The Dark Knight Rises This Would Make an Awesome Batmobile!

[Crook]

I've thought for the longest time that the fins & logos & whatnot were a little...vain. It's contrary to his whole motif, you know? I'm this dark, mysterious avenger-but my ride is all flashy & fancy? Just because it's me driving it, it has to have bat logos on it & batwings welded to it? It's impractical & unnecessary. The Tumbler is a much more functional vehicle for him.

Contrary to his motif? Are you serious?!

The guy has bat-ears, a damn cape, a f'n bat-logo on his chest, and according to BB, carves every single one of his bat-shurikens. The guy obviously has a thing for bat imagery.

Batman is about fighting crime.... Not about style. Bruce is about style, and hence his lamborghini and luxurious lifestyle.

Again, I point to my statement above. I find it hugely ironic that fans are willing to ignore Bruce's blatant product placement in all his gadgetry, except for his own vehicle.

And it's funny no one was against the typical stylish roadster that is the Batmobile, until Nolan came along and changed things up. NOW the rules have changed all of a sudden? C'mon.

As for the pic in the original post, I vote no. The Batmobile needs to stand on it's own. I'm in favor of something sleek, fast, and powerful-looking, but it has to be unique. Now, they can build upon an existing base model, so as long the final product is entirely new.

 

[Melkay]

Contrary to his motif? Are you serious?!

The guy has bat-ears, a damn cape, a f'n bat-logo on his chest, and according to BB, carves every single one of his bat-shurikens. The guy obviously has a thing for bat imagery.

Again, I point to my statement above. I find it hugely ironic that fans are willing to ignore Bruce's blatant product placement in all his gadgetry, except for his own vehicle.

Very true. So let's not put the bat-logo to anything not worthy, shall we?

And it's funny no one was against the typical stylish roadster that is the Batmobile, until Nolan came along and changed things up. NOW the rules have changed all of a sudden? C'mon.

God, I can imagine the scene ....

TUMBLER: But I want to be more sleek, and traditional, and stylized! I want fans to call me the Batmobile! All those cars in the previous movies were actually pretty cool!
JOKER: Don't talk like one of them, you're not! Even if you'd like to be. To them, you're just a "freak". Like me. They need you right now but when they don't... they'll cast you out. Like the Begins suit. See, their hype, their praise for Nolan... is a bad joke, dropped out at the first sign of trouble. They're only as supportive as the purists allow them to be. I'll show ya, when the chips are down... these so called "fans", will replace you without reason.
TUMBLER: Without reason? But I got blew up by you in the movie!
JOKER: And my actor died and they want to recast me, so what? You're not the only one with problems.

As for the pic in the original post, I vote no. The Batmobile needs to stand on it's own. I'm in favor of something sleek, fast, and powerful-looking, but it has to be unique. Now, they can build upon an existing base model, so as long the final product is entirely new.

.... JOKER: ^ see what I was talking about?

 

[Crook]

Very true. So let's not put the bat-logo to anything not worthy, shall we?

There's nothing noteworthy for the bat-logo to be put on. It serves no practical purpose. But it's used anyway to preserve the iconography of the character. It is absolutely contradictory to ignore the bat imagery (read: not just logos) in every other facet of the film, and apply it to the one aspect that just so happens to not be as "traditional" as the others. It lacks intelligence.

Had Nolan omitted the bat-ears or the cape, I guarantee people here would defend it because it's more realistic and Bruce isn't about looking stylish. I've been on this board since even before BB was greenlit. Many fans have backtracked their comments so far that it's hard to believe they don't hit themselves in the process.

I was here to see people backing the idea of a Joker that rarely laughs nor smiles, doesn't wear purple, and was a looming character that had no theatrics. People were very vocal about this because apparently it would suit Nolan's vision more. Lo and behold, with each promo material released up to the actual film that depicted a character that was actually very close to the comics....absolutely none of these posters are to be found or outspoken. What a surprise.

