New ‘Dark Knight Rises’ Images: Batwing Up Close & Bane’s Mystery Device

2 years ago by  

With little more than a month left until The Dark Knight Rises‘ release, every diehard Bat-fan the world over is likely dreaming about Christopher Nolan’s Batman trilogy finale. Will it be everything they’ve dreamed of? Hoped for? Or – heaven forfend – has Nolan finally dropped the ball?

Well, we won’t know the answer to that – or whether or not Marion Cotillard’s character is who she says she is – until July 20th. But at least we can take solace in these up-close-and-personal photos of Batman’s new Batwing (with hardware details and everything) and Bane’s mystery device, which possibly has the ability to level football fields – as seen in the second Dark Knight Rises trailer.

Check out the images below, courtesy of Superhero Hype (click to enlarge):

As Batman would say: “Beautiful, isn’t it?” (Though “Beautiful, aren’t they?” would probably be more grammatically correct here.)

The images come from the unreleased book The Dark Knight Manual: Tools, Weapons, Vehicles & Documents From The Batcave by Brandon T. Snider. There’s not a whole lot of new information here – we’ve seen both the Batwing and Bane’s mystery device previously – but this is the first time we’ve seen such high quality close-ups. It’s also the first time we’ve been given information as to what the Batwing actually does aside from flying.

The Bat (a.k.a. ‘Batwing’) is outfitted with, in no particular order:

  • Rocket launchers
  • Flood lights (only slightly less awesome than rocket launchers)
  • Dual machine guns
  • And an EMP cannon

One presumes Batman will use the machine guns for something other than gunning down mercenaries and other living, breathing human beings, unless he’s drastically changed his code in the many years since The Dark Knight.

It was rumored that Bane’s mystery device was an “earthquake machine” of sorts, which more or less fits with the footage we’ve seen of a football field basically disappearing in a flash. It’s impossible to tell from the picture above if it is, indeed, an earthquake machine, as earthquake machines have yet to be invented in the real world. Some day, though. Some day.

If you like what you see in the pictures, be sure to pick up The Dark Knight Manual when it hits bookstores July 24th (or preorder it now).

The Dark Knight Rises hits theaters July 20th, 2012.

-

Follow me on Twitter @benandrewmoore.

Source: The Dark Knight Manual [via Superhero Hype]

FIND OUT MORE ABOUT: batman, the dark knight rises

118 Comments

Post a Comment

GravatarWant to change your avatar?
Go to Gravatar.com and upload your own (we'll wait)!

 Rules: No profanity or personal attacks.
 Use a valid email address or risk being banned from commenting.


If your comment doesn't show up immediately, it may have been flagged for moderation. Please try refreshing the page first, then drop us a note and we'll retrieve it.

  1. Ooooo, ahhhhhh…
    Cool! Love that shot of The Bat hovering over the streets of Gotham – looking forward to seeing it action.

  2. Is it just me, or does “The Bat” look like one of Skynet’s aerial hunter-killers? Could this film possibly (oh please oh please) be setting up a Batman vs. Terminator flick? And if so, which role would Christian Bale play?

    Also, Bane’s weapon was cooler when Leia was holding while dressed as a bounty hunter and threatening Jabba.

    • you beat me to it! i was gonna say that! lol

    • Yeah, it does a little bit. As for Batman vs. Terminator, um…absolutely not.

    • You’re joking right? about the Batman VS Terminator? (please say you do); The ‘VS’ movies never gain success as far as I know.

      • I tell you what, if there’s a Batman vs. Terminator movie, I’ll Paint your porch.

    • Batman Vs Terminator? Please stop.

  3. Looks like Bane stole the Matrix of Leadership from Optimus.

    • You mean Bane.

  4. Couldn’t they have made it look slightly like a bat? Or based it on the Batman symbol?
    Ugly looking thing, fits right in with the Tumbler though.

    • Agree and agree. These Batman movies have been especially disappointing in the areas of the Batsuit,bat mobile,batcave and whatever that flying bat thing is.

      • stop complaining they look great

    • Looks kinda like The Prometheus. – Wait! Could this be the early prototype for that vehicle?!? Maybe this will tie into that somehow? A prequel to the non-prequel?
      Discuss….

