need to tell someone they are wrong, that is just uncivilized.

Two, Saint and I are good now, at least I think and hope so. No need to bring back something that has already been put to bed. All is well in the world. Your post has nothing to do with Batman so I implore all others to just get back to the Batcycle thread.
 
I was replying to his reply to itsthebatman, but n/m.

A female computer voiced car was not something I expected from Nolan, Bond maybe
 
I was replying to his reply to itsthebatman, but n/m.

A female computer voiced car was not something I expected from Nolan, Bond maybe


My apologies. I've been defending my thoughts all day and I guess I got caught up in it. I can see that probablyl had nothing to do with me. I thought I was reading a response to my post. Truly sorry.
 
The niggle is that the batpod has been seen down on Lower Wacker, although not sure if it's been involved in a shot yet

That's not a problem necessarily. Films are shot out of sequence. Let's say that the Joker's reign of terror/chase sequence with his vehicles starts one night (when the Tumbler is destroyed.) That's #1.

Batman gets his new suit and Batcycle up and running, say, a week or so later, back at the Batcave, while all hell is breaking loose in Gotham. That's #2.

The Joker does something else bad, and we have a second chase scene through the streets of Gotham -- but this time, Bats pursues him on the cycle (sequence #3.

You'd shoot sequences 1 and 3, above, at the same time, in generally the same locations, while you have the required actors and FX guys on hand to handle the logistics. Sequence 2 (interiors) might be shot back on the soundstages in England before or after the Chicago stuff.

So, just because the cycle is around at the same time as the Tumbler FILMING doesn't necessarily mean you'll see it immediately thereafter in the actual movie; it could be appearing on the streets (in the film) at an appreciably later time. (Just a guess; I could be totally wrong.)

-- Admiral Nelson
 
Has anyone thought of how the Batpod would make it into the Batcave? I know that the Batcave probably won't be in the movie with Wayne living in the city, but if the Batpod is kept for a next movie.
 
Extensively. A plank of wood hidden in the bushes. Maybe not that basic but I can't see a motorised drawbridge in Batman's future
 
I was thinking that the bike transforms into some kind of glider which can then transform into a talking robot which can then tranform into a drawbridge. So, yes... I partially agree with you on this one.
 
I was thinking that the bike transforms into some kind of glider which can then transform into a talking robot which can then tranform into a drawbridge. So, yes... I partially agree with you on this one.

Too realistic, this isn't Ken Loach we're talking about
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"