This cycle can go on and on as it always will, at the end of the day most will support Nolan. Regardless of whether it coincides or contradicts their beliefs.

God, I can imagine the scene ....

TUMBLER: But I want to be more sleek, and traditional, and stylized! I want fans to call me the Batmobile! All those cars in the previous movies were actually pretty cool!
JOKER: Don't talk like one of them, you're not! Even if you'd like to be. To them, you're just a "freak". Like me. They need you right now but when they don't... they'll cast you out. Like the Begins suit. See, their hype, their praise for Nolan... is a bad joke, dropped out at the first sign of trouble. They're only as supportive as the purists allow them to be. I'll show ya, when the chips are down... these so called "fans", will replace you without reason.
TUMBLER: Without reason? But I got blew up by you in the movie!
JOKER: And my actor died and they want to recast me, so what? You're not the only one with problems.



.... JOKER: ^ see what I was talking about?

Please cut the theatrics and get to the point of what you're trying to say.

 

[Kaizer]

Here's your batmobile

 

[Melkay]

There's nothing noteworthy for the bat-logo to be put on. It serves no practical purpose. But it's used anyway to preserve the iconography of the character. It is absolutely contradictory to ignore the bat imagery (read: not just logos) in every other facet of the film, and apply it to the one aspect that just so happens to not be as "traditional" as the others. It lacks intelligence.

Whoa, hohohoho! You're so not ready for the Nolan times t:. Everything has a purpose now. The bat-logo is there to attach it to things that are meant as reminders of Batman and his presence. Remember Begins?:
"Why bats, sir?"
"Because they frighten me. It's time that my enemies share my fears."... and he inmediatly throws a bat-logo shaped ninja star. Why? To associate with Bruce's intentions with the first time we see the logo.
The logo is there to frighten. The logo is there to remind criminals about the Batman, and to strike fear, even when he's not around. The logo is the for him to be remembered.
And this is not a trivial line of thought... we're reminded of it in the very beginning of TDK.
Gordon says [about the signal with the bat-logo]: "I like reminding everybody that he's out there".

Nolan's Batman is meant to be a symbol... an archetype. And as such, he needs a visual symbol for his message to endure, even when he's not out there.

You can't put such an important thing in anything we want.
That's the reason of why he shouldn't put the logo in a less frightening car.

Had Nolan omitted the bat-ears or the cape, I guarantee people here would defend it because it's more realistic and Bruce isn't about looking stylish. I've been on this board since even before BB was greenlit. Many fans have backtracked their comments so far that it's hard to believe they don't hit themselves in the process.

I was here to see people backing the idea of a Joker that rarely laughs nor smiles, doesn't wear purple, and was a looming character that had no theatrics. People were very vocal about this because apparently it would suit Nolan's vision more. Lo and behold, with each promo material released up to the actual film that depicted a character that was actually very close to the comics....absolutely none of these posters are to be found or outspoken. What a surprise.

I think you guarantee too much. I won't hold you to it, don't worry.
Batman's appearence, pointy ears included, is fundamental to Nolan's message and has meaning and a context within the movie.
The visual decisions made with the Joker also have meaning. But much of his original design is kept intact.
This thread is about keeping something Nolan already adapted against adding something new from the comics. So far, the Tumbler is the batmobile... just 'not permawhite'.

This cycle can go on and on as it always will, at the end of the day most will support Nolan. Regardless of whether it coincides or contradicts their beliefs.

He happens to be very good at making good decisions.
Were you around in 1998? Do you remember people liking Schumacher's decisions? People are not morons, they just see Nolan's changes forgettable or improvements.

Please cut the theatrics and get to the point of what you're trying to say.

My point is... what's the point?

You want to change something almost perfect just because to a new model because... it's new?