      • OR – maybe Nolan’s directing the sequel to that non-prequel?!?…

    • I was going to say the same thing. It’s I guess good for what it is but I look forward to getting back to the UNrealistic devices that have a bat theme to them in a JL or future reboot.

  5. I have a question about the weapons batman has, Batman does not kill people, but you said that he has a rocket launcher and duel machine guns on his new toy.

    Does that mean that he is gonna kill someone? Why else would you have those weapons?

    • …to destroy barriers, to counter deadly armaments and armored vehicles (I imagine, if possible, Batman would make sure the drivers had cleared out once their vehicles were disabled by the EMP) so they can’t be reused.

      Weaponry CAN be used for purposes other than killing humans, animals, or aliens…films just don’t tend to apply that idea as often as they could.

    • He kills people all the time in the films, whether it be Nolan or Burton.

      • He wouldn’t kill Joker… And he had good reason to.

        And for Ras Al Ghul, he said he wouldn’t kill him, but he would not save him.

        As far as I can remember, Batman never (intentionally) killed anyone. He never wants to sink to their level. If he did, he would be no better then any of the villains that he fights.

        • In the Dark Knight, he rammed the garbage truck and smashed the front seat area, more than likely killing the passengers

      • absolutely every batman movie has someone getting killed. in burtons batman he dropped a freaking bomb out of the batmobile

        • Yeah, Burton’s Batman killed people. Scissor kicked them off off bell towers, strapped bombs to their chests and pushed then into sewers, etc. Nolan’s Batman, not so much. He didn’t even mean to kill Two-Face, otherwise he would have pushed him off the ledge instead of tackling him, risking his own life.

          And on a side note, for those who think the Avengers is more family-friendly than Nolan’s Batman franchise, Batman wouldn’t even kill the Joker, and Captain America was straight up throwing random henchman off the hellicarier to their deaths. Just sayin’.

          • Except for the chase scene in BB where he runs over about a dozen cars in that ridiculous tank they are using as a batmobile, the potential victims behind or under wall he knocked or blew down with those non-lathelly used machine guns. And how is refusing to save someone from certain death not the same as killing them?

            • * non-lethally. We really need an edit button on here.

            • Hahaha, yeah. I have a vision of Bruce Wayne humbly accepting the fate he dealt Ras al Ghul, “meanwhile”…(old timey Batman cut) funerals for 10 Gotham City Police Officers…

    • “Machine guns function as a deterrent”…

      • And nuclear missiles are a nuclear deterrent…

        Doesn’t mean that its not a weapon made for killing.

        • I know, I know…
          Geez…just quoting what it says on the concept art.

    • @ Brandon

      Lol. Well in TDK, while Batman was on the Batpod it looked like he was shooting up cars but we’ll never know if people managed to get outta their cars in time before their cars exploded.

      • @WallyWest

        He was shootin empty cars in a parking lot. Batman’s property damage goes with the continuing theme of ends justifying the means

        • @ Ignur Rant

          It didn’t look like a parking lot of empty cars when two kids noticed the explosions when pretending they were blowing up cars & the Batpod knocking off some guy’s driver’s side mirror as Batman passed by. Looked to me cars were in a traffic jam of sorts in a tunnel.

          • WallyWest
            lol well rest assured it was a side street parking lot. He rode between traffic knocking off car mirrors and then turned down a side street parking lot and blew up the cars in his path.

            • What about when he drove over a cop car with two cops in it?
              They could easily have been killed…

              • lol i COULD of killed a girl last night if i undercooked the chicken but i didnt. Batman COULD of killed those cops but he didnt. Alot of things COULD of happened but thats not what actually happened.

                • No offense, but that’s a pretty lame excuse.
                  You probably could have killed that girl, but that would have been an accident (if you were juggling knives right in front of her face, then that’s a different story ;))
                  Batman could have driven around the car but he decided to drive over it knowing full well that there were two innocent cops inside trying to do their job – so no, IMO under cooking chicken isn’t the same as driving over, and blowing up cars lol.

