This morning I wrote a criticism of the new Batmobile, which has a large gun attached to the center of its hood. Some people agree that the weapon feels like a turning point for the caped crusader from brainy detective to militarized maniac. Many, many others pointed out that guns have long been part of Batman's vehicles, particularly in film. I've collected some of the best counter-points to my article, because I think a number of them provide lots of interesting information about the superhero and his preferred mode of transportation.
And thanks to everyone who commented. I sincerely appreciate that you care enough to write a response.
Given all that has come out.. a batman that is probably 20 years older than Superman.. i don't think we can count on Batman's usual no kill rule being in full effect.
granted the Golden Age Batman did kill a few of his opponents at first so maybe they are going back to that.
just not much go to on.. the turret doesn't really bother me that much although.. he could just use it to disable other vehicles. it seems to be about the right height to take out motors. and it might tilt up for AA uses."
The point of Batman is never that he doesn't have access to lethal weaponry. The point is that he has the incredible self-discipline not to use it lethally.
In the article, Chris says:
Now, imagine the the iconic showdown in The Dark Knight, when the Joker plays a game of chicken with the batmobile, but this time Batman has a giant machine gun.
I don't have to imagine it. That's literally the same scene. He had two machine guns on the Batpod and he blew up a bunch of cars with them like two minutes prior. The entire reason why that scene was effective was watching as Batman screamed and fought with himself as he drove toward the Joker without using his guns and without ramming him. He used self-discipline. That's why he's the Batman.
This is probably the worst article I've ever seen from Chris.
It's not hypocritical; it's the point. He has to show a lot of force to get criminals to believe he'll use it, even though he won't. His superpower is self-discipline.
The writer seemed to ignore the fact that this is Batman vs FREAKING SUPERMAN!
Who knows when or what role this bat mobile plays in the movie but if you're going to try to shoot superman with a kryptonite bullet then you're going to need more than one shot. Maybe this is a 3rd act modification intended ONLY for shooting down superman. Or maybe it shoots out fish to take down Aquaman and his army of sea lions. Who knows. The point is that we have no idea what the heck this movie is going to try to do so why the heck would someone judge it based on a single photo?
How old are you?
Tim Burton's Batmobile also had 50 cal machine guns."
It always bothered me that the batmobile shed those armor plates when the guns popped up.
I imagine batman after the fight goes back and retrieves them. That, or he has a storage closet in the batcave that has a pallet of these armor plates."
Might want to read the dark knight returns. "Rubber bullets. I promise."
Nolan's series had vehicles like the Bat have turrets which he used to take down stolen Tumbler prototypes (He also could have taken Bane out with it early on in the movie but lets save that talk for later.
In the Dark Knight Returns graphic novel, which for those that don't know, is a primary influence to this he has aTANK as his vehicle!
The Arkham Knight game coming up has a batmobile with heavy artillery too for riot dispersion and taking out drone tanks and other enemy vehicles (they seemed emphasize no one is in the vehicles that batman destroying).
TL;DR: Batman's had some pretty stacked vehicles for a while. He is mortal after all. He just has a ‘no gun' policy. Not a no battle tank policy =P
Pictures seemed to be disabled, so check out these for reference:
The Tumbler had guns. The Batmobile and the Bat Wing from Batman: The Animated Series also had weapons in them as well and that series is widely regarded as one of the greatest Batman shows ever made.
All of Batman's vehicles have weapons, this isn't new.
1. This writer has pretty close to zero knowledge of Batman canon if he thinks a Batmobile with guns mounted on it is even a thing deserving any analysis. There is zero story here.
2. I prefer a sleeker Batmobile but this is Batman v. Superman. That "v" stands for versus. Superman is a fucking invincible god. I would expect Bats to break out the heavy artillery for a rogue Supes. Do you even Dark Knight Returns, bro? Seriously.
3. Now does the car look like a demonic rabbit a la Donnie Darko with the doors up? Maybe.
And from Twitter:
And from e-mail:
I'm not going to lie. I'm a bit of a nerd. A big Superman fan too so, as you could imagine, I loved Man of Steel. But I'm writing really because of two reasons:
1) they won't let me post in the comments until tomorrow, at which time I will likely forget about this and....
2) because I am really disappointed in your lack of research that went into this article.
I'm well aware you'll probably blow this email off, but I kind of hope you look at it as a reason to delve further into the backgrounds of subjects you decide to write about.
This article seems to attack two of the upcoming Batmobile appearances. The first in Batman v. Superman, the second in the upcoming Arkham Knight. I could see how someone would look at the turrets on either iteration of the batmobile and be skeptical of them, even with the disclaimer of rubber bullets attached, but I find it funny that you specifically note the "mobility rather than lethality" of Bat vehicles in the Nolan trilogy. It's as if you forget about the climax of Batman Begins where Sergent Gordon is in the tumbler and shooting explosive rounds at the train pillars. I believe those were the same cannons that the Batpod had in Dark Knight when Bats was blowing up parked cars to clear a path for himself, not to mention the machine guns he used to destroy glass doors so he could take the shortcut through a mall. And as for the Bat, Batman's urban flying machine, it's like you forget that he shot up the truck that carried the nuke which resulted directly to the driver's death and indirectly to Talia's.
Speaking of the Nolan trilogy, I defy you to watch that again. All three movies. And really pay attention. And as you're sitting there, count how many deaths Batman is actually responsible for. By my count he killed between 30 or 50 people.
But the Batmobile and all Bat vehicles have always had guns or light artillery on them, so why is it that you have such a problem with it now? Is it Zack Snyder? I know you said he uses death as "emotional spice". Sure, thousands of people died in Man of Steel. And yes, Zod did get his neck broken and Superman seemed very upset that he had to do that. But think of Superman II. When Superman comes out of that chamber and finally kneels before Zod only to break his hand and toss him into an icy crevice with a smile on his face. Personally, I think that's a much worse death than getting your neck snapped, but maybe Zod is hanging out with polar bears and chilling in a really nice igloo.
The point I'm trying to make is that Batman/Superman/anything nerdy really requires a bit more time and thought before you just go and post your opinion. I mean, unless this is a hobby, I'm sure you would like to be looked at as a serious journalist, not just another FOX news anchor who spouts out thoughtless diatribe. As I said before, I'm sure you'll ignore this. But on the off chance that you don't, it would be a shame if your lack of research on such a petty subject bled over into something that was much more serious.
I hope you have a great day.