Plus, the theatrics are goo to make some parallel 'no recast' propaganda. Each man has his ways

 

[Crook]

Whoa, hohohoho! You're so not ready for the Nolan times t:. Everything has a purpose now. The bat-logo is there to attach it to things that are meant as reminders of Batman and his presence. Remember Begins?:
"Why bats, sir?"
"Because they frighten me. It's time that my enemies share my fears."... and he inmediatly throws a bat-logo shaped ninja star. Why? To associate with Bruce's intentions with the first time we see the logo.
The logo is there to frighten. The logo is there to remind criminals about the Batman, and to strike fear, even when he's not around. The logo is the for him to be remembered.
And this is not a trivial line of thought... we're reminded of it in the very beginning of TDK.
Gordon says [about the signal with the bat-logo]: "I like reminding everybody that he's out there".

Nolan's Batman is meant to be a symbol... an archetype. And as such, he needs a visual symbol for his message to endure, even when he's not out there.

You can't put such an important thing in anything we want.
That's the reason of why he shouldn't put the logo in a less frightening car.

Everything you just listed can be applied to the car. Why is it ok to use the bat iconography on his suit and gadgets, but his car is absolutely off-limits? Is there some fundamental change going on there when we point our focus on the car? I also never suggested putting logos on it, I made a point to emphasize the bat-imagery. This can be as simple as fin-like structures attached to the vehicle. You know, like the comics. Kinda like how Batman has ears and scalloped capes in the comics.

I think you guarantee too much. I won't hold you to it, don't worry.

You don't have to believe me. But the board's history speaks for itself.

Batman's appearence, pointy ears included, is fundamental to Nolan's message and has meaning and a context within the movie.

We can sugarcoat it all we want, but we all know Nolan kept it in because doing otherwise would betray the character's image. It's nice he gave meaning and place for their existence, but it's secondary to maintaining tradition, and thus, is merely superficial.

This thread is about keeping something Nolan already adapted against adding something new from the comics. So far, the Tumbler is the batmobile... just 'not permawhite'.

What in the world did he adapt? The only similarity to the Tumbler and the comic book incarnations are the thrust boosters, an automatic car roof, and being a car that Batman uses.

What exactly is wrong with bringing in a more traditional car, especially when the damn Tumbler is clearly destroyed?

He happens to be very good at making good decisions.
Were you around in 1998? Do you remember people liking Schumacher's decisions? People are not morons, they just see Nolan's changes forgettable or improvements.

Notice how I didn't say anything at all in my post about whether Nolan's changes were good or bad. I said people will follow along with his ideas regardless of what their own ideas are.

My point is... what's the point?

You want to change something almost perfect just because to a new model because... it's new?

Maybe the point is TDK sets up a situation in which a new car is needed? Did you not watch the film?

 

[Melkay]

Everything you just listed can be applied to the car. Why is it ok to use the bat iconography on his suit and gadgets, but his car is absolutely off-limits? Is there some fundamental change going on there when we point our focus on the car? I also never suggested putting logos on it, I made a point to emphasize the bat-imagery. This can be as simple as fin-like structures attached to the vehicle. You know, like the comics. Kinda like how Batman has ears and scalloped capes in the comics.

You didnt get me. The logo was ouf course a specific example, but I was talking about all the imagery. The car doesn't need the logo because it's one of it's kind. There are no carse like it, and when you see it, you know that this is Batman, and not some copy-cat (Scarecrow: "That's more like him")
But he can't have his image and his reputation attached to a less frightening car. And that's what sylizing the car would do, make it less menacing.

You don't have to believe me. But the board's history speaks for itself.

We can sugarcoat it all we want, but we all know Nolan kept it in because doing otherwise would betray the character's image. It's nice he gave meaning and place for their existence, but it's secondary to maintaining tradition, and thus, is merely superficial.

