The new 'Justice League' Batmobile will be on display at Comic-Con

By

·

July 19, 2017

Warner Bros. and Mattel are bringing the Justice League Batmobile to Comic-Con this week. The beefed up Batmobile will be revealed tonight at Mattel's booth alongside their remote controlled replica, which they revealed earlier this year at New York Toy Fair.

The real Justice League Batmobile weighs 8,500 pounds and is 20-feet-long. It's fully-driveable and can reach speeds up to 205 mph. It is armed with twin .50 caliber retractable machine guns and missile launchers, as well as "stealth and active protective systems" according to Warner Bros.

Check out some photos of the new Batmobile and Mattel's "Ultimate Justice League Batmobile" RC-replica in the gallery below.

Gallery

SOURCE: Newsarama

This is an archive of Batman-News.com from 2010 to 2025. For the latest news, check out BatmanNews.com

250 comments

Jesse Hernandez
July 19, 2017
It's a tie between the Tumbler and this bat mobile as my favorites, I loved how this one has a machine gun turrent in the front
1. Alan Conn
  July 19, 2017
  Ugh... i hated the tumbler...
Jesse Hernandez
July 19, 2017
I mean it's not as bad as the Batmobile in the Batman and Robin movies
iAbeLincoln
July 19, 2017
I absolutely love this machine. And I absolutely love that for JL they beefed it up even more hahah especially after so many not meh batmans came out and started crying that it has too many murderous weapons on it. Zack and Co. were like, "well, too fuckin bad because it's going to be even more badass in JL"
1. OGmacrazy
  July 19, 2017
  Nothing quite like laughing at the criticism you get and then purposefully improve on the mistakes made the first time 'round. Badass =\= making it look cool for impressionable people.
  1. iAbeLincoln
    July 19, 2017
    So you guys just want the weapons to be concealed and then pop out of cubbys when they need used. Every single Batmobile in cinematic history has weapons of destruction on them. You mad?
    1. OGmacrazy
      July 19, 2017
      Not really, I don't mind the weapons. I kinda mind that he uses them to obliterate cars with living people in them who can't even pose a fucking threat to that behemoth. Also the very same people who didn't even threat Batman so "self-defense" is completely out of the question. I also loathe a Batman so irrational that instead of putting a tracker and then going to it's destination, he decides to flatout attack the convoy either way, which not only threatened more lives and property damage, as it could have actually destroyed the entire fucking point of the mission (luckily those goons were so irrealistically dumb for movie purposes that they didn't think to transport their cargo into another truck or vehicle and decided to just bring that shit inside the half destroyed truck anyway, as if that shit would ever fly with any authority figure to begin with).
      But I guess I'm "mad" for wanting good DC movies. What can I say, Nolan got us spoiled.
      1. Kryptonian Knight
        July 19, 2017
        First off, Batman never attacked a single person while in his batmobile who did not fire first and if you think that hired killers who are shooting at him with gatlin guns and rocket launchers aren't a threat then you are delusional.
      2. OGmacrazy
        July 19, 2017
        When you have a vehicle capable of even shooting flares, then no. Nothing they had at their disposal was a threat to begin with.
      3. Kryptonian Knight
        July 19, 2017
        Without those flairs The batmobile would no longer exist... Luckily Batman always has his contingencies in place.
      4. OGmacrazy
        July 19, 2017
        Thanks for agreeing. Nice talk.
      5. Kryptonian Knight
        July 19, 2017
        Thanks for not getting the picture. Point made.
      6. OGmacrazy
        July 19, 2017
        Nope, you might want to re-read this comment chain. Point was, Batman had artillery and equipment far superior to the people he flatout killed. They never stood a chance. That was the original point. You decided to butt in, you should have done like Batman and prepared an actual defense there.
      7. Kryptonian Knight
        July 19, 2017
        Your point is moot since 99% of villains Batman faces have inferior artillery, will, brains, ability... no one "butts" in when it's a comment section guy they just comment, wise up.
      8. OGmacrazy
        July 19, 2017
        What the fuck? Do you even remember what's being discussed here, guy?
      9. Seb
        July 19, 2017
        Yeah, he really "fired first" by looking... ........... ............................
        https://uploads.disquscdn.c...
        Also, those goons posed as much a threat to him as a 5 year old kid with a BB gun to a Navy Seal Sniper.
        So for Batman to take all of these goons out, is just plain overkill... literally.
      10. Schuyler Finley
        July 19, 2017
        Wait, didn't one of those guys shoot a rocket at him? I recall the Batmobile having to use flares to distract a missile.
      11. Seb
        July 19, 2017
        That was KG Beast standing next to him...
      12. Schuyler Finley
        July 19, 2017
        So what was your counter argument? I'm genuinely confused here.
      13. Seb
        July 19, 2017
        That Batman kills in the movie, and not always out of """""self defense""""". Which basically renders the original claim useless, which in turn means that yes, Batman is in fact a killer. I honestly still cannot fathom as to how fanboys can deny Batfleck killed people. It's delusional of the highest order. I mean, these are the same people who berate Bale's Batman for "killing all the time". What the fuck.
      14. Schuyler Finley
        July 19, 2017
        Oh okay. I just wanted some clarification. I'm about done arguing over the film. Gotta get ready when we start arguing over the events in JL.
      15. Seb
        July 19, 2017
        Yeah, I feel you... This argument has been done ad nauseam, there really is no point in talking about now. I can understand people who think his actions were justified or logical, or who enjoyed it, or even those who just didn't care about his rule. But denying that he kills will always piss me off.
        As for JL, we know they will address his killing behavior (which further proves that yes, he did indeed kill, otherwise they shouldn't have to address it). So as far as character traits go, I think we're good with JL. Heck, I reckon we won't see this Batman kill ever again. So no more arguing about that! At least I hope so.
        (PS, I got no issues with him mowing down Parademons - hence why I don't mind the car as it is now - because they are not sentient beings).
      16. Schuyler Finley
        July 19, 2017
        Oh no. I do believe that there will be some arguments after JL comes out. Lol, the storm's coming.
      17. Seb
        July 19, 2017
        Of course, I mean concerning Batman's "killing" behavior. I think that's something we'll never have to debate ever again. As for the rest of the film... it's inevitable. Honestly though, even if the movie's garbage.. if they at least get the characters right, I could accept it, which is something I couldn't do with BvS as all of the characters were so radically different from their respective CB counterparts. So I'll consider that a great improvement. I mean, they said Batman wouldn't kill anymore (or implied it), that Superman will be more of a optimistic and hopeful figure, etc. So they're definitely on the right track, I think.
      18. Schuyler Finley
        July 19, 2017
        Yeah. I understand your frustrations with the radical character changes. I don't mind it as much because:
        1) I know that WB and DC are never gonna have the heroes be iterations of their worst CB counterparts. I highly doubt we'll see old-school Superman who was a dick towards everyone including Lois. And we'll never a Batman iteration of Frank Miller's All-Star Batman.
        2) I have faith that WB and DC know what they're doing. Yeah they've made some questionable decisions and mistakes in their first three films, but they're learning from their mistakes.
