Let's All Watch The Batman Trailer

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 NEXT
 

next week can we have Prometheus? im considering hibernating until this is out.

All I want to know is if Bane is going to be using his trademarked venom.

Woodsey:
"Gee, it sure would be ironic if turned out that peacetime makes Gotham lower its guard and fall prey to evil, thus teaching everyone the lesson that peace can only be won by leaders who are constantly ready/eager for war, huh? Nolanverse Batman: your source for uncomfortably positive imaginings of the Cheney doctrine since 2008!"

... huh? Where the hell did that come from? TDK wasn't right-wing, and I highly doubt Christopher Nolan or his brother are anything close to Republicans.

Welcome to the world of over-analysis. A certain segment of critics chose to interpret Batman's use of the cell phones of Gotham City to pinpoint the Joker as some kind of endorsement of the Bush/Cheney/TIA "we spy on you because we care" policies.

It's an incredibly facile bit of analysis, not least because the plot makes a point of the technology being destroyed after its maiden use because it's simply too powerful and dangerous to allow anyone to control it. But far be it from me to stand between a critic and a shitty metaphor.

Tarkand:
I'll pitch in the 'Give it a rest with the sarcasm' crowd here Bob.

For one thing, it makes you come off as a bit of an hypocrite since you were outraged (and even made an entire escape to the movie episode on it) that Dark Knight didn't get an Oscar nomination. Than a bunch of zany, campy super hero movie come out and suddenly you're basically begging Nolan to re-introduce the Bat Dance...

There is nothing wrong about having 1 dark and gritty super hero franchise. It happens to fit Batman very well. It happens to be very successful. And trying to 'balance' things out by being overly cynical about it really doesn't make you come off well.

Amen to that. This went from "critical" to "snarky" all the way across the meter to "bitchy" in nothing flat, to the detriment of anything resembling either analysis or humor.

I don't think Nolan is some kind of director-god-come-down-from-on-high. It's not impossible that his Batman trilogy will end on a sour note. But on this particular subject, Moviebob has consistently found the most trivial, inane, and ridiculous points on which to direct his ire, to the point where whatever (debatable) flaws the series may actually have, I can only sing hallelujahs that at least the series is in the hands of someone like Nolan rather than a "the lack of eye-blistering four-color-comic visuals is spitting in the faces of the real comic lovers" devotee like Bob.

(Yes, that's an over-simplification of Bob's point-of-view; so is "Nolan can do no wrong" as a dismissal of anyone who disagrees. And having seriously suggested that Nolan should add Robin to the franchise, I'm just about ready to discard MB's take on Batman out of hand.)

JoesshittyOs:
You mentioned Micheal Bay a multiple amount of times, and he's known for either his overuse of special effects or terrible camera work. His stories sure aren't great, but that's not exactly the first thing anyone would jump too.

No offense to you, mate, but I think that's not even remotely true. Michael Bay is mostly panned for his terrible, nonsensical stories, and that's absolutely the first thing most people would jump to with a Michael Bay comparison. That is the most common complaint about the Transformers movies. (He's also known for gratuitous shots of Hollywood starlets, but that's neither here nor there.)

JoesshittyOs:
Plus my main complaint was with you talking about how the "Occupy" and all the imagery of protesting was to bold or overplayed, to which I'm still trying to fathom is even a valid complaint. It's just such a... (I apologize, but there's no other word for it) stupid thing to whine about.

Don't worry, I'm not going to report you to the mods, but there are certainly more intelligent ways to discuss something with someone who doesn't share your opinion than calling them "stupid" because you don't understand, and if you keep it up I will.

JoesshittyOs:
I just don't get it, and I need you to explain how it's overplayed, and why that is even a bad thing. I feel that you saw Bob jokingly remark about the "1%" imagery, and you somehow gathered that it was a bad thing.