And that why people accepted it, not because it was Nolan who did it! Get it?
And the board's history confirms that fans everywhere wouldn't ahve had any problems with Batman not having pointy ears? Geeezzz... you're harsh on them. I think that the ears are the only thing that haven't changed in decades. And regardless of that, they actually make him more menacing... a guy who dresses up like a demon-like thing to beat people up has to be nuts, right?

What in the world did he adapt? The only similarity to the Tumbler and the comic book incarnations are the thrust boosters, an automatic car roof, and being a car that Batman uses.

Oh, you really don't want do get into that...
the fire-spitting turbine in the end?
the vents that open when it's about to jump, like bat-wings?
the missiles and machine-guns? the spiked balls it throwed?
the radar? the whole computer? the navigation system? the remote control?
... and it DOES come in black, you know?

What exactly is wrong with bringing in a more traditional car, especially when the damn Tumbler is clearly destroyed?

Oh my god, I wish people would read the previous arguments before forcing me to repeat them. Okay, one more time.

"Let's wind the clock back to 2005..."

[ Lucius Fox: She was built as a bridging vehicle. During combat, two of these would jump over a river, towing cables. (...) We never could get the damn bridge to work, but this baby works just fine. ]

They needed Two Tumblers two make the bridge work, so nothing has to be destroyed.

"At least we'll have spares." And they can always make more

Notice how I didn't say anything at all in my post about whether Nolan's changes were good or bad. I said people will follow along with his ideas regardless of what their own ideas are.

I know. Notice I disagreed. His ideas are accepted because they are good and well employed. Why do you think the 'pro-permawhite' mob is so quiet now? They were the most fearceful purists out there. What happened? Nolan brain-washed them?

Sorry if you're a purist, no pun intended.

Maybe the point is TDK sets up a situation in which a new car is needed? Did you not watch the film?

Did you watch Begins?
Did you watch TDK when Reese shows the blueprints?

Why is Fox going to go through all the trouble of designing a new one again? He already has his baby's blueprints.

Look, I'm not against a new Batmobile. Just not a sleeker and more stylized one. If something's good and it works, keep doing it. Give it more gadgets or make it more terrifying. But going in the opposite direction isn't wise.

 

[Crook]

You didnt get me. The logo was ouf course a specific example, but I was talking about all the imagery. The car doesn't need the logo because it's one of it's kind. There are no carse like it, and when you see it, you know that this is Batman, and not some copy-cat (Scarecrow: "That's more like him")

So we can throw it out because it's understood it's Batman? By this reasoning the shurikens, cape, and chest emblem need not have bat-elements because when a criminal sees it, they know it's Batman.

But he can't have his image and his reputation attached to a less frightening car. And that's what sylizing the car would do, make it less menacing.

Stylization doesn't mean clean or non-menacing.

And that why people accepted it, not because it was Nolan who did it! Get it?

Yeah, he ripped it straight from the comics and because it was practical enough it was accepted on film. Same thing applies to the batmobile. Do you honestly believe if we get one that's closer to the comics, there will actually be mass crowds complaining that it's not the Tumbler?

And the board's history confirms that fans everywhere wouldn't ahve had any problems with Batman not having pointy ears? Geeezzz... you're harsh on them.

No, I'm really not. I've told you how time and time again how many fans here backtrack on what they say as a result of Nolan changing things up. This isn't gonna change.

Oh, you really don't want do get into that...
the fire-spitting turbine in the end?
the vents that open when it's about to jump, like bat-wings?
the missiles and machine-guns? the spiked balls it throwed?
the radar? the whole computer? the navigation system? the remote control?
... and it DOES come in black, you know?

I was talking about it's appearance. In which case, I will only concede on your last point.

Oh my god, I wish people would read the previous arguments before forcing me to repeat them. Okay, one more time.

"Let's wind the clock back to 2005..."

[ Lucius Fox: She was built as a bridging vehicle. During combat, two of these would jump over a river, towing cables. (...) We never could get the damn bridge to work, but this baby works just fine. ]

They needed Two Tumblers two make the bridge work, so nothing has to be destroyed.