      19. Kryptonian Knight
        July 19, 2017
        That's the clip you use to try to prove your point? Lol, how pathetic and dishonest, here's what really happened! https://m.youtube.com/watch...
        Yeah top of the line machine guns, gatlin guns and rocket launcher in the hands of the top mercenaries money can buy. I feel so bad for what happened to them after they have murdered probably 100's of innocent people, eye roll.
      20. Seb
        July 19, 2017
        I just gave you an example of Batman killing someone who in that instance didn't shoot first. There's nothing more for you to prove. I rendered your entire argument useless. Keep reaching.
      21. Kryptonian Knight
        July 19, 2017
        Not even close but keep lying to yourself. They had already started shooting and the only reason they stoped was because they lost him after they tried blowing him up! Get it through your head Batman is and always has been a killer in every single medium of film and comics but keep ignoring.
      22. Seb
        July 19, 2017
        "Get it through your head Batman is and always has been a killer in every single medium of film and comics but keep ignoring."
        Ahh, so you confirm he did in fact kill people. Okay then, thanks for proving my point.
      23. Kryptonian Knight
        July 19, 2017
        When did I ever claim he didn't? There is a huge difference between murder and killing, if you don't understand that then your education is lacking. I've always claimed that Batman was a killer just not a murderer, they are not the same thing.
      24. Seb
        July 19, 2017
        Yeah, you're right. Batman murdered goons in BvS. Sorry for not being clear enough.
      25. Kryptonian Knight
        July 19, 2017
        I guess your education is lacking if you don't know the difference, pick up a law book and get educated, it's much better then spreading nonsense.
      26. Seb
        July 19, 2017
        Ahh, so I guess kicking a defenseless, unconscious goon into a live grenade is also "self defense" right?
        https://uploads.disquscdn.c...
        I must say, I have never seen a fanboy here reach for such high levels. I cannot wait to hear what kind of fucked up, pathetic excuse you have in store as to how in the fuck he didn't "murder" that one goon (not talking about the one holding the grenade. I'm specifically referring to the one he hung up by the ceiling. The very first thug he incapacitated)
      27. Kryptonian Knight
        July 20, 2017
        Lol, none of the mercenaries were A. defenseless. Your inability to understand that is ridiculous and they all had weapons coming at him trying to kill him. Look up collateral damage kid andget over it!
      28. Seb
        July 20, 2017
        He was hanging upside down, defenseless and unconscious. Bhahahaha... You couldn't even come up with a justification. POINT PROVEN. He MURDERED someone. Time for YOU to get over it.
      29. Kryptonian Knight
        July 20, 2017
        You would have to prove that Batman intended for the grenade to blow both of them up instead of a tactic to move the assailant to preserve his life, hood luck with proving that beyond a shadow of a doubt. It's really funny that you actually thought you were smart there lol.
      30. Seb
        July 20, 2017
        Ooohh fuck... I guess the police will have to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that I meant for my cat to die when I threw him off of a 100 meter tall cliff. What you have you just said, is probably the single dumbest thing I think I've ever heard in my life. Holy fuck.
      31. Kryptonian Knight
        July 20, 2017
        Swearing won't help your case especially when your analogies are as bad as your understanding of simple words.
      32. Seb
        July 20, 2017
        Man, gij zijt echt een groot licht jong.
      33. Seb
        July 20, 2017
        And before you say shit like "they were shooting when he entered the room"... well, technically, Batman made the first move. So they were merely retaliating to Batman's presence, to which Batman retaliated in reverse. So really, your excuse is, Batman is justified when he defends himself. Goons are not.
        And suppose you were right... They "made the first move"... So what? That thug was completely incapcitated and posed NO more threat whatsoever. There was absolutely ZERO reason for Batman to kill him under any circumstance. The fact of the matter is, he pushed him into a grenade, killing him in the process. Furthermore, it was not out of self defense or "justification". It was out of convenience. Case in point, it was murder.
      34. Kryptonian Knight
        July 20, 2017
        He killed him because that was the best strategy to preserve his life, wow you're not very smart.
      35. Ned Ryerson
        July 19, 2017
        Then why didn't he use guns in the ware house scene inside to take down those same type of mercs? Because Snyder is an inconsistent storyteller who wanted to show Batman being a badass in hand to hand combat. No other reason. If he had thought it would be cooler to see bat grenades we would have seen that. Applying the same logic as the batmobile chase scene then he should have just killed them inside there too, since he promised superman that Martha would not die that night. Look, Batman has only been a killer in a few 1940s comics and some elseworld stories like the Frank Miller stories. In the main canon of comics he hasn't killed since like the second year of publication when he stopped using a handgun.
        He's only killed directly and purposely in movies when the filmmakers get the character wrong or just don't care, like burton in Batman Returns. I didn't like Batman's Flawed logic at the end of Batman Begins either with "not saving" his enemy there either, because while trying to be clever it still doesn't fit a character who will not cross the line to kill even the Joker, who has done more wrong than anyone basically in his world.
      36. Kryptonian Knight
        July 19, 2017
        So wrong it's sad, first he's killed in the comics in the eighties, second your answer to your own question is your personal opinion not a fact and Batman has always been a badass and when it comes to fight choreography Snyder is the only director to get it right.
      37. Seb
        July 19, 2017
        And if you think it's justified for Batman to kill people who "PROBABLY (= very unlikely) killed 100s of people" then you really don't know Batman very well. Batman wouldn't even kill someone who nuked an entire country.
      38. Kryptonian Knight
        July 19, 2017
        Understand context sweetheart, this is a Batman who is lost and doesn't care anymore and if you don't think KGBeast and crew hasn't killed over a hundred people then you truly are lost!
      39. Seb
        July 19, 2017
        You do nothing but confirm my argument. Thank you.
        And btw, Batman needs no "context". His rule is absolute. You are only further proving you don't know the character whatsoever.
      40. Kryptonian Knight
        July 19, 2017
        A rule that he has broken numerous times in the comics and in film. It's sad that you are not aware of that, knowledgeable fans who read the comics know this already. Lol
      41. Seb
        July 19, 2017
        Yeah, in 19 fucking 40. The character of Batman as we know today has never killed. And the few instances where he does have been retconned for decades.
      42. Kryptonian Knight
        July 19, 2017
        Wrong again! Batman has killed as recent as the late 80's! Educate yourself before sounding ignorant. It's called google, do a little research and learn. You only need to kill once to be a killer.
      43. Seb
        July 19, 2017
        "And the few instances where he does have been retconned for decades."
        Learn to read.
      44. Kryptonian Knight
        July 20, 2017
        Why don't you go watch Crisis on two earths and watch how Batman killed Owelman and Johnny Quick and that was this decade! And I don't pick and choose eras for Batman I read all that I can from beginning till now.
      45. Seb
        July 20, 2017
        If you were as much the comic book reader as you think you are, you'd know that the very comic upon which the animated movie was based, did not have Batman kill Owlman in any way.
      46. Kryptonian Knight
        July 20, 2017
        That's irrelevant, the bottom line is that the movie is a D.C product were once again Batman broke the rule certain fanboys kling on to. Fail again!