No, I posted about this on my FB days before Bob's analysis came out. The "Occupy" imagery is pretty obvious. But it makes zero sense for Bane to be able to use the movement and its sentiments to "take over" Gotham, because the movement isn't about "taking over" anything - it's about sitting in the street to get media attention. None of those people are armed, and none of them are violent. For Bane to use a non-violent awareness-raising sit-in to beat up cops and wealthy folks (who to this day have been the ones pepper-spraying and beating the protestors, not the other way around) is just mind-bogglingly ludicrous. It's like Lex Luthor riling up Gandhi to go put the beat down on Superman.

It's like something Michael Bay would come up with. Combined with the over-the-top special effects, plus the overblown American jingoism (national anthem, rich versus poor, football stadium), and one can only wonder if, as in Bay films, the camera is at some point going to pan around gently waving American flag in slow motion. It's ridiculous. And the comparison is entirely apt.

JoesshittyOs:
I really still don't understand where Micheal Bay somehow manages to relate to this,

Well, now you know.

It's baffling, coming from Nolan. I loved Inception; it wasn't like this at all. Nor was Batman Begins. TDK had a bit of it, but nothing to this degree. I sincerely hope it's not as awful as it looks.

Rotting Corpse:
Bob, we all wish it was ace reporter Clark Kent.

Yes, yes we do.

On track, I want to be with you and call nuts to that if the League of Shadows is MIA or if they don't actually Knightfall the Knight like we all really want them to...

But the last two batman movies were so good that if this film turns out to be the worst of the three, it's still likely going to be a smash out of the park.

I don't "trust Nolan" because that's inane, but I am mildly proficient at pattern recognition. A lot of hero movies fumble the third because they try to cram too many villains and storylines in (see Spiderman three, or better yet don't) and Nolan doesn't appear to be doing that. This baby of his looks focused, even if Bane and Catwoman have shitty costume design.

What I'm saying is, though I have very high standards, I'm giving Rises a pass until it gives me reason not to, rather than the other way around. The series has earned it thus far.

Ariseishirou:

No, I posted about this on my FB days before Bob's analysis came out. The "Occupy" imagery is pretty obvious. But it makes zero sense for Bane to be able to use the movement and its sentiments to "take over" Gotham, because the movement isn't about "taking over" anything - it's about sitting in the street to get media attention. None of those people are armed, and none of them are violent. For Bane to use a non-violent awareness-raising sit-in to beat up cops and wealthy folks (who to this day have been the ones pepper-spraying and beating the protestors, not the other way around) is just mind-bogglingly ludicrous. It's like Lex Luthor riling up Gandhi to go put the beat down on Superman.

Okay then, it's not that similar to the Occupy movement. It's about rich versus poor, how in this case neither are right. How is that ridiculous? Like really, "Phht, Violent Protests. How unrealistic!" We're seeing stuff like this all around the world. Lebanon just went through something like this, Egypt overthrew their government, yet it somehow is a foreign and ludacris subject for a superhero movie?

Happened with the French Revolution, and that ended with people getting their heads chopped off. I just... don't understand how that somehow is "unacceptable" storytelling. It's not bigger of a jump than a clown with make up terrorizing a city while a guy dressed as a bat saves them, or a man who dresses like a scarecrow and dumps fear juice into the sewage system to get everyone in a city to tear it apart.

It's like something Michael Bay would come up with. Combined with the over-the-top special effects, plus the overblown American jingoism (national anthem, rich versus poor, football stadium), and one can only wonder if, as in Bay films, the camera is at some point going to pan around gently waving American flag in slow motion. It's ridiculous. And the comparison is entirely apt.

How is that ridiculous? You could just as easily be upset that the movie is set in the United States. I don't get where a child singing the National anthem somehow cries "Look at how American this is!", and when that somehow became insulting and caustic.

You know Gotham is a fictional city in the US right? This is what I'm talking about. I'm legitimately having a hard time finding out why this falls under stupid storytelling. If Bane was doing it just to shit on America, and he was a Nazi or Russian or something like that, I might be able to see where you were coming from. Barely.

But all it's shown is a football stadium getting blown up. Would you have preferred a Soccer stadium? Would that have been less Patriotic enough to count as reasonable? Should the kid have been singing a U2 song instead?

Also, I don't think "apt" is the word you meant to use. That's basically saying that you think it's appropriate.