"At least we'll have spares." And they can always make more

Are you aware that the Tumbler wasn't even gonna make it past BB? In the original script, the Tumbler is destroyed in order to make way for a traditional car in the sequel. Nolan changed the ending during filming because he loved the car so much. In TDK, he brought it back but has also completely destroyed it. That seems pretty final. It's highly doubtful they're gonna bring in the same exact design.

I know. Notice I disagreed. His ideas are accepted because they are good and well employed.

Which is my point. No one is gonna be talking crap about a traditional batmobile if Nolan adapts it well.

Why do you think the 'pro-permawhite' mob is so quiet now? They were the most fearceful purists out there. What happened? Nolan brain-washed them?

The permawhite debate is old, worn-out, and has no bearing on the actual film. I've been to those debates and I'm still pro-bleach, but I don't have to keep announcing my stance on it.

Sorry if you're a purist, no pun intended.

Far from a purist, but keep on insisting if it makes you sleep better.

Did you watch Begins?
Did you watch TDK when Reese shows the blueprints?

Why is Fox going to go through all the trouble of designing a new one again? He already has his baby's blueprints.

Fox has nothing to do with building the car. At best, he supervised the project.

Look, I'm not against a new Batmobile. Just not a sleeker and more stylized one. If something's good and it works, keep doing it. Give it more gadgets or make it more terrifying. But going in the opposite direction isn't wise.

I'm not at all concerned with what direction Nolan is gonna go for. I just hope that whatever the final product is, it looks good and relatively faithful to what a Batmobile is like. If not, then so be it. I still think the Tumbler looks hideous, but I can appreciate what it can do. I'm sure the same will happen here.

 

[Melkay]

So we can throw it out because it's understood it's Batman? By this reasoning the shurikens, cape, and chest emblem need not have bat-elements because when a criminal sees it, they know it's Batman.

The Bat-logo in the suit is the most important one, because when you see a masked guy in a black cape going after you and beating the crap out of you, with a bat symbol in his chest.... you get to respect the symbol.

Stylization doesn't mean clean or non-menacing.

That's exactly what it means. You make it more pleasant and nice to see, and you make it less menacing. You make it less strange more similar to a normal modern car, and then you get familiar with it. You understand it more. "And you always fear what you don't understand."

Yeah, he ripped it straight from the comics and because it was practical enough it was accepted on film. Same thing applies to the batmobile. Do you honestly believe if we get one that's closer to the comics, there will actually be mass crowds complaining that it's not the Tumbler?

No, I don't think so. But neither if we get the Tumbler again. People will complain from both sides but I don't see any of them as mass crowds. BUt you seem to have agreed that the Tumbler is faithful enough and practical enough, so, what's the point?

No, I'm really not. I've told you how time and time again how many fans here backtrack on what they say as a result of Nolan changing things up. This isn't gonna change.

They see that Nolan had a point and that it really worked. I don't want to see that changing.

I was talking about it's appearance. In which case, I will only concede on your last point.

The computer and radar gives him a traditional appearance in the inside. The turbine's appearance is identical to the comics'. Three out of five points it's pretty good for me, considering you're not prone to giving things easily.

Are you aware that the Tumbler wasn't even gonna make it past BB? In the original script, the Tumbler is destroyed in order to make way for a traditional car in the sequel. Nolan changed the ending during filming because he loved the car so much. In TDK, he brought it back but has also completely destroyed it. That seems pretty final. It's highly doubtful they're gonna bring in the same exact design.

Ah, original scripts and Goyer's era plans..... I love those arguments.
Remember the times when the Joker was going to throw acid at Harvey's face in court? Remember Two-Face being alive for the third? Those seemed pretty final.

Let's save us the repetitions and just check what I say about original plans in the recast thread, shall we?