                  He was reckless (no point trying to deny that. The other movie versions of Batman were as well), but if he didn’t blow $*!* up, then we wouldn’t have had all those cool action shots.
                  It is just a movie, not real life…

                  • @ Ignur Rant

                    Id have to agree with The Avenger here. The Tumbler could of out-speeded the cop cars or out-manuevered them. Batman didn’t have to drive over them or drop little mines that flipped the cars over. You’d think that Bruce might think he could injure Gordon in one those cars if he kept pulling that kind of stunt. And blowing up cars will not help the city like ya very much,lol.

                    Even in Burton’s films Batman’s Batmobile had grapple cable to help it make a sharp turn at the speed it was goin while being chased by Joker’s men. In Batman Returns, the Penguin had control over the Batmobile so of-course cars got flipped over but Batman was ripping the inside of his car to try find the device controlling it & brought back under his control at the right second obviously. He too was alittle reckless as the cops chased him into narrow space between two buildings as he left the Batmobiles side benders behind & escaped while the cops crashed into the narrow space trying to follow him.

                    Like Avenger said of-course we wouldn’t have those good action shots.

                  • We do actually have three pretty good indicators that Batman did NOT kill anyone in the respective chase scenes in BB and TDK:

                    1. In both films, the police are an obvious presence, so it would have been perfectly viable to show a momentary scene of them looking down at someone’s arm, leg, etc. (or pooling blood…whatever). Nolan likes to concentrate on details, so he would not have missed the opportunity to show what Batman did in his singular pursuit of justice. All that WAS shown was the physical/material damage done; in fact, the officers were shown afterward, as were the kids watching from their parked car. As for the trucks (garbage and freight) used by the joker, remember that Joker and one of his cronies were the shooters of the drivers.

                    The driver of the garbage truck when the Tumbler stopped it in its tracks would have been the one casualty of Batman, but AGAIN, it seems odd that no hint of such (other than physics, itself, of course!) was provided. He WAS, likely, AT LEAST in a great deal of pain and defintely out of the fight.

                    2. The scene back home after the dramatic first Tumbler chase when Alfred is angrily confronting Bruce about his wrecklessness (BTW showing that Nolan, et al, DID indeed consider the potential consequences of such a chase) has the chase, itself, on the television news. They are talking about the chaos, but at no point in the (granted, very brief) scene does the announcer say anything about people missing or lives lost. Again, given Nolan’s attentiveness to details, I have to believe SOMETHING would have been clearly mentioned.

                    3. Finally, there is Gordon’s continuing support of Batman, throughout all of the chasing and even after the truck flip. Gordon cared about the law and about lives (even of scum, at least for the sake of keeping witnesses safe); he remained Batman’s truest supporter (outside of Bruce’s inner circle, of course) to the end. Gordon would have said SOMETHING about a death Batman had caused at some point, but he did not…the presumption is there weren’t any.

                    Are any of these definitive, destroy-all-doubts, incontrovertible proofs that Batman did not kill anyone throughout the two films? Of course, not…Nothing short of showing every single episode and impulse in Bruce’s life could provide that.

                    We have some fairly good indicators, however…

                    • Archeon: Well Said

                      Wally West/Avenger: If he drove past the car, it would of turned around and followed him. If you didnt know, Batman was trying to lose his pursuers. And like Archeon said, Gordon would not be such a supporter of Gordon had he crossed that line. Dent being the exception due to circumstances.

                      The property damage and police attacks was neccesarry to escape the police in a real life situation. With helicopters and police cars with radios, it is extremely hard (nigh impossible) to escspe a police chase. It requires a lot of creativity, especially with the urgency of Racheal situation.

                      More importantly, The property damage goes back to the continuing theme of Batman, “the ends justify the means” and “doing what needs to be done”. It completes moral grey area, that Batman works in. He inst a traditional hero.

                    • @ Archaeon

                      Point i was makin regarding the films was it had nothin to if people died or not. Point i was getting at was Batman being reckless when really he didn’t need to be. As you said in Batman Begins, alfred aknowledged Bruce about that. Take Batman’s ecounter with Scarecrow & that gang in TDK, Again did Batman really need to have Tumbler set to INTIMADATE those guys & destroy little bit of that parking garage with a missle or something?