      47. Seb
        July 20, 2017
        No, we were talking about comics. You just got called out on your fake knowledge and pretending to know the source material when I just exposed you don't know shit.
      48. Kryptonian Knight
        July 20, 2017
        Not at all, I have always stated that Batman has been a killer in all mediums, just because you want to pretend the 80's didn't exist doesn't make it reality. Nice try though, seriously you're like a hippo in quicksand!
      49. Seb
        July 20, 2017
        Those instances have long been retconned.
      50. Kryptonian Knight
        July 20, 2017
        Until they decide he does it again in the comics and then fanboys like yourself will once again be in denial. Once a killer, always a killer!
      51. Seb
        July 20, 2017
        You just acknowledged that the instances where he did "kill" don't count anymore. And your only argument to support he's a killer is "he may do it again in the future". What a lousy fucking excuse. We're done here.
      52. Kryptonian Knight
        July 20, 2017
        Man your reading comprehension is awful, I have never acknowledged such a lie and my argument that he is a killer is predicated on the fact that he has done it in every medium like BvS, TDK trilogy, Crisis on Two earths... all in this century. Buddy you were done and buried long time ago!
      53. Seb
        July 20, 2017
        You acknowledged it, implicitly. You simply cannot refute THE FACT that Batman - as we know him today - has never once killed (in the comics). The few instances where he does have either been retconned (KG Beast is a good example) or are simply not considered cannon anymore (Golden Age for example). Yes, you read that right. Batman has never once taken a life... EVER.
      54. Kryptonian Knight
        July 20, 2017
        "As we know him today" you can ignore the past all you want, I won't. Comics, films and cartoons that have DC's approval including BvS are all part of the canon of Batman and his kill count is still alive and kicking. But I thought you were done, I guess you lack integrity along with comprehension. Oh well peace out <3
      55. Seb
        July 20, 2017
        You clearly don't know what canon means. Why am I not surprised?
      56. OGmacrazy
        July 20, 2017
        Man, you're desperate to make Batman a killer, uh? You're deadset on taking away one of Batman's most defining and important characteristic. Jesus christ, this is beyond pathetic at this point. I love it!
      57. Kryptonian Knight
        July 20, 2017
        There's zero desperation on my part so you're wrong again. The only one that's pathetic is you fighting against facts. If you can't accept Batman has killed in the comics and films that's on you.
      58. OGmacrazy
        July 20, 2017
        Keep going, my man. This is simply wonderful. I advise you to re-read this comment chain. If you're not the slightest bit embarassed about the constant shut downs you got, and the absolute state of denial you find yourself in, then there's no point in continuing this. You've ran out of arguments a long time ago. You incessant need to have the last word is what's butchering your credibility even further. Maybe accept you're wrong and move on?
      59. OGmacrazy
        July 20, 2017
        My favorite moment in this comment chain of yours. Him constantly "talking down" to you, saying things like "educate yourself" and "knowledgeable fans who read comics know" and then just flatout humilliating himself, like he has multiple times in this article's comment section. Nice one, dude. I do appreciate how he can't stand it and goes full denial-mode afterwards, though.
      60. Seb
        July 20, 2017
        I don't care if they love Affleck's psycho behavior. But he murdered some thugs, that's just a fact. I don't even know why he would deny it.
      61. OGmacrazy
        July 20, 2017
        True that. At least stand by the movie you so desperately try to love. But I guess they all watched that interview where their god said "Batman killed by proxy", which just serves to prove that he doesn't even know his own fucking movie, and went along with it, because hearing someone say it is easier than actually coming up with your own thoughts, and it definitely helps out making the movie better in your eyes.
      62. iAbeLincoln
        July 19, 2017
        I'll try and level with you on this. I understand that seeing Batman killing isn't the best thing for those of us who have thought of him as our hero throughout childhood up through adult years. If I'll fault this iteration of Batman it will be that we never fully felt his pain and anger caused by years of seeing horrible things happen to those he loved and looked after. I personally don't have a problem seeing him kill because I've always told myself that this is a Batman who is dealing with grief in a very harsh and maybe even unjust way sometimes. No it doesn't make it right, but this is the Batman we've been given and I think Zack has had an idea for his story from the beginning. I really don't think he made this Batman just so he could have some seriously brutal and "cool" action scenes. It's all part of his story and progress throughout the DCEU. I have faith this will be touched on in JL and when Matt Reeves takes the reigns for future Batman solo films.
      63. OGmacrazy
        July 19, 2017
        Well, I didn't mind Batman's characterization, up until the point he is shown to be very weak willed compared to some of the best comic book interpretations I've ever read. A Batman that is old, world-weary and just sick of it all? When I read that interview that Zack gave, I was pumped! But this is a well from which this version will never creatively climb up from. He simply will never have the moral high ground again compared to some of his villains and to the point of some of his stories. You don't have to adapt comic book stories to a tee, nor just adapt them, period. But the essence of the character is kinda lost, and that's why I was disappointed, overall.
        I have faith in Matt Reeves and Ben, but not on Snyder. In fact, all that "Zack has a plan and a story" and whatnot is simply not as black and white as you want it to be. Matt started The Batman from scratch, and he'll do things like he wants, and he'll definitely never let a guy like Zack (which anyone can have whatever opinion on him, that's fine, but I think we can all agree he is a very poor storyteller, especially when compared to Reeves) tell him what to do with the characters, especially since we got news that Ben Affleck was overseeing his Batman character in JL so he could control the way his character would go, which again takes credibility from that "Zack's got a plan for all characters" theory.
      64. iAbeLincoln
        July 19, 2017
        I'll agree to disagree when it comes to Zack's storytelling. Man of Steel, Watchmen, and 300 all have done well with their story and characterization. Like I said, I think if we had a Batman movie that showed us how and why he arrived to this personality and brutal decision making, folks wouldn't be so upset and might better understand his actions in BvS.
      65. OGmacrazy
        July 19, 2017
        I'm a huge fan of Man of Steel, but even there you cannot say the story was well rounded. There were barely any interesting characters aside from Zod.
        Watchmen had most of the groundwork done, let's be honest. And 300 had characterization and a story even? I mean, the weakest point, by far, were the performances and story in that movie! Entertaining, for sure. But really weak, writing-wise.
        Also, I have to disagree. Batman was flatout dumb in this movie. Dumb and irrational. It really would be controversial either way. Although a movie, not made by Snyder, about Batman's descent into darkness would be amazing, for sure.
      66. iAbeLincoln
        July 19, 2017
        So would you be more open to accepting BvS Batman if a prequel movie was made about his life with the Bat family and the heartbreaking losses he's suffered?
      67. OGmacrazy
        July 19, 2017
        Not really. Unless it set up that he was hit in the head one too many times or something! But I'd be totally up for a Under the Red Hood type movie.
      68. iAbeLincoln
        July 19, 2017
        You think Batman should just go through life not dealing with any personal battles and just be a knight in shining armor every second of the day? A true fan knows that's the absolute opposite of what makes Batman, Batman.