Which is my point. No one is gonna be talking crap about a traditional batmobile if Nolan adapts it well.

The point being... should adapt Nolan the Tumbler to a much sleeker and more styled vehicle? My answer is no. Yours is yes. We debate to listen to each other's arguments until Nolan does it. That's the protocole around here.
People reactions, well... they're the same for each case, so I don't really care about them.

The permawhite debate is old, worn-out, and has no bearing on the actual film. I've been to those debates and I'm still pro-bleach, but I don't have to keep announcing my stance on it.

People were complaining about Katie Holmes long before and long after Batman Begins. People are STILL complaining about her. Especially because they knew they were right about it.
I get why you are not complaining about permawhite anymore. I get it. I was opposed to Liam Neeson playing Yet Another teacher role. Time prove some things wrong.

Far from a purist, but keep on insisting if it makes you sleep better.

Just checking... I don't wanna suddenly make offensive jokes that start like: "hey, you know what the purist said to the fanboy?" It makes people angry.

Fox has nothing to do with building the car. At best, he supervised the project.

I said designing.... where did you get 'build' from?
Hmmm, grasping at straws at this point? Not good.

I'm not at all concerned with what direction Nolan is gonna go for. I just hope that whatever the final product is, it looks good and relatively faithful to what a Batmobile is like. If not, then so be it. I still think the Tumbler looks hideous, but I can appreciate what it can do. I'm sure the same will happen here.

The Tumbler looks relatively faithful to the Batmobile.
Because there have been lots of batmobiles. Remember the one in DKR?
Tumbler is actually sleeker than that one, hehehehehe.

It's supposed to look hideous. It's supposed to look like the car of a monster... not like the car of a celebrity.

And it was used in Begins because it made sense thematically. He is frightening people in Begins, and he's quite animalistic. In TDK, he rides the Batpod like a knight would ride a horse. You're free to speculate which one fits more in the next one, but now that Batman is a wanted man, I don't really see him riding a celebrity car.

Take care.

 

[Coleman Reese]

Ewww no. Looks like a Burton batmobile rejected concept.

 

[Chris Wallace]

I just don't want another eyesore like this.

 

[Crook]

The Bat-logo in the suit is the most important one, because when you see a masked guy in a black cape going after you and beating the crap out of you, with a bat symbol in his chest.... you get to respect the symbol.

And the cape? Shurikens?

That's exactly what it means. You make it more pleasant and nice to see, and you make it less menacing. You make it less strange more similar to a normal modern car, and then you get familiar with it. You understand it more. "And you always fear what you don't understand."

You have a narrow definition of stylization. It does not at all necessitate pleasantness or any of that goody-goody stuff. Schumacher's Gotham is an example of stylization on one end that looks crazy and non-threatening. His Batmobiles represent that as well. Burton's Gotham is on the other side of that spectrum. Would you consider his city pleasant looking?

No, I don't think so. But neither if we get the Tumbler again. People will complain from both sides but I don't see any of them as mass crowds. BUt you seem to have agreed that the Tumbler is faithful enough and practical enough, so, what's the point?

No, I said it's functionality was faithful to the books. I still want a car that looks like a Batmobile.

The computer and radar gives him a traditional appearance in the inside. The turbine's appearance is identical to the comics'. Three out of five points it's pretty good for me, considering you're not prone to giving things easily.

I am not talking about the inside because that has nothing to do with the Batmobile's outer appearance. And I already mentioned the turbines as one of the things Nolan succcessfully adapted.

Ah, original scripts and Goyer's era plans..... I love those arguments.
Remember the times when the Joker was going to throw acid at Harvey's face in court? Remember Two-Face being alive for the third? Those seemed pretty final.

Those seemed pretty final? They never happened and obviously never will because they went completely in another direction.

You're averting the point here. While BB saved the car, TDK didn't. As per the original plan, the Batmobile is destroyed. Instead of occurring in the first film, it's delayed to happen in the second. Not at all comparable to your examples.