                      Even in Batman Returns Bruce notices a paper that says BATMAN BLOWS IT, replying Batman probly saved the city thousands of dollars in property damage alone.

                    • Okay… so if you and me are standing on a three story building and I push you off (you don’t die though, just break a few bones), or let’s say, I stab you with a knife and you live, will everything be cool between the two of us?
                      Of course not! I freakin threw you off a building/ stabbed you with a knife! ;) It doesn’t really matter IF you lived or not, the point is, I (full knowingly) did something that very well could have killed you.

                      That cop-car that Batman drove over was standing still – Batman could easily have driven around it and gotten away before those cops got on his tracks (it takes time to start up a car, get out of a parking space and engage in pursuit).

                      Again, this is the movies, so I accept these small issues and it certainly doesn’t detract from my 4 star (BB) and 4.5 star (TDK) score of the two films, but it’s crazy to think that Batman just “got lucky” and that nobody got killed because of his reckless actions.

                    • Wally and Avenger…

                      As I stated, my reasoning simply had to do with an attempt to give some support to the argument that Batman did not kill anyone in BB and TDK. I pointed out that my explanation was not the end-all-be-all.

                      As for outrunning or outmaneuvering the police cars, Batman had to go as fast as possible in traffic (I liked the fact that, unlike so many films, the streets were not conveniently empty of cars) on the shortest route (the highway/expressway…once he had used the parking deck/roof path to get there). He did what he thought was necessary (in desperation, mind you) to get past (over/between/through) the pursuers and the blockades they kept trying to set up. It seemed to work very fluidly for the situation Nolan, et al,had established IMO. Again, I point to the fact that Alfred later called him on it. Bruce’s only defense was that Rachel was in extreme danger. We know, as outsiders, this is a pisspoor reason to drive so relatively recklessly, but Bruce was indeed desperate and was unapologetic (at least, at the time).

                      As for the stabbing/long drop…huh? I understand WHAT you are saying…just not WHY in this particular discussion. JOKER stabbed Batman, but Batman did not kill Joker…even when he had the chance. The crime boss he dropped from the fire escape landing was specifically informed he was not being dropped to his death.

                      I know the two films were not perfect (NO film is, despite what various fans will eternally claim), but I found the reasons for the various happenings to be well thought-out and loved the films that much more for this reason.

                    • @Archaeon: hahaha no, the stab/throw-off-of-building thing was just a straightforward, out of the blue example – nothing to do with the movies.

                      I guess a better example would be if I were a cop and I was chasing an extremely dangerous criminal down a street, I wouldn’t shoot my gun into the air or at the criminal because it would be reckless and dangerous for the civilians on the street.

                    • Archaeon: Well said, again.

                      Avenger: Batman wasnt getting “lucky” he trained for years in martial arts. Did you watch Bayman Begins? lol. he knew what he was doing to incapacitate you. As a cop under orders to arrest him, you might not like the Batman.

                      But that doesnt matter, Batman isnt your friend. or hero. He is a vigilante that breaks the law for the greater good. He is gonna do alot of questionable things, and at times be on the opposite side of the police.

                      WallyWest: Again, Batman is doing what he think is necessary to get the job done. He isnt a traditional hero. At the end of the day, the good Batman does outweighs the destruction comitted.

                    • The Avenger…

                      Oh, okay…Fair enough.

                      Your cop/criminal example strikes me as a different situation altogether and not really relateable to THIS particular discussion. Batman was not simply being reckless; he was focused on a very specific goal. Even then, he managed to avoid EVEN more dangerous situations (such as shooting his way through the police cars or landing on a passenger car when he jumped the Tumbler from the roof to the road. Granted, that’s not much of a conceit, but it just shows that things could have been EVEN worse.