      69. OGmacrazy
        July 20, 2017
        No shit, dude. I also like it when that haunts Batman and makes him more obsessed or more jaded (like I said, I love the idea of a tired Batman just sick of it all). But to make him a flatout murderer that prefers the easy way out? That's stretching it way too far.
      70. Joe K.
        July 19, 2017
        http://img.cinemablend.com/... Nolan's Batman killed a lot too
      71. OGmacrazy
        July 19, 2017
        Did he ever shoot a car with guys in it until it was nothing but a fireball of death? I don't recall such a thing...
      72. Joe K.
        July 19, 2017
        Bruce says "I'm no executioner", and then burned down a mansion on the side of a mountain far away from a hospital killing many ninjas and most likely the person he didn't want to kill originally. But he did in fact save one person, and that person went on to cause mass havoc which killed a ton of people in gotham. Good job Bruce! But get this, at the end, Batman says "I won't kill you, but I don't have to save you" and leaves and kills him. That's just the first movie, and I didn't included all the cops he blew up and shit. Nolan's Batman is all over the place with his "code". At least in BVS Batman knows he's a psycho and snaps out of it.
      73. OGmacrazy
        July 20, 2017
        Well, he there if anything you can say it wasn't direct. he simply had to get out of an impossible situation. And he even saved that other dude. Then, it was up to the others guys to get out, if they survived the explosion, that is. But it wasn't a case of Batman riding the tumbler and fucking blasting a car with people inside it that only had machine guns or at best a rocket launcher. It's a completely different situation. One is done out of need, the other is done simply for action sequence purposes that a movie like this needs to have.
      74. jrvc
        July 19, 2017
        One example is at the end of Rises with the Bat firing at the Tumblers. Just saying
      75. Seb
        July 19, 2017
        There's a shot after the missiles hit which shows they're very clearly alive. This is a rumor that just needs to freaking die.
      76. jrvc
        July 20, 2017
        well tell that to Talia's driver. Anyway that was an example of several from the trilogy. The hyopcrisy about this topic is what should really die ;)
      77. Seb
        July 20, 2017
        The driver doesn't really die... more likely he's just unconscious. The thing about TDK Trilogy is that, even though his actions "should" kill people, they make it pretty clear that they don't. Like the "it's a miracle no one got killed" despite the fact that his antics should have killed numerous of people. Suspend your disbelief like you're meant to. The only person he outright "kills" directly is Harvey Dent. And really, there is no hypocrisy as they are so radically different in their approaches.
      78. jrvc
        July 20, 2017
        You know that what you can also be translated to Batfleck don't you? Anyway, the thing is Batman has killed in nearly every movie (even though you want to make-up Nolan's ones). It happens again on another movie and suddenly everyone is an über-purist and Batman should've never done that. What the f...?
        I understand people liking or not any version of the character, but this criticism has been hypocrisy at its best. And even if you say Nolan's and Batfleck have different approaches (which they have) thy have killed nontheless, and Burton's was actually th worst offender. However it's on Batfleck where it is raining hell.
        As I said people can like more or less any version ( I would even say I liked all movie versions the same as how different they are), but to blame ONLY ONE for that sin... I can't stand that
      79. Seb
        July 20, 2017
        What do you mean? That "those people didn't really die"?
        Not really, as the movie makes pretty clear they're not alive anymore. I mean there isn't even room for doubt in BvS, whereas with TDK Trilogy, you can at least suspend your disbelief.
        I actually remember seeing BvS for the first time, and I had heard that he "killed" people, but I also heard that it wasn't really that clear if they were really dead... so when the chase scene came halfway through the movie, I had the same mindset as I did with the Batman Begins police chase scene or The Dark Knight Joker chase scene (when he rammed the Truck into the ceiling). So when Batfleck rammed into that car the very first second, I was fine with it. Then he pulls the car along further and drops it unto another car. Again I was fine with it, because it was nothing we hadn't seen before. I just assumed "they should be dead, but we're just supposed to believe that they're fine". But then it didn't stop... then he shot trucks to freaking shreds and drove through what little remains for no reason. There was nothing left. Then he drives the Batmobile on top of oblivious goons. There's just no more way of saying "well, they're still alive".
        And as far as the other films. He doesn't kill the same way (if he even kills), as execution makes all the difference. No one berates Batman for "killing" Dent in TDK, just like no one complains Superman "killed" Doomsday despite the fact that fans relentlessly complained about Supes being a killer in MoS.
        In BB, Batman kills no one. In TDK he kills Dent. In TDKR, he doesn't really kill anyone. Even Talia died as a result of her incompetence.
        If you cannot tell the difference between how Batfleck murdered nigh harmless goons (compared to Batman) and how Bale's Batman had to take a life because he had no other choice, then that's on you.
      80. jrvc
        July 20, 2017
        Ahem... when exactly does he run over oblivious thugs? Because I can clearly tell you that that doesn't happen in the whole movie AT ALL.
        See? That's what I'm saying, people go way far just to crap on Batfleck, all you say in your post is just a big proof in favour of what I'm saying.
        So you can suspend your disbilief with one and not with another? People surviving being rammed against a ceiling? Yeah sure. And the way the driver fell down next to Talia looked clearly as if he was dead.
        And not only that but you just pick examples from Bale's that you can justify, but there are more examples, and living Ra's to his death on a train that is going to crash because of HIS plan speaks a lot against what the canon Batman would do.
        Please note that this is not an attack towards Nolan's trilogy, as it is one of my favourite set of films ever, but I can't freaking stand the hypocrisy with this topic.
        Every Batman on movie but Clooney have killed. Or people condemn all of them or condemn none. If not they are just a bunch of hypocrites
        (And the same exact thing happened with Superman: so it is okay for him to kill Zod in Superman II but not in MoS?? C'mon!!)
      81. Seb
        July 20, 2017
        I didn't say he ran over them. I said he drove on top of them.
        https://uploads.disquscdn.c...
        That guy was completely oblivious to Batman's whereabouts. He just killed him because he committed the crime of being at the wrong place at the wrong time. At best, it's just reckless carelessness on Batman's part.
        "all you say in your post is just a big proof in favour of what I'm saying."
        How exactly? I literally said I hold both Bale's Batman and Batfleck to the same standard. How the fuck, am I proving your point that I am supposedly biased against Affleck?
        Answer me this: If Affleck acted *exactly* the same way as Bale did. If he "killed" out of pure necessity (like Dent) or if he "killed" through inaction (like Ra's), etc... do you really actually believe ANYONE would have a problem with Batfleck? I don't think anyone would believe such a retarded thing, and I don't think you believe that either. And that proves my point.
        "So you can suspend your disbilief with one and not with another?"
        I just told you I had the same standard. YOU are the one who's not comparing them fairly. I literally said I was okay with Batfleck ramming into vehicles and nearly flattening them. Because Bale did it as well, and the movies state that he killed no one.
        But there is simply no way on Earth that the goon of the above gif could have possibly survived. Neither could these thugs have lived.
        https://media.giphy.com/med...
        https://uploads.disquscdn.c...