Let's save us the repetitions and just check what I say about original plans in the recast thread, shall we?

I've already responded to you in the recast thread a few days ago. It's your turn to reply.

The point being... should adapt Nolan the Tumbler to a much sleeker and more styled vehicle? My answer is no. Yours is yes. We debate to listen to each other's arguments until Nolan does it. That's the protocole around here.
People reactions, well... they're the same for each case, so I don't really care about them.

People were complaining about Katie Holmes long before and long after Batman Begins. People are STILL complaining about her. Especially because they knew they were right about it.

The only reason why people are still bringing her up, is because of the comparisons with Maggie. If Rachel were not in TDK, we wouldn't even be hearing about Katie's name at all.

I get why you are not complaining about permawhite anymore. I get it. I was opposed to Liam Neeson playing Yet Another teacher role. Time prove some things wrong.

There is nothing here to be proven wrong on. You are free to check my posts on the subject. I was an advocate of permawhite because I believe it to be the best representation of the character. I never said a thing about it deterring from Ledger's performance or how the character was to be written (given he had no origin). So no, not wrong. I didn't put myself in a place where I was going to be wrong nor right.

I said designing.... where did you get 'build' from?
Hmmm, grasping at straws at this point? Not good.

Do you need a dictionary?

Building means to form, to create, to construct. What the hell do you think designing is? Do not flatter yourself to think I'm grasping at anything to hold a discussion with you.

The Tumbler looks relatively faithful to the Batmobile.
Because there have been lots of batmobiles. Remember the one in DKR?
Tumbler is actually sleeker than that one, hehehehehe.

There have been several Batmobiles, and yet DKR is the only example people can bring up that looks anything like the Tumbler (which it doesn't, asides from the tires). Not exactly very convincing that Tumbler is faithful to the look of the car.

It's supposed to look hideous. It's supposed to look like the car of a monster... not like the car of a celebrity.

You've described the Tumbler. That doesn't need to apply to a Batmobile, and it never has.

And it was used in Begins because it made sense thematically. He is frightening people in Begins, and he's quite animalistic. In TDK, he rides the Batpod like a knight would ride a horse. You're free to speculate which one fits more in the next one, but now that Batman is a wanted man, I don't really see him riding a celebrity car.

Take care.

I'm not arguing that the vehicles Nolan made look interesting and fit thematically. But I also don't think that would be the only means of bringing the Batmobile to life. You seem to think I want a Lamborghini-like car or something very very sports-flashy. That is incorrect. I'm completely against that idea as you can see in my very first post of this thread.

I do not want a Batmobile to look like any other modified car around. I want it to stand on it's own as Batman's car, and no one else's. I want it to keep a more traditional design ala long body and maybe hints of fin-like structures at the back. That doesn't mean I don't want it to look other-wordly or intimidating. Quite the opposite.

 

[Matt.S99]

I liek that car, not sure about it being a batmobile, but its cool. This concept car is what i think would make an awesome Batmobile.

 

[Chris Wallace]

Contrary to his motif? Are you serious?!

The guy has bat-ears, a damn cape, a f'n bat-logo on his chest, and according to BB, carves every single one of his bat-shurikens. The guy obviously has a thing for bat imagery.


Again, I point to my statement above. I find it hugely ironic that fans are willing to ignore Bruce's blatant product placement in all his gadgetry, except for his own vehicle.

And it's funny no one was against the typical stylish roadster that is the Batmobile, until Nolan came along and changed things up. NOW the rules have changed all of a sudden? C'mon.

As for the pic in the original post, I vote no. The Batmobile needs to stand on it's own. I'm in favor of something sleek, fast, and powerful-looking, but it has to be unique. Now, they can build upon an existing base model, so as long the final product is entirely new.