                      Hopefully, my above extended explanation gave you my perception of how Batman thinks (or at least reacts) in such situations…

                      Of course, I have never put on a Batsuit and driven a fast car ridiculously around rooftops or through blockades. I can’t really say HOW I would react in reality. ;)

                      It IS fun to speculate…

                    • @Ignur:
                      Sadly, I’ve never seen “Bayman Begins”, I have however, seen Batman Begins… 8 times ;)

                      Honestly, I don’t see how training in martial arts has anything to do with driving a car really recklessly. He couldn’t possibly be able to foresee which vehicles have people in them, how the explosions will react to the environment (ex. exploding a car and that explosion resulting in the car next to that one catching fire) or how the car will implode when he drives over it (it would take multiple simulations to determine how that specific car’s “crumple zone” would react to that specific weight going over it.)
                      Batman wasn’t doing what he did because of the “greater good”, he was doing it because Rachael was in danger (he admitted it himself when Alfred confronted him). The fact is, he drove over- and exploded cars that could have killed people because his girlfriend was gonna die.
                      So sorry, but I for one can’t believe that “he knew what he was doing” – I believe that he was in a desperate situation and did what he thought he had to do to save the person he loved – no matter what the consequences.

                      I’ll admit, I’m over-thinking the whole too much (something which really annoys me when others do it – i.e. I feel your pain ;)), so for that reason, I’ll repeat what I’ve said like three times already: it’s just a movie, not real life (no one REALLY died) and because of that, I don’t care about these small, unrealistic issues… just wanted to point out a small flaw, as one does on a movie discussion site…

  6. Soooo, it’s more like a Batcopter than a Batwing? – I guess that’s okay although I still have no idea how it actually flies…
    The weapons look awesome though (Iron Man wouldn’t stand a chance against that EMP cannon ;))

    • I think Iron Man would, after all, Iron Man made his armor immune to Magneto’s powers. So why not EMP?

      • But I’m talking about the movie characters.
        Movie Iron Man doesn’t have anti EMP tech… YET ;)

        • As far as you know. :-D

          • Hmm….. ;)

        • For good or for bad though…..all it takes is just once sentence in the script…….”Stark preemptively built his armor to withstand an EM attack”.

      • His Armor isn’t totally immune, rather he reverse the polarity the EM whenever Magneto does his powers.

    • Why do you say “it’s more like a batcopter?” There aren’t rotors.

      It appears to fly based on regular VTOL tech, given that the turbines are in their own pods (possibly rotatable?) and the maneuvers shown in the trailers. It will be fascinating to see it in further action.

      • To be completely honest, I don’t know what “regular VTOL tech” is ;)
        I just think it looks more like a Batcopter (especially the cockpit) than a Batwing.

        • I get what you mean now, you’re just talking about the surface appearance, I’m talking about the functionality… Not having a rotor means it’s nothing like a helicopter to me.

          As for VTOL, I have to be blunt about this. If you don’t know something, go research it. You’re on the Internet.

          • Ken…

            I agree that people should research topics they don’t know or do not understand, but in this case, it’s a simple enough matter to just go ahead and tell him.

            The Avengers…

            VTOL just means “vertical takeoff and landing”. A VTOL craft does not need a runway which makes such a vehicle much more adaptable in combat conditions than a regular aircraft. A helicopter, in fact, does have, by definition, VTOL capabilities, BUT it also has very overt vulnerabilities: its rotor blades (main and tail).

            The Bat seems to have avoided that weakness by having those engine pods…I DO wonder, however, if I have accurately observed that it DOES seem to have a pair of smaller (perhaps merely support?) rotors on its undercarriage near the rear.

            • Ugh…I REALLY hate predictive text. That should be “The Avenger” (singular).

              Hope the above helped…

              BTW, The British Hawker Barrier is a VTOL fighter jet. There a similar kind of aircraft called “short takeoff and landing” which DOES need a runway but only a small one.

              • Oh, and I forgot to indicate that I happen to like both the look and presumed functionality of The Bat.

                :)

                • Cripes! The above should be Harrier, nor Barrier…Sheesh.

            • Oh, well I know about vertical take off/landing vehicles (saw a documentary with James May on the future of cars – it had a fighter jet that could take off vertically, fly like a normal plane, but also remain stationary in the air, fly BACKWARDS and then land vertically again – freakin awesome), but I didn’t quite “match” the acronym that ‘Ken’ used (“VTOL”) to the tech… looking back now, I feel kinda stupid… it was pretty obvious lol.