JoesshittyOs:
It's about rich versus poor, how in this case neither are right. How is that ridiculous? Like really, "Phht, Violent Protests. How unrealistic!" We're seeing stuff like this all around the world. Lebanon just went through something like this, Egypt overthrew their government, yet it somehow is a foreign and ludacris subject for a superhero movie?

It's true, we do, so why use a protest that is entirely non-violent, unless one is doing to misconstrue the movement for political reasons, or just daftly misunderstanding it? This isn't the French revolution. It's Occupy. It really is like using Gandhi to punch out Lex Luther, when you could use less ridiculous freedom fighters who actually fought.

JoesshittyOs:
How is that ridiculous? You could just as easily be upset that the movie is set in the United States. I don't get where a child singing the National anthem somehow cries "Look at how American this is!", and when that somehow became insulting and caustic.

It's not "insulting", it's just heavy-handed, over-the-top, and melodramatic. Which is bad storytelling. There are subtler, more nuanced references to patriotism one could make.

JoesshittyOs:
Also, I don't think "apt" is the word you meant to use. That's basically saying that you think it's appropriate.

Yes, the comparison of this trailer to Michael Bay films is apt. I do think the comparison to Michael Bay is appropriate. You are correct, in that I was using apt to mean appropriate. Because I think the comparison of this trailer to Michael Bay films, which is both the topic of that paragraph and the thesis of my argument for this entire discussion, is both apt and appropriate. Are you even reading what I write?

Bob, when you go full-snark, you're just as bad as the fanboys you tend to either ridicule, apologize for, or set yourself apart from. This 'review' wasn't.

As for the actual movie trailer, I was sad at the lack of actual BATMAN. And the Bane voice thing, but at this point I'll just have to wait for the actual movie to judge.

I get shivers every time I hear Bane say "when Gotham is ashes, you have my permission to die".

I want to see this movie so badly in all of it's IMAX glory. What can I say, I love Batman. And I'm not just saying that because it's mandatory to love Batman on the internet. I grew up surrounded by everything Batman related. I was groomed to be the ultimate fanboy.

I hope the film will be as good as first class, and that catwoman is not stupid like in the catwoman movie. That is all I hope for, Nolan has never disappointed me before so I doubt he will now.

Look at me talking as if I know Nolan personally, hehe :)

Ugh, not ANOTHER grim Batman movie. Batman Begins was "meh" and The Dark Knight was awful. I'm with Bob. Let's get back to the campy silliness of superhero movies (Iron Man!) or at least just go for mixing seriousness with silliness (Thor).

I'm noticing a pattern here. Modern DC comic book movies have been pretty awful lately. Superman Returns, The Dark Knight, Green Lantern, ect. While Marvel has been having much more success.

I'm more excited for The Hobbit than this. I never liked Batman.

Woodsey:
The whole Lazarus Pit thing is not going to happen. Begins was the most fantastical of this series, and that was still a million miles from magic swimming pools.

As for Bane's voice, I understood it the first time; could be a little de-muffled I guess, but all the hullaballo over it seems extreme.

Also:

"Gee, it sure would be ironic if turned out that peacetime makes Gotham lower its guard and fall prey to evil, thus teaching everyone the lesson that peace can only be won by leaders who are constantly ready/eager for war, huh? Nolanverse Batman: your source for uncomfortably positive imaginings of the Cheney doctrine since 2008!"

... huh? Where the hell did that come from? TDK wasn't right-wing, and I highly doubt Christopher Nolan or his brother are anything close to Republicans.

I'd like to agree with you, but there does seem to be a rather interesting undercurrent going on here.

Batman is considered the best thing for Gotham, "the hero that Gotham deserves". Much is made of him being an almost messianic figure in that he is willing to go further than anyone else in this universe to protect the innocent while taking the kind of damage to his body, his psyche and his private life that would frighten an S.A.S. man. If it weren't for the fact that Bruce was also a keen philanthropist like his parents before him, and the fact that Batman fights for the purpose of protecting the weak and the fearful, then you could make a convincing case for him being some kind of Ubermensch figure within this series.