When I said "contrary to the motif", I didn't mean the bat motif. I meant the motif of being the strong, silent, stealthy type. The cars I'm referring to are flashy & attention-grabbing, to an extreme degree. (www.batmobilehistory.com) I'd much prefer that he focus on substance over style, functionality over flash. Notice that at no time in any of the movies does he ever say the word "Batmobile"? Even the name sounds a little hokey. What I liked about Bale's car is that it says, "I don't have to put wings on something that doesn't fly. I don't have to prove that this is my ride."

 

[Crook]

The Tumbler is not "flashy", but you cannot honestly say that it's not attention-grabbing. As for silent and stealthy? The car GROWLS and wreaks havoc everywhere it goes. What films were you watching exactly?

 

[Chris Wallace]

The one where the car became invisible to the cops who were pursuing it.

 

[Crook]

Yes, the one that lasted all of 5 seconds. Are you going to conveniently ignore everything else?

 

[Chris Wallace]

Not at all. I'm not saying the Tumbler is the only way to go. But I like it more than any other version I've seen (apart from maybe TAS). At the same time, I don't want to see the myriad versions shown on the site in that link I put up. Are you saying that you can't embrace a Batmobile unless it has gratuitous wings & logos? He doesn't have to identify everything with bat symbolism. He's got his chest symbol, the signal & the Batarangs. What more does he really need?

 

[Crook]

Not at all. I'm not saying the Tumbler is the only way to go. But I like it more than any other version I've seen (apart from maybe TAS). At the same time, I don't want to see the myriad versions shown on the site in that link I put up. Are you saying that you can't embrace a Batmobile unless it has gratuitous wings & logos?

I've already said I could embrace such a Batmobile. I just would not like it as much because the look is not what I'd prefer.

He doesn't have to identify everything with bat symbolism. He's got his chest symbol, the signal & the Batarangs. What more does he really need?

He doesn't have to, yet he does. That is the character and that's how it's been depicted for several decades.

Why don't you just come out and say you don't want a traditional batmobile? That is much more reasonable than coming up with some "facts" that the very source material defies.

 

[Chris Wallace]

How do you define "traditional"? He changes cars just about every year. THIS IS WHAT I DON'T WANT.

 

[Crook]

I don't want those either. What was the point of posting the worst pictures of the Batmobile you could find?

The traditional car has a few notable features that separate it from a typical car. It's long body is comparable to a roadster, it has a sliding roof, back fins, turbines, and a stylized grill. It may not seem like much, but the average person can pick out what is a "Batmobile" more often than not. That tells me we already have a preconceived notion of what it is composed of.

Here are just 2 examples:

________

As for continuing on with the Tumbler design, I found this on DA that was a pretty interesting evolutionary concept that took a lot of it's foundations from Nolan:

I actually wouldn't mind something like that. I'd make it just a tad more sleeker though because it looks bulky.

 

[Chris Wallace]

The 3rd pic is probably the most likely; I think he'd want to gravitate toward something similar to what he had before. The other 2 have the "wings", but it's subdued & not absurd.

 

[UA-Archangel]

Here's your batmobile

I have this car.

I only drive it on the weekends.

 

[Coleman Reese]

After seeing all these proposals/pics/designs for a new batmobile I really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really hope they bring back the Tumbler or if they do decide to change it Nolan and Crowley DO NOT take advice from the clowns here. Judging by the suggestions set forth there's a lot of subconscious desire to go back to the Burton/Schulmaker styled batmobile among the posters here. Which also makes me wonder whether there's a subconscious homoerotic desire to put nipples back on the batsuit.

 

[Chris Wallace]

I don't think that's it at all. They grew up with a streamlined Batmobile with wings, & comic fans are NOTORIOUS for being resistant to change. (Organic webbing, leather X-suits, black Kingpin-I could go on & on.) Now after all these years, I've come to prefer a wingless Batmobile as the wings serve no purpose & the bat-logos seem to depict vanity. But neither side is 100% right.