              “however, if I have accurately observed that it DOES seem to have a pair of smaller (perhaps merely support?) rotors on its undercarriage near the rear.” – I’ve noticed that as well, but I don’t think they are actually rotors – if you look closely, the one (possible) “rotor” doesn’t match the angle of the other one – then again, it is kinda blurry, so then again…

              • Let me rephrase so that it doesn’t sound stupid:
                “BUT, it is kinda blurry, so then again…”

                I should go sleep now ;)

              • Those two small rotors on the underside could just be stabilizers and have nothing to do with the actual lift capabilities of the craft…hence the oppositional rotations.

                ???

              • Just to clarify…….what a Harrier jet does. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uViBVqVT43s&feature=related

                I’m pretty sure since this is a proven tech that it is what the bat vehicle is based off of.

                And having possible extra rotors on the bottom could allow for hovering capability without having to over tax the turbine engines. It also takes forever for a Harrier to go from a vertical take off to forward movement, making you a sitting duck. So having the capability to maintain vertical position and instantly be able to move forward would eliminate that weakness (once it’s airborne of course)

                The other possibility is they are for added maneuverability and stability.

      • There ARE rotors! ^-^

    • It has two propellers on the underside. You can see it better on the toy. That kinda ruins the sci-fi future tech thing for me. I was hoping it would have thrusters like a Harrier Jump-Jet.

      • motoko…

        See my above response about the possible purpose for the rotors; maybe your SF hopes don’t have to be dashed. I’ve seen the toy, and it’s not particularly detailed, so the “real” one might still have thrusters of some sort located where the toy does not reveal them at first glance…

        • Lets hope so. But you can also see the rotors in the trailer after the “It’s not a car!” bit. When it does that barrel-roll close to the camera.

          I think maybe Nolan feels more comfortable with tech that isn’t OTT. But Harrier style thrusters have been around for 30 odd years, so they could easily fit in the Nolan universe.

          Then again, maybe it’s Nolan being realistic wanting “The Bat” to be able to fly over people’s heads without melting their faces off! ^-^

          • Those are not propellers or rotors. They are obviously vertically mounted turbines, pointed downward.

            • ~Obviously~ ;)

      • If they toy has propellers, it’s like to make the toy more interesting for the kids, instead of just having holes with little spinners inside. Having external propellers would be more fun for the kidlets.

        • Well they aren’t housed, so I’d call them rotors. But I’m not gonna argue on flying terms because I don’t know anything about aircraft. Maybe I’ll ask my dad and brother, they used to work for Rolls Royce and British Aerospace, so they’d know specifics.

          Besides, it is a fantasy film, albeit a little more serious than most.

          • I see them now. I watched the trailer in slow-mo to better see the underside, they are rotors in the conventional sense and not VTOL thrusters.

            This whole rotor discussion started because someone said “it looks like a helicopter to me,” to which I responded that a large overhead rotor is what would make it like a copter in my view…he was just talking about the shape of the cockpit when compared to an Apache attack chopper.

            • I completely understand. It’s quite a strange craft to get you head around. Very unusual. You can see them better on the toy…..

              http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yik2lIs0WIo

              They seem a little vulnerable being underneath, but no more so than a helicopter. In fact less so because of their small size. But I do think this was one of the better routes to take with Batman’s aircraft. A fixed wing jet just wouldn’t be able to patrol the streets like this.

              I’m looking forward to seeing it in action. I also think it’s great that they’ve taken a largely practical approach to “The Bat” as opposed to being mostly CGI.

  7. Still waiting a Darkwing Duck Movie

    • LOL.

      Disney better get dangerous.

    • Yyeeeessss!!!!!

    • With the exception of the batpod(and even that’s a little bulky) I can’t stand the look of these vehicles.

  8. Tesla claimed to invent the earthquake machine in 1898. So Bane’s version of a ‘electro mechanical oscillator’ might not be as far away from Nolan’s realistic intentions as we might think… if it is indeed an earthquake machine that is.

    • Tesla WAS absolutely brilliant…

      • He got robbed.

        • Literally…at least in terms of his dealings with Edison…

          • Which robbed us all… imagine the possibilities?

            • Sadly, yes.

    • According to myth, Tesla tested the machine and turned it off when it appeared to actually work. He then destroyed it fearing its power.