As for the neo-con bent, that's a little harder to dismiss. Batman is considered the best thing for Gotham because he's willing to break the law and run around punching poverty-striken thugs in the face using the kind of logic, tactics and judgements that no reasonable court in the world would consider reasonable or humane. A few characters criticise Batman heavily and no effort is ever made to make them out to be in the wrong. At one point, heroic sidekick Lucius Fox calls him out on it when he goes too far and decides to monitor everyone in the city to find the Joker.

Batman, however, seems to think everything he does is justifiable so long as there's a terrorist on the loose. Apparently civil rights don't matter when there's a threat running around the city. There also seems to be a rather bizarre emphasis on the rich and powerful being the ones who should benefit society, but then there has never been even a throwaway line suggesting that he follows the "the gummint shouldn't help dem poor people, da rich should be free to do it" So this one can probably be dismissed.

And when it comes time to prosecute him for what he's done he glady accepts, along with charges for someone else's murder, because he's just such an awesome guy. But then, he really does this to keep the blame away from Harvey Dent.... a lawful hero who is more in line with left-wing reasoning, and who is considered by damn near everyone to be the real hero that Gotham needs.

So yeah, the films probably don't have a right-wing bent to them, but you can't deny the presence of conflicting ideologies. It was probably done to add flavour to them and to flesh out the whole "realism" aspect. After all, in a realistic world why wouldn't people discuss the moral and ethical implications of a man like Batman and the things he does?

As for TDKR, so far we've seen a member of the 99% call out Bruce Wayne while the rest are depicted as violent thugs who want to tear the 1% to pieces with their bare hands and appear to have a bit of help from a furiously violent madman who can rip out spines with his bare hands. The only one who can stop all this is *GASP* a member of the 1%!

I kid, I kid. Imma wait until the film is actually out before I start judging its politics.

As a sidenote, bane's mask looks like Goatse. ONCE YOU SEE IT

Aiddon:
It's Nolan, he's Steven Spielberg crossed with Kubrick, we don't need any other reassurances. He is, in fact, that good.

And seriously, Bob, movies have to stand on their own terms, even if that means stripping away the comic book trappings. There's a reason Batman does gritty better than anyone.

Pretty much this, besides, when Batman started he FUCKING SHOT PEOPLE WITH TOMMY GUNS.

Captcha: "dedAIA observes,".

Great, now Ceiling Cat, Ceiling Charger (http://isismasshiro.deviantart.com/art/L4D2-Spider-178563840 look at the ceiling in the third panel), Seapony Lyra (http://johnjoseco.deviantart.com/art/Go-Away-Sea-Pony-Lyra-258177483) and some Lovecraftian ancient eldritch horror all apparently watch me wank.

every once in awhile i poke my head into "moviebob" 's articles, and every time i do, i just wanna punch him in the face. i'm not even a huge batman fanboy, i never saw Batman Begins, i enjoyed Dark Knight, mostly for the Joker though, and didn't watch the trailer until after reading his article.

then it hit me.

he's doing the snarky pessimist thing because it worked for yahtzee.

i said it before. and i'll say it again. man i love being a turtle... no, wait not that... this...

moviebob, you are a hack. you are not entertaining or informative or even slightly useful. if i wanted ZP's on movies or movie trailers, I'd watch yahtzee do it. actually... i DO want that, but he's a busy guy.

Fuck Batman. Let's talk about The Hobbit with Arthur Dent trailer!

That was one of the best songs in a trailer I heard, also Oakenshield does not look like dwarf at all!

Ariseishirou:

It's true, we do, so why use a protest that is entirely non-violent, unless one is doing to misconstrue the movement for political reasons, or just daftly misunderstanding it? This isn't the French revolution. It's Occupy. It really is like using Gandhi to punch out Lex Luther, when you could use less ridiculous freedom fighters who actually fought.

Or maybe it's a movie in which case they are over exaggerating it on purpose? Seriously, did you not think of that? Maybe it's a "what if" scenario of the movement becoming violent? Maybe it really does have absolutely nothing to do with the Occupy movement?