        There is just zero chance they survived. Fuck miracles or suspension of disbelief, it just ain't humanly possible. Next thing you'll say I should "suspend my disbelief when Batman throws a nuke at Joker, because he 'could have' survived".
        "and living Ra's to his death on a train that is going to crash because of HIS plan"
        You see, this is the best you can come up with. Inaction to save someone is not remotely the same as the action of killing someone.
        I mean, he even says "I won't kill you....".
        "but I can't freaking stand the hypocrisy with this topic."
        There is no hypocrisy. You simply cannot differentiate taking a life out of pure necessity, and taking a life as a result of reckless and psychotic behavior. The way they both "kill" is so radically different... so immensely far apart, they cannot ever be considered the same. Batfleck killed lots of people he could have EASILY spared. How many people did Bale "kill" for the heck of it? Right. ZERO. You know which scene bothers me the most, despite the fact that he technically killed no one? The BB Ninja scene. Because it was carelessness on Bruce's part. He should have known what was about to happen. But the fact is, he didn't "kill" them. It's like saying you accidentally started a fire that kills 5 people, therefore you're a killer. No one would ever say that. Again, he only killed Dent and Talia - sort of... I still contend that she killed herself, but whatever. I'll grant you that one if you really want it. Both of those cases were understandable. You'd have to be insane to berate Batman for "killing" Talia, when millions of people were on the line. Please explain to me in detail how killing all of those goons during the Warehouse scene helped save millions of lives? Please explain to me how crushing all of those men during the chase scene spared the lives of hundreds of thousands of people? And don't say "because it was in service to kill Superman, which would have saved billions from Bruce's perspective" because 1: that logic doesn't even apply to the Warehouse scene, and 2: there is no need to kill a dozen individual goons to obtain a weapon that kills Superman. He could have just stolen the damn Kryptonite without even so much as lay a finger on anyone. He even had a tracker ffs. And ultimately, his little show of death and destruction amounted to nothing, as he obtained the Kryptonite later on anyways. So there's just no way to justify it.
        "And the same exact thing happened with Superman: so it is okay for him to kill Zod in Superman II but not in MoS?? C'mon!!)"
        I don't like it either, same with Burton... but those movies are decades past their time, that's why no one complains. What would be the point? It'd be like complaining about Adam West Batman because he's an "insult to the essence of Batman"... and the thing is, he factually is. But everybody understands he was merely a product of his time. Same with Reeves and Burton. Bale and Affleck are more relevant.
        And again... why do you think people complained about Zod, but didn't say a damn thing when he outright killed Doomsday with zero remorse? This alone proves my point.
      82. jrvc
        July 20, 2017
        My God what a Bible. Dude, you are still proving my point. Look at the lengths you go to defend one and bash the other, when everything you say- or better, the way you say it- can be also used to defend Batfleck.
        Frist of all, read everything I said: I already acknowledge both Batmen acted differently. Now, killing out of necessity or leaving someone to die is something OUT OF CHARACTER from canon Batman. Having said that, I totally agree on that this is part of the movie and you have to go on with it.
        THE VERY SAME can be said about Batfleck. You complain he is reckless. Of course he is! The movie states very clear where we find this Batman. He is going down more and more into the abyss, he's lost hope, he is at the edge of giving up. All these makes him more direct on his approach. This a Batman at a particular point on a particular movie. Not only that but if you pay attention he never directly kills anyone. He shoots vehicles yes but never directly to people unlike many oblivious people say. What's more, w se at the end of the movie that he just regains his inner light thanks to Superman.
        Now, you can like more or less, but both movies state how and why the Batman acts that way. So if you are willing to accept one killing why not the other?
        As you can see I stick to my point where you are proving me right.
        And last, how can you say Reeves' Superman and Keaton's Batman are irrelevant? No way!! They are still revered by a lot and considered classic. In fact a lot of criticism towarsd Cavill's is because many still hold a candle to Reeves' version (ironically if they read a comic they would get that Cavill's is more akin to the comics than Reeves')
        Sorry, you can disagree with all what you want, but the hypocrisy on this topic is still running rampant
      83. Seb
        July 20, 2017
        Please explain to me exactly why people take issue with Batfleck's murders, while they are somewhat okay with Bale bending the rule. If you can honestly answer that question, then you'll realize there is zero hypocrisy.
        You've also failed to answer any of my questions, and you haven't bothered to address any of my arguments, yet you say I'm wrong, because? I guess your word is enough? No.
        Even now you didn't refute anything. You merely explained why Batfleck killed (none of which is actually stated in the movie, mind you but whatever). I don't care about any of that. My only point is that there is a massive difference between how Bale and Affleck handled things. That is a fact you have failed miserably to refute.
        "Not only that but if you pay attention he never directly kills anyone. "
        Wow... just fucking... wow. He blows up cars left and right, kills people because they stand in his way, yet you have the audacity to claim he never kills anyone directly, yet you berate Bale for "killing" all the time. Yet I am a hypocrite? The fuck.
        "He shoots vehicles yes but never directly to people unlike many oblivious people say."
        This is some of the worst, most garbage fanboy nonsense spouted on these articles. It's like saying "I didn't kill him, the gun did". What a load of fucking shit.
        "but both movies state how and why the Batman acts that way"
        Nowhere in BvS do they even attempt at trying to explain his behavior. Not even close. Not even a fucking hint. And no, I don't consider Jason Todd's suit a hint, as you would have to be a comic book geek to understand that reference anyways. You can't rely on "advanced" comic book knowledge to convey a point in a movie.
        "As you can see I stick to my point where you are proving me right."
        You keep saying that... yet you can't explain how. I wonder why.
        "how can you say Reeves' Superman and Keaton's Batman are irrelevant?"
        I never said that. I said Bale and Affleck are more relevant [in the discussion of Batman killing]. Big difference.
        Again, there is NO hypocrisy. There is simply, fanboy denial. Nothing more.
      84. jrvc
        July 20, 2017
        and now I see that you replied twice without even giving me the chance to respond. I don't what the heck has given into you for those blatant responses when I'm providing my points (and even knowing that you can have a good discussion with me
        But let me finish as bluntly as you: both movies provide justifications for that (if you don't see it on how the character is predented in bvs, at lesst you have the new rules scene for that).
        That you have to ask why some accept Bale's but not the other's just adds to my point
      85. Seb
        July 20, 2017
        Quite frankly I'm getting tired of false claims and appeals to hypocrisy or bias, when I have proved beyond doubt I hold both versions to the same standard. Sorry, but you cannot assert time and time again I'm an oblivious hypocrite and think that I will appreciate such slander.
        And the new rules scene didn't explain his killing behavior at all, but I won't explain that one for the billionth time.
        You don't even have to respond to my other comment. If you can just answer that question, that'll do. Because that question basically explains my feelings about the situation.
      86. jrvc
        July 20, 2017
        so you are the one acting like I have made offense against and now you are the one who can't stand my comments?? wa??