  9. This Isnt A Car

    • Do you need a throat lozenge? ;-)

    • Te gusta losing numbnuts?

  10. The Bat is much better than a bat symbol shaped jet. The helicopter/harrier inspired design is gonna have the maneuverability needed for flying between buildings. And its durable enough to withstand a shot from a Tim Burton revolver hahaha

    • “The Bat is much better than a bat symbol shaped jet.”
      Sometimes it astounds me how much the two of us disagree on things ;)

      • hahahaha it depends on the context. A Bat symbol shaped jet would look silly in the Nolanverse — well really it looks silly in any adaptation lol — but it look better comic book world.

        • Well, I agree about that. A REAL Batwing would have looked completely out of place in the Nolanvere.
          However, I do think it could look good in live-action form… I’m hoping the reboot will have more true to source-material stuff like the Batwing and Batmobile from the comics for a change.

          • Woops… looks like I forgot to change my name back to normal.

          • I second that!

    • Ignur Rant

      Doubtful, Im sure that same revolver can bring down The Bat just as easy by aiming at it’s roters or whatever they’re called. Doesn’t matter what you use, take them out The Bat is goin down.

  11. It does match the style of the Nolan-verse, but it still kinda reminds me of a flying ED-209!

    • @ motoko

      Looks like a early model of one of those flying machines in Avatar.

  12. …it surprises me I’m the first one saying CANT WAIT FOR THIS here :)

  13. I LOVE the real world feel of these films. Fits in perfectly with the utilitarian look of his suit and the tumbler. But fear not comicbook readers. Nolan is out of the way now. So the more fanciful bat shaped vehicles will be back soon. Just pray they don’t convince Nolan to do a 4th. Or have anything to do with the DCMU in any way whatsoever. Besides, he’s too good to be doing comicbook films for the rest of his life, all due respect to comicbook films.

  14. A earthquake machine? how is that realistic? Should of asked to use Rumble from Transformers franchise since he enjoys shaking things up.

    • Wally West

      No more realistic than a microwave emitter that vaporizes water. Or a flower that induces fear. Or a man with half a face still talking. These movies arent stricty “realistic” they are just set in a oridnary and practical world with larger than life characters.

      • “Dude, you’ve only half a face! And you’re still talking!!”

        Lol reminds me of True Grit when he said something along the lines of “he’s been shot, bludgeoned, half his tongue cut off, and not only does he not cease to talk, but he’s managed to breach the banks of English”

        Some men don’t want money. Some men…just want to talk and talk and keep talkin…

        • hahahaga

          My favorite part about Damon’s character is that he based a lot of the mannerisms and “ticks” off of Mathew Mcconaughey lol

  15. I dont like the new Batwing, looks stupid, Id perfer a fighter jet similar to Val Killmers Movie. and Earthquake Machine Someday in the real world? Guys Those Machines already exist today in the real world people just dont know about it because its top secret The Machine is called The Haarp Project and the Machine is located in Alaska where no one can have access to and its used for population control, they need to get there facts in the correct order

    • BAHAHAHA

      The HAARP Project studies radio frequencies in the ionosphere, just because you don’t understand something doesn’t mean you should make up stuff about it. Are you one of those people that reads books by that fukkslap Begich?

  16. Why do you think weve been getting alot of Earthquakes now and days around the world? they want to use it for population control they need to do there research on it because these earthquake machines in the real world is old news.

    • Considering earthquakes hardly kill enough for population control, I’m going to refute your argument. Also going to have to take away your Internets for a little bit…for shame…

  17. forfend?? I learned a new word today! Might be my favorite.

    And re: “…unless he’s drastically changed his code in the many years since The Dark Knight.”

    That’s quite possible. It has been 8 years and he’s all old and weary…”I’m getting too old for this s***” he might say, and gun them all down.

    Oh wait – could this be the precedent to a Lethal Weapon crossover?? Is this a prequel?? Omg that would be AWESOME.

    Yes, I joke.

  18. Does anyone else agree with me about the new batwing? it just doesnt look awesome not even on the trailer ;(

    • I think the Bat looks fantastic in the pics above AND in the trailer. I am very much looking forward to it in action in the film.