I really don't understand your mindset here. Have you ever seen a movie before?

It's not "insulting", it's just heavy-handed, over-the-top, and melodramatic. Which is bad storytelling. There are subtler, more nuanced references to patriotism one could make.

It's a movie... A superhero movie at that. Why be subtle about it? Not to mention that I've watched the trailer multiple times, the only thing that remotely resembles patriotism is the kid singing the National Anthem. And that's it. And that lasts about 15 seconds. There's a small dialogue with Catwoman about leaving little for the rest of them, and that might be able to be construed as an Occupy reference. But once again, who cares? That's a fucking good story.

I know I'm repeating myself here, but I don't get how you can possibly think that violent protesters (who we have no idea if they even are protesters) tearing a rich persons house apart comes off as heavy handed to recent events. The people of Gotham have always been part of the story of Batman. It fully hinted that people were gonna turn on him at the end of the last one.

Yes, the comparison of this trailer to Michael Bay films is apt. I do think the comparison to Michael Bay is appropriate. You are correct, in that I was using apt to mean appropriate. Because I think the comparison of this trailer to Michael Bay films, which is both the topic of that paragraph and the thesis of my argument for this entire discussion, is both apt and appropriate. Are you even reading what I write?

Yes I am, just didn't realize you were making a comparison. I've never seen apt used in that particular way. Probably would have just been easier to say something like "Identical" or "Similar"

And I wholeheartedly disagree with you. In fact, I've never in my life disagreed with someone more.

Honestly, if you really are that cynical about minor references of modern day events in American culture being put into movies, than you got a problem. Is there a theme of the Occupy movement there?

Sure there is.

Is it bold? No. Not at all. Not even for a teaser trailer.

ElectroJosh:
I agree that it is annoying that superhero films of today are trying to what the comics did in the '90s - make everything realistic and dark - but some of them work better with this sort of treatment. Simply put I prefer the darker more realistic Batman films just like I prefered the Batman comics that had that approach. Batman just suits that sort of thing much more than, say, Spiderman.

Wait what?

So Raimi's Spider-Man were dark and gritty?
Singer's X-men were dark and gritty?
X-men Fist Class was dark and gritty?
Thor was dark and gritty?
The Incredible Hulk was dark and gritty?
Captain America?

What about Green Lantern, Superman Returns and Green Hornet... they sucked, but dark and gritty, they weren't.

And less we forget, the two darkest and grittiest movie of all time - Iron Man & Iron Man 2!

>_>

I know I'm coming off as a dick here, but Bob often takes the approach of "When will the industry understand that dark and gritty comic book movie don't work!" - but Bob seems to have blinders on and only see the Nolan Batman movie... because really, it's the only comic book movie that is both successful and dark and gritty in recent years.

I suppose if you go far back enough, you can nab Sin City, 300 and Watchman in there... but those movies were all incredibly faithful to the source material (Sin City and Watchman especially - the comic is basically the storyboard for the movie), so you really can't blame them for that.

So in short... there's 1 dark and gritty franchise left - and because of the massive success of more 4 color super hero movies, odds are those are now a dying breed...

History repeat itself. The 4 original Batman movie add similar arc... 1st one: Dark & Gritty. 2nd one: Dark & gritty but with a dash of psychosis that wasn't really welcome. 3rd one: Wacky and Zany and it sucked. 4th One: Both the wackiest and crappiest movie of all time.

So while Bob is now ecstatic at all the zaniness going about, I wonder how he'll feel in a few years when Iron Man is wearing a fluorescent glow in the dark armor with power nipples...

I don't get the discussion that's going on here. I usually agree with Bob, but here I think his critique has fallen to snark. But, that being said... this is a trailer people, it is highly unlikely that it is in any way indicative of the quality of the film.
When have trailers ever been indicative of the quality of a film? For that matter when have trailers ever been good? (Not including classy, classic 60's Horror film trailers).

I'm going to make a stand here. I am not fed up of ' 'gritty' ' films (the '' are part of the quote) and added to that, I didn't find the Dark Knight particularly gritty.