        Again I don't know what's gotten into you, but again the answer o your question is either hypocrisy or people just wanting to bash. Batfleck is clearly presented on the edge, he is tired of everything and is obsessed with an objective (as ever) which he thinks is the last chance to make sth endure. It's clear as day ON the movie
        As I said I understand your points, and I'm not trying to make you like sth it's clear you don't, that doesn't matter, but for me there is enough evidence to justify one just like the other, and if people are willing to forbid one for sth that should've never happened on the first place, then the same should go for the other.And same for any iteration that has done it (again, Burton's one)
        Again, I'm not saying anything exclusively to you, as I'm speaking about people in general. For me there is enough to proof my point but if you disagree we can go into a agree to disagree scenario, as I don't agree with you either, but I don't really want to go into an offessive scenario against you ;)
      87. Seb
        July 20, 2017
        ?? No, the hell? I'm saying I don't appreciate being called a rampant oblivious hypocrite when you cannot even properly explain why. I have proved with both versions that I hold them to the same standard. For example, it didn't bother me that Affleck rammed into cars because Bale did the same thing and we were supposed to believe they all survived. Clearly that's proof that I hold them to the exact same standard. I would be a hypocrite if I was fine with Bale ramming into cars while I would object to it when Affleck does the same thing. Now THAT is hypocrisy.
        Affleck simply goes far beyond ramming cars, and that's what I take issue with.
        "Batfleck is clearly presented on the edge, he is tired of everything and is obsessed with an objective (as ever) which he thinks is the last chance to make sth endure."
        Then why'd he mow down all those people at the warehouse scene? It doesn't even apply anymore.
        "the answer to your question is either hypocrisy or people just wanting to bash"
        Come on... Just take a step back, okay? Ignore that you love these movies. Now, read that sentence again, doesn't that sound the least bit conspiracy to you?
        I'm no hypocrite, I have proved that beyond doubt. And I sure as hell don't "want to hate" because I would like nothing more than for BvS to be the best movie ever. So why then, do I take issue with it?
        I'll answer it, because I honestly don't know why it's such a hard question to answer.
        "and if are willing to forbid one for sth that should've never happened on the first place, then the same should go for the other."
        But this is the part you don't understand. It's all about context and nuance. Depending on the circumstances, I would be okay with Batman bending his rule. Again, it's simply not black and white. Yes, ideally I want a live action Batman with a completely black and white no-kill rule. But I know that's never gonna happen, so as long as the respect the essence of his rule and don't break it at every damn opportunity, I'm okay with it.
        The reason why Affleck is factually different is because of the reason "why" he kills. There are two sides here.
        1: his personal motivation. As you said, the whole "tired and careless" thing you keep referencing. Even though I don't buy any of it, I'll just grant you that point for the sake of this argument.
        2: the momentary reason to kill someone. As in the tactical reason to kill someone.
        Now tell me, did Bale ever come across as someone who "wanted" to kill anybody, or didn't try anything to avoid killing? He clearly didn't want to kill anyone, least of all Dent or Talia. But he *had* to choose between them or Gordon's family and the entire city (millions of people) respectively. So the choice was clear. It would be inhuman to obey his rule, when it would result in the deaths of *more* innocent people. So it's understandable.
        The same cannot be said about Affleck and that is a fact. How exactly was Affleck forced to kill those goons during the warehouse scene in the Batwing? How in any way does that help him save lives? Those thugs didn't even pose a threat to Martha. And can you honestly say Affleck did everything he could to avoid taking lives? If anything, he seemed to go out of his way to kill people. The whole Batmobile chase scene is proof of that. He killed people he could have EASILY spared. Exactly how many people did Bale "kill" he could have spared? Right. Zero.
        That's the thing. THAT is the difference. And that is why I hate Affleck's rage.
        Bale did what he had to do to save millions of people. Affleck killed people, just because he doesn't give a fuck.
        And you're not wrong for liking that interpretation. All I'm saying is, I don't. And I sure as hell am not a rampant hypocrite for it either.
      88. jrvc
        July 20, 2017
        thanks for providing such a complete reply.
        Let me remind you that I was talking in general and not pointing this at you.
        I see that at least you see there's context behind Batfleck's actions and as I said it doesn't matter if like it or not, just to see that both are sgeping into the same soil even though, as you said and I agreed, the approach is different. And no I'm not talking about any conspiracy, it's just what people post (one even posted what he saw in a video and didn't even watched the movie -_-)
        Now just let me point to you a couple of things: first he doesn't kill anyone at the wsrehouse but the ones in the cars. As I said before he never shot directly at them and they mever stopped shooting high caliber guns at him (again you may not like it but the rationale is there). The thugs who die inside do so because of their actions and not Batman: the one with the grenade because he doesn't run awsy from it, and the KGBeast because he shoots the flame with the hole on it (notice that Batman didn't shoot at him). And regarding the brutality, remember that a) there was a time limit for them to kill Martha, so yes they were a menace and Batman had to act; and b) we have seen Batman's brutality in all movies and videogames (especiallyArkham which served as inspiration for this fight) so I don't see the problem here. What's more, it was a delight!
        And second, again I agree with you and have nothing but praise for the movies, but Bale's Batman could have spared al Guhl's life easily, or the crushing of cars (sth Alfred bashes him for).
        Again, this is not an attack against you, but against the rampant hypocrisy on the topic. You are no such way, but there are lot that are. Worst of all when they downplay Keaton's killing.
        Let me finish saying again we have come to a agree to disagree situation. I understand your points but I don't agree with your vision on it and surely you neither. I hope at least I have made myself clear and that I'm not playing devil's advocate because I'm boring or sth like that.
      89. Seb
        July 20, 2017
        Your argument is basically this:
        Fuck execution.
        Fuck nuance.
        Fuck context.
        Fuck motivation.
        Everything is black and white. It's either 100% or 0%.
        I mean, really... why do you think people take issue with that mentality? It's blatantly dishonest.
      90. jrvc
        July 20, 2017
        c'mon why the heck are acting this way now?
        I'm not defending one or the other with proof out of my ass. I even concede you several points!!
        the way you have acted now deserves your comment more than me
      91. Seb
        July 20, 2017
        Again, why don't you answer my question. Why do you think people complain about Affleck whilst they are okay with Bale. Explain that one to me. The honest answer to that question is just another way of saying fuck nuance.
        You're basically saying there is no difference between a kid who failed to do his homework because his mother has terminal cancer and another kid who didn't do it because he's lazy. You would literally be saying the teacher is a hypocrite for understanding the first kid while punishing the second one, because after all "they both didn't do their homework". It's the exact same thing.
      92. OGmacrazy
        July 20, 2017
        The tumblers didn't turn to ash. Batman was shown in previous movies to be inside a completely wrecked tumbler and be without a scratch.
      93. jrvc
        July 20, 2017
        Of course, he is Batman
      94. OGmacrazy
        July 20, 2017
        Hahaha! So funny! LMAO ROFL LOL
      95. Kerk Lastnameless
        July 19, 2017
        Flagged for violating the rule #3
      96. boots
        July 19, 2017
        dude, uh-uh: you can edit this with less nasty language or i'm going to delete it.
      97. Kerk Lastnameless
        July 19, 2017
        Fair enough, sorry. But he started it. He insulted OGmacrazy.