    • I think it looks fantastic, like a real flying tank would look if we had the ability to build them. It looks menacing and capable.

      It seems kinda like you’re taking “How much does it look like a Batman symbol” and using that as the only measurement of whether it looks right or not.

      We all have a right to our opinions, you can think what you want, but I don’t view that as the only measurement at all. It seems to me that if you’re only thinking “does it look like the Batwing from TIm Burton’s movie?” then you’re missing out on all the other aspects you should be considering, and you’re cheating yourself of one of the greatest things about Nolan’s vision of Batman: how would this fit into a real world scenario? Bruce Wayne glueing some scalloped wings onto a vehicle that doesn’t need them doesn’t really fit into that.

    • @ Sam Worthington

      It’s one thing i agree with you one. I was hoping Batman would have one vehicle,etc that resembled a bat in some way or another despite Nolan’s film being taken realistic. I don’t think it would hurt especially if it was the final film because if a man dresses up like a bat, why not?

  19. @ Archeon & Ignur Rant

    Again as i id agree with Avenger with valid points he’s made as i have, im willing to say they’re just movies aswell say no-one got killed because we didn’t see it right? But if you can’t admit how reckless Batman was or there was the possibility people could of got severely injured or killed because of his recklessness then id say the two of you are in denial. Even in Batman Begins Batman went against his code by leaving Ras on the train to die, do you disagree on that too?

    • Sooooooo…you didn’t actually READ my responses above?

      I specifically said he WAS being reckless, because he was desperately focused on saving Rachel. I pointed out that Alfred called him on it. I simply made the other point that because of the reasons I provided, we have a fair amount of support that Batman killed no one (and I EVEN stated that, of course, we cannot be absolutely certain of such, given the action of the scenes, the lighting, the camera angles, etc.). I said NOTHING about the POTENTIAL of him having killed someone with his recklessness, just that doesn’t seem to have occurred.

      As for the final encounter with Ras on the train, I do so love when people return to that as an example of Batman-as-murderer. It, simply, was not. Besides the fact that Bruce’s philosophy was still evolving at that time, you must also consider that such an extreme example of choosing to do nothing, if taken as an indicator of Batman being a killer, MUST reflect how ALL OF US in the civilized (or, at least, the Western) world are bad people as well. He did NOT kill Ras; he DID make a choice to do two things: passively let Ras confront his fate and TEACH Ras his (Ras’s) own lesson about consequences to actions.

      If you consider this denial, I really cannot help you, unfortunately.

      I will not speak for Ignur, because he is more than capable of defending himself.

      • Sorry…the above (“Sooooooo…you didn’t…”) was to WallyWest.

        I forgot we are now further down the page and away from the specific back-and-forth.

      • @ Archaeon

        First off, for some reason i couldn’t respond to you or Ignur Rant directly for some reason & i wasn’t gonna scroll up & down to cover every sentance from the bottom page. I did read it.

        Thing is they’re still movies but i can’t help but think in the back of my head head in reality because of Batman’s recklessness the cops,people would be injured bad or killed. That’s the point i been makin. Again ive said since they’re movies nothing like that would be seen or been confirmed. I understand why he was reckless as he was in Batman Begins getting help for Rachel Dawes, the (Dasmel in distress) take in any film besides CBMs.

        As for Batman & Ras’s final encounter on the train, i did not say Batman murdered him. There’s a differance between murdering someone & letting them die. Batman wouldn’t let neither happen. Batman would still take Ras off the train.

        • Wally…

          Fair enough.

          I agree that they are just movies and should, thus, be given some leeway in consideration of the characters’ actions, but I was simply providing some support for the opinion I and others have expressed…just as you were giving support for yours.

          As for Batman pulling Ras off the train, I really CAN easily and confidently believe that AT THAT POINT in his career (in THAT particular situation, in regard to THAT particular opponent), Batman really COULD leave him to his fate without any later nightmares about breaking his code.

          Plus, I think it was a great, though minor/mild, honoring of the colder figure Batman originally was back in 1939/1940.

          I had NO problem with his “I won’t kill you, but I don’t have to save you” action on the about-to-crash train.

          That’s all I was saying.

          • ^Well said

<-- Taboola Alt -->