Seriously what is up with people? Why do we have to choose one and stick to it? Why can't we watch films at any time and like them if they're good, regardless of the tone of the film? Why can't both films be produced at the same time?

Also, all you people fed up of the ''gritty'' superhero movie. Since the Dark Knight how many gritty superhero movies have you seen? Cos I can think of none, compared to a swathe of mediocre to good normal superhero movies. Green Latern was not gritty, Thor was not gritty, Iron Man wasn't really gritty but that' the closest we're getting. Captain America wasn't, X-Men wasn't, Green Hornet wasn't etc... I swear this is pretty much the only one and we're cursing this decade of gloom? I'm tried of none gritty films and would like some more please (jk, but please take my point)

There have been two (oh no two?!) bits of news about gritty superhero movies and both of them have been complaints about movies that haven't even come out yet (Superman, Spiderman)

DressedInRags:

I'd like to agree with you, but there does seem to be a rather interesting undercurrent going on here.

Batman is considered the best thing for Gotham, "the hero that Gotham deserves".

I'm not really taking a side on your debate, but I'm just coming in here, because unluckily for you, you started off with something that was completely wrong :D and it puts a funny but unfortunate slant on your post.

The message of TDK was that Batman was the hero that Gotham deserves, because Gotham sucks. In the film, the White Knight (Dent) is portrayed as being the best thing for Gotham, the thing they need and the thing that will save them. But Gotham sucks so much they can't have the hero they need (I think it says as much in the ending monologue). He was there and they friggin' destroyed them. So instead they have Batman, the illegal vigilante who saves them through violence and fear. Even then, because he's not what Gotham needs, but what Gotham deserves, they actually choose to destroy his reputation and promote Dent's. That is how little he's the best thing for Gotham, but as the situation stands, he's the only thing.

I don't really get the argument that this is about the 99% movement. I mean, yeah Selina Kyle is no billionaire, but even in the trailer she's depicted as wearing fine dresses and pearls, and moves in the same circles as Batman himself given that she's attending one of the events he is (presumably was invited). So she's hardly your average working class, even without the whole Catwoman thing

I didn't realize that a so many people seriously disliked Superman Returns. It's very much a quintessential Superman story.

jFr[e]ak93:
Nolan will probably kill Batman. I read somewhere that he is done with the series and doesn't want his version to continue. To do that, you have to
a. Kill the main character
b. Cause the main character to get shot in the spinal cord causing paralysis (which kinda didn't work for Magneto)
or c. causing a nuke to go off in Gotham killing everyone... except Bat-man.

If c happens, Batman 4: Rise of the Zombies will be awesome.

TBH, I'm way more excited for The Hobbit, but, that's me.

Actually, it seems that the movie actually starts with Bruce Wayne in recovery from having his spine broken once, so i don't see how getting shot will be a guarantee that he stays down.

"Also, minor nitpick: It's just kinda wrong to see Batman using anything even remotely gun like."

You mean kinda like a grappling gun or something? That's wrong?

Personally I've NEVER liked the Nolan-Batman movies.

Which is a shame because I admire his determination to bring Batman back to his uber-gritty roots BUT by doing this; Nolan strips the subject of everything that was fun about the franchise.

In my opinion... I think the Batman cartoons of the 90's are the perfect example of just how gritty Batman can get without crossing the line.

The Nolan film have Batman cross the line constantly and demand that you accept him as the "good guy".

I can't wait to see how DC will change Batman for the upcoming Justice League movie.
I hope it's more like the 1946 Batman but with 60's Batman's gadgets.

Speaking of which... Am I the only one who noticed that the imp hoodies look like classic Batman masks?

image
image

image

Comic book movies have a reason to be ashamed of being comic book movies.

http://hollywoodhatesyou.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/batman_nips.jpg

If there is choice to stylize a movie, that style should add something to the the storytelling process. Chicago, Sucker Punch and 300 are great examples of what I mean. In these films the crazy fantastical parts contribute to the story. It is not enough to simply be entertaining.

