I am 99% certain we will so NO Batmobile in this movie.
DC Movies - To Infinity and Beyond
- Thread starter dahj
- Start date
I am 99% certain we will so NO Batmobile in this movie.
Well a bat mobile from one of the Batman’s perhaps.
You're way behind the times there. Harley's modern portrayals, especially since the "New 52" reboot, have been as an independent antihero who's flourished as her own person since severing ties with the Joker. Harley's currently got her own self-titled animated series in which the Joker is merely a supporting player as her ex, and Robbie's Harley has been a lead character in what will soon be two DCEU movies in which the Joker does not appear at all.
Besides, since when was it not allowed for villains to be popular fictional characters? Boba Fett is a villain and he's getting his own TV series. Many entire film franchises have been driven by their iconic villains -- Dracula, Frankenstein's Monster, Freddy Kruger, the Aliens and Predators, etc.
Plus, of course, sometimes it's more about the performer than the character. Margot Robbie is the most popular and successful actress currently appearing in the DCEU by a wide margin, so of course Warner Bros. wants to showcase her on their advertising, regardless of the fictitious moral alignment of her character. It's worth noting that the only bigger star currently attached to the DCEU, Dwayne Johnson, is also playing a villain-turned-antihero, Black Adam. Expect to see him featured plenty in future Warner Bros. advertising and merchandise.
Realism is stupid when talking about the Batmobile. "Realism" got us that idiotic Nolan tank. Batman is a billionaire who dresses like a bat to punch criminals. That also "makes no sense", but if you're willing to accept the entire premise of Batman its ridiculous to complain about an unrealistic Batmobile.
That doesn't mean you have to like any particular design of course, but complaining about it on the grounds its "unrealistic" just makes no sense. The less realism the better, in my opinion. Looking cool and having cool features is what matters in a Batmobile, not whether or not it could secretly be a stupid looking vehicle developed for the military or whatever BS was in the Nolan films.
Also, if you don't like the 89 Batmobile based on it being unrealistic, you'd have a stroke learning about 90% of all the Batmobiles from the comics since at least the 60s, much less his various Batwings, Batsubs, Batmotorcycles and even Bat space ships.
Nolan's Batmobile made sense, and did not look like an impractical shell like the 1989 Burton version. Its one thing to accept a certain amount of fantasy, but for a live action character set in the present day (whether your present day was 1989 or the 2000s), audiences are not going to completely bury their natural perceptions of what might be possible and what is utterly impossible and/or ridiculous when it comes to a car design and its functions.
I think they work well enough within their respective films. Keaton's batmobile works well in an art deco Gotham with batplanes that look like the batsymbol and the industrial Tumbler works well for the "Chicago" Gotham Nolan gave us.
I believe DC considers Harley their #4 character right behind Batman, Superman, and Wonder Woman, so it makes perfect sense they'd include her on something like this.
Of course they do. Why wouldn't they change over time? A character whose movies are flops in one decade can become a hit in a later decade, if the right movie or show comes out.
I started reading Batman in the 70's when Batmobile designs were mainly based on regular cars-- it makes much more sense for Batman to have an actual car fitted with special weapons and devices than an aerodynamically idiotic monstrosity like Batman 89. It ruined the entire movie for me--Keaton sucks as Batman too.
Nolan's tank made total sense, and was designed to be an actual working model.
I liked his Batman as an alternative take on the character--but I never thought they were "definitive".Nolan’s tank was better but his Batman was worse.
Affleck’s felt like a blend of the two. A more streamlined version of the tank version.
Yeah. I don’t think we have had the “definitive” Batman yet.
Pattinson’s Batmobile is more like that.
The Burton/Keaton movies remain the character's cinematic pinnacle, Batmobile and all.
All true--Keaton was one of the most glaring examples of miscasting a superhero character in film history, and that Batmobile looked like a giant toy, not a formidable, practical weapon on wheels.
The Nolan and DCEU Batmobiles were perfect examples of task-oriented durability and maneuverability, respectively.
Even if you ignore many more obvious examples (Shaq, Reynolds as Hal Jordan, Seth Rogan, Jennifer Garner, etc), Keaton pulled off super rich brilliant yet detached vigilante pretty spot on. Like every actor to play any role based on an established character, there will be detractors, but he was fine.
Thematically the Nolan vehicle never worked for me. For maybe the Hulk, sure, you want a car smashing through cop cars and plowing (unrealistically) through the rooftops of a city, but that's never been my vision for how Batman operates. More realistic? Probably. But that's par for the course for a filmmaker superficially trying not to make a superhero fantasy movie despite the over the top elements of microwave weapons and, as mentioned above, driving a tank over city rooftops.
There's a fantasy element to these stories that Burton and others got that too many others seems scared of pushing into. Probably why Adam West is one of the better live action versions overall. Silly and fun is actually allowed and can work.
And Garner as Elektra and Reynolds as GL were just fine too. Neither stands out as a more obvious example of controversial casting than Keaton as Batman. (I can't comment on Shaq as Steel or Rogan as the Green Hornet, because I haven't seen those films.)
I think the most plausible screen Batmobile we've had is the one on Batwoman, which is basically just a black sportscar with some orange trim and Bat-gadgets. That's in keeping with how the Batmobile was commonly depicted in the comics in the '70s and '80s, and it's a reasonable approach to what should logically be a stealth vehicle rather than an eye-catching concept car or a small tank (why the hell does Batman need a tank?).
No need to impute fear. They're just different approaches to the character, different variations on the theme. Some versions of Batman over the decades have been more fanciful, others more naturalistic. Burton's films are always stylized, heightened fantasies, so naturally his Batman fit that idiom. That doesn't mean other Batman adaptations have to compete with that or emulate it. They just do different things with it.
No need to impute fear. They're just different approaches to the character, different variations on the theme. Some versions of Batman over the decades have been more fanciful, others more naturalistic. Burton's films are always stylized, heightened fantasies, so naturally his Batman fit that idiom. That doesn't mean other Batman adaptations have to compete with that or emulate it. They just do different things with it.