      98. boots
        July 19, 2017
        that's because he's the delusional one.
        but yes, i appreciate it if you keep that particular vocabulary out of the conversation.
      99. Kerk Lastnameless
        July 20, 2017
        Yet I was the one to get a warning, not the original perpetrator. You guys may be great reviewers but you sure make for lousy moderators.
      100. boots
        July 20, 2017
        you guys can call each other idiots all you want or, preferably, insult each others' opinions. but there is a line and it should be common-sense obvious what kinds of language or name-calling are not going to be tolerated.
        nobody got a warning. i asked you to edit your post and you did.
      101. Kerk Lastnameless
        July 20, 2017
        Got it!
      102. boots
        July 20, 2017
        "kinds of language or name calling". ; D
      103. OGmacrazy
        July 20, 2017
        Kinda harsh, but ok.
      104. Grewal
        July 20, 2017
        We had same discussion more than half a year ago. You didn't reply to my few questions.
        Let's assume Batman not placed tracker for a minute.
        4 cars trying to slow Batman down and convoy going away at full speed in a area filled with different routes and Few other convoy going in area. When Batman was dealing with Cars, blast happens on front of him and it blocks his route and force him to take different route. And convoy change it routes. Now Batman have 3-4 routes and don't know which turn Convoy took. Now How He going to find convoy?
        Isn't tracker helpful in chase if other cars trying to slow Batman and convoy going through a puzzle filled area?
        Next question was,
        Batman had two options.
        1) rob cargo on road when it's protected by 4-5 cars and Few gunmen.
        Or
        2) Track it to destination and that destination will have all guy he have to deal with in option 1 + all the unknown security, weapons or protection available on destination in advance.
        In my opinion dealing with 4-5 cars filled with few gunmen is strategically more wiser than following them to destination and dealing with all of them + don't know how many types of other security obstacles.
      105. OGmacrazy
        July 20, 2017
        We did? Don't remember ever having a discussion with you, and I'm pretty good with that stuff. I should note there once was a guy posing as me actually shitposting in some websites.
        Anyway, why the fuck is he even going in the chase in the first fucking place, dude? He placed the tracker, let him see where it goes. Going on a chase multiplies the risk like crazy, because any good criminal would know to fucking move the cargo to another mode of transportation. Especially when it's Batman that was going after you, no? It's completely braindead from Batman to do it in the first place. He literally robbed Luthor's place anyway afterwards, it's not like he was afraid that security would be too tight. He's fucking Batman, dude.
        Strategically, it's goddamn laughable.
      106. Grewal
        July 20, 2017
        Robbing Luthor's place was last option. He didn't have any choice then. But before that He have choice. Either rob few gunmen in 4 cars or follow them to unknown place about which Batman had no idea and no idea about what type security waiting there.
        Yes, He is Batman but This doesn't mean He will choose a option about which He have no knowledge over taking down 4 cars with few gunmen.
        So He choose to takedown all car and rob cargo mid way. Where it was least protective. He placed tracker on cargo, In case Cargo go outside of his vision while dealing with other car. It was not to follow it's destination but for keep tab on it while deal with other cars. As it happened in movie when a Truck blocked his path. He had to go through wall and He reach to cargo thanks to tracker.
      107. OGmacrazy
        July 20, 2017
        That's what was shown in the movie. But the way the movie did it is not the only way to do it. Think just a bit outside the box. Strategically, what Batman did was beyond stupid. It was absolutely moronic and braindead. ESPECIALLY FOR BATMAN, stealth is key. He is trained as a fucking ninja, and he should never want to do things the loud way. And AGAIN, ANY CRIMINAL WITH AN IQ ABOVE 70 WOULD ALWAYS CHANGE THE VEHICLE TRANSPORTING THE CARGO AFTER THAT MESS OF A CHASE SCENE. So, the tracker would be on the vehicle with absolutely nothing in it, while the substitute vehicle would bring the cargo to it's destination. It was risky. You just don't go for risky, you evaluate your options and choose the one that presents the lesser risk and the highest chance for success. Facing those guys head on was the stupidest, most brain dead decision Batman could have made. It didn't go south because it was a fucking movie that was written by a screenwriter clearly favoring the heroes/titular characters.
      108. Grewal
        July 22, 2017
        How it was stupidest choice? It was 100% success if Superman hadn't intervene. Yes, stealth is key but why choose a option about which He had zero knowledge?
        It was known vs unknown.
        Known - four cars and Few gunmen guarding a cargo. Under Batman's capability. Yes, it will be loud but Still better than unknown.
        Unknown - He had no data that how many people are at destination, what type security is at that unknown place, what type weapons security carrying and no idea about design of building in which they going to store kryptonite.
        Every variable unknown vs a fully known condition. It's easy pick. I don't understand why you think choosing unknown condition is wiser than fully controlled condition. Even raid on Lex's building was Loud. It happened offscreen but we seen it's condition afterwards.
      109. OGmacrazy
        July 22, 2017
        Again, the best option EVERY SINGLE TIME in a situation like that is the lest noisy one. Less trouble, less resources blown and less casualties. Also much less risk, because that's fucking Batman, he won't just go in there and break in. He will study the place. You're acting as if that's a regular person doing the job. It isn't. It's Batman. And proof of how it would have gone without a hitch it he went about it that way: he does it later on.
        Pursuing your targets is risky because there are a shit ton more variables than breaking in silently. Like I said, it could have gone south even without Superman and if those goons were didn't suffer from mental issues (AKA screenwriter's will to make the hero triumph), they would have just switched the cargo and dropped the targeted vehicle anywhere else. Stop acting as if the movie's way is the only way. Think outside of the box, dude.
      110. Grewal
        July 22, 2017
        How they have get time to ditch cargo if Superman had not intervene?
        Why make things complicated if target is in front of you and with very least security? I know He is Batman and He know that cargo is most vulnerable under security of 4 cars and Few gunmen compare to some unknown secret base of a resourceful person like Lex Luthor. About which Batman had zero knowledge.
        So You think Batman is not capable of takedown 4 cars and 9-10 gunmen in those cars?
      111. OGmacrazy
        July 22, 2017
        Dude, I'm saying in case the batmobile got damaged, or Batman lost them. In that case, criminals usually have a back up plan, or you know, just switch the cargo to a safe place, and ditch the truck and then ask for backup and another vehicle. It really ain't rocket science and it was always risky. With a tracker, Batman had no need to do what he did. It put thousands of dollars of property damage at risk, took lives unnecessarily (but I guess this "awesome" Batman doesn't give two flying fucks about making orphans like him) and made a fucking mess out of a situation that could have been much cleaner.
      112. Grewal
        July 22, 2017
        "I'm saying in case the batmobile got damaged, or Batman lost them."
        That's why He placed tracker on cargo. In case guarding car delayed him and He loose sight of cargo and When it happened, He ram through wall and reach cargo in no time through window of nearby building.
        He went through wall, Window, cars and small ship or big boat without taking big damage. He took machine gun bullets and had counter even from bazooka.
        He knew what He is doing and his capability. What He didn't know? He didn't know what type security and difficult is facing on destination. What if that place have hundreds man guarding it with high tech weapons, it's behind tens highly advanced secure gates, by passing through tens room. All full with different security features. behind tens layers of highly dangerous lasers, in highly advanced locker with tens of sensors. Or It's destination is just a simple room with a old man guarding it.
        It's all about known vs unknown. Known condition was under his capability so He take it. Unknown condition was just unknown.
        In Dark Knight, Batman blow cars parked in parking. Just after We see children alone playing in nearby cars. What if those cars have children inside?
        As raiding Lex's building not going to hurt any innocent. Many people works for him. All scientist, programmer and many more stuff. Anyone can get hurt in crossfire there too. No place is safe.
      113. OGmacrazy
        July 22, 2017
        And did he know they couldn't call back up? Get distractions so the cargo could be replaced? Sorry, but the loudest option is simply NEVER the safest one. It's simply there becasue the screenwriter and Snyder wanted an action sequence with the Batmobile, even if it didn't make a lick of sense. Because, AGAIN, the fucking vehicle would have been switched as soon as the goons lost Batman, which they fucking did. Too bad that didn't occur to anyone with a fucking brain behind the scenes.
      114. Grewal
        July 22, 2017
        Known loudest option is still better than unknown option. What back up? 3-4-5-6 more cars? He is able to takedown them too. Batmobile is beast. It's still safer option than unknown option.
        And about switching vehicle. This is nitpicking. We can question every action of every character in every movie. There are many possibilities but story depends on what they did. Unless it's very stupid thing. Like in Winter Soldier hydra agents put Steve, Sam and widow in last car instead of middle one.
        They didn't do it. They hardly loose Batman in chase. They not going to stop midway and gave Batman chance to catch up. Maybe their destination was nearby or they were afraid that Batman will again catch them so they want to reach destination as fast as possible and not suspect that Batman placed tracker on it and most importantly, Lex wants Batman to get kryptonite so maybe He allowed It to get followed.
        If you says that a smart person switch vehicle if attacked. I says a smart person switch vehicle 2-3 times midway if they carry a important thing like kryptonite, regardless of they get attacked or not. Just in case someone follow them. So placing tracker to find destination fails there too. Now suggest other option.
      115. OGmacrazy
        July 22, 2017
        "Not suspect Batman put a tracker on it"
        Sorry, that's beyond idiotic. Even for police cars any midly intelligent criminal would know to switch vehicles. It's common bloody sense, and like I said, if the screenwriters weren't so keen on having the hero succeed, so the movie could happen, it just wouldn't have gone that way.
      116. OGmacrazy
        July 22, 2017
        Also, that last paragraph is nonsensical. If they think the road is clear, then there's no need. They could do it, but it could arouse suspicion where none was before. Keep defending the movie as if that was it's only option. THe fact is any rational thinking Batman would want there to be less casualties possible, make the least noise and do it as clean as he could, which he could. It's simply not as black and white as "breaking in was unknown". It wasn't. He is Batman, he is trained to deal with those types of situations. He is a fucking ninja and a master strategist. Going in head first into a confrontation is not only one of the first things you should know as a strategian NOT TO DO, but simply the worst option possible. Should only ever be done in case a distraction is needed, at best. The fact that that truck got all the way to metropolis without any authority figure stopping the truck, aprehending the cargo, and also fucking up batman's plan along the way is another convenient thing the screenwriters ignored for the sake of having a "cool action sequence".
      117. Grewal
        July 23, 2017
        Why it was nonsensical. If you carrying thing like kryptonite you have to be extra careful. Switch cargos midway. On top of that it's illegal so it's smart to switch vehicle anyway in case someone trying to follow it. It not cause any suspicion. We have transport business. Switching cargoes from one trailers to another according to different location is common thing.
        Yeah, He can know that " unknown" place after some studying. After spending couple days on planning. But why make things more complicated when it's possible for him to rob trailers right there?
        It's simple thing for him to take down four cars right there.
        Just tell which is simple. Taking down four cars or tracking destination and spend few days to get all knowledge on that place. And than spend time to make plans and then going in with much greater risk.
2. Kerk Lastnameless
  July 19, 2017
  And then world was like, "Well too fukin bad because we'll spend our money on Thor instead. Enjoy empty theaters, assholes."
  Johns knows it. He has sense. That's why Whedon is changing the movie, and that's why Snyder officially gave up on it by removing all the info of it from his Twitter. Bottom line, he is over and out. Get used to it.
  1. iAbeLincoln
    July 20, 2017
    You're a pack of fools, every last one of you. Zack's daughter died and he walked away to spend time with family. Go fuck yourselves
Kryptonian Knight
July 19, 2017
A. Vehicles aren't hateful.
B. Learn the definition of murder before you use it.
C. Zack Snyder never got kicked off JL.
You obviously have problems when it comes to facts.
1. OGmacrazy
  July 19, 2017
  Oh so you're one of those guys who says it was "manslaughter", uh?
  Nothing quite like PLANNING out a "manslaughter" using military grade equipment against people with zero resources (compared to what you have at your fingertips) who didn't even threat your life until you decided to show up with said equipment and you used completely overblown methods to kill them, all never in self defense. Man, how many people would get out of murder charges if it were that fucking easy.
  1. OGmacrazy
    July 19, 2017
    That's all fine and dandy, but am I supposed to like an irrational vigilante who has no qualms about taking lives even if the plan is absolute jackshit and seems to be as void of intelligence almost as much as he is with sobriety? Flawed characters are a must, but this is flatout shitting on the legacy of a character. I also have no nostalgia feelings regarding the Burton movies. I mainly watched the first when I was young, the second, even as a child, bored me to tears almost every time, but I have absolutely no delusions about the quality or the character treatment of those movies. First one is a solid movie, though. It definitely ain't no Batman v Superman.
    1. OGmacrazy
      July 19, 2017
      I'm sorry, but even a villain should be likable. You should at least love to hate him. This Batman was nothing like that, and he definitely wasn't meant to be the villain, just someone with a differing point of view. It's clearly set up to make the audience relate to what Batman feels regarding Superman, even if that's not the opinion of the audience seeing it. And it did have some moments where it did just that. Untill Batman was shown to be hypocritical and an absolute shame to the name. "Deconstructionist take" is the expression we're using now for destroying a character's legacy in less than 3 hours, now?
    2. residentgrigo
      July 20, 2017
      BvS is a "revenge tragedy" according to the writer, so i myself would have gone a bit further. Seeing him kill with the pistol that killed his parents in the Knightmare was pretty interesting.
      1. OGmacrazy
        July 20, 2017
        Of course you would! It's a DCEU film, so either way it's made, you would do it the same or over exaggerate the things that are wrong with it, because you love everything about these movies. "Best screenplay I've read in years" - residentgrigo, about Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice's screenplay.
  2. Kryptonian Knight
    July 19, 2017
    "People with zero resources" LOL you're talking about paid assasins with Luther funds at their disposal, you really are delusional. Sorry you don't like the true definition of murder and that you can't comprehend the context of where this Batman is morally in the film. This was a Batman that calls himself a criminal and thinks 20 years of fighting the scum of