For Comic book movies to move forward there really needs to to be some introspection on what is important to the story that is being told. Nolan really got to the core of what Batman is and he did the same for Ra's Al Ghul, Two Face, and the Joker. I have my own hopes pipe dreams and fears concerning the this installment of Nolan's Batman trilogy, but so far he has told a story that is getting better as it progresses.

um Bob, you'd normally complain about this kind of stuff, don't do this again...I'll get the spray gun.

why does bob hate bane?
i always kinda liked him because he is one of the few "brute"-archetype characters who isn't a complete idiot, he is in fact quite smart but a lot of times this gets downplayed for some reason.

That trailer seemed very weak to me. I am no more interested in seeing the movie now than before.

RJ Dalton:
Didn't al'Gul's cult have an earthquake machine? I seem to remember there being a plot where he intended to use such a device to make the Lazurus pits overflow and flood the earth. Either way, Bane uses it to blow up a football game. The part of me that remembers and is still bitter about my high school experience approves.

What is "everyone" calling it an earthquake machine/super powerful device? Upon seeing the trailer I simply assumed Bane placed explosives underneath the football field. Perhaps there is a subway/utility system beneath it and he blew up the support columns. The simplest answer is usually the correct one.

01:51 So ... Batman has a plane now. Awesome. People have been calling this The Batwing, since that's what the plane from the Burton/Schumacher movies was called, but since they don't even call the Batmobile "The Batmobile" in these movies you know it'll be called something else.

Wasn't it called "the BATpod" in TDK?

Alfred: Will you be taking the batpod, sir?
Bruce: Middle of the day, Alfred? Not very subtle.
Alfred: The Lamborghini then. Much more "subtle."

Mantonio:
Honestly Bob, I think you should have analysed The Hobbit trailer instead.

Woah! Woah! WOAH!

...THERE'S A HOBBIT TRAILER?!

Unbelievable. I become social active at Christmas and I miss out on this. That's it, my life is now based in Skyrim.

Zachary Amaranth:
I'm amazed that people still use Apple's awful system for viewing trailers.

jFr[e]ak93:
Nolan will probably kill Batman. I read somewhere that he is done with the series and doesn't want his version to continue.

And Sam Raimi didn't want to do Venom. Never underestimate the power of executive meddling.

Venom was that one part that spoiled the movie for me. The dark suit is cool but Venom could have been left for another sequel. Otherwise... I like Spider Man 3 xD It's a guilty pleasure xD

Except for dancing Peter Parker. Peter Parker should never dance.

tdylan:

RJ Dalton:
Didn't al'Gul's cult have an earthquake machine? I seem to remember there being a plot where he intended to use such a device to make the Lazurus pits overflow and flood the earth. Either way, Bane uses it to blow up a football game. The part of me that remembers and is still bitter about my high school experience approves.

What is "everyone" calling it an earthquake machine/super powerful device? Upon seeing the trailer I simply assumed Bane placed explosives underneath the football field. Perhaps there is a subway/utility system beneath it and he blew up the support columns. The simplest answer is usually the correct one.

I want to know who put a subway/utility system underneath the football field xD It seems like a very inconvenient place to put it O_o

Not "subway," but how about if the Stadium's parking garage, or at least a part of it, was located beneath the football field? Or maybe some piping for electric, gas, and water lines. There's at the very least the piping for the field's sprinkler system running under there. And you have to be able to get access to toe for maintenance and repair somehow. So who's to say Bane simply didn't place high explosives beneath the football field?

I'm just curious as to why "earthquake machine" is the speculation rather than "implosion due to controlled demolition?"

DrOswald:
That trailer seemed very weak to me. I am no more interested in seeing the movie now than before.

Did you love the 2nd movie? If so, before you saw it, were the trailers inticing to you?

If you didn't love the 2nd one, then, no surprise you're not excited about this one.

I thought Nolan had really dropped the ball. His choice to play Joker seemed absurd to me. Then I saw the trailer and was hooked. Loved the movie. One of the very few I bought on Bluray.

In Nolan I trust. Both trailer have me interested. I'm thinking I'll love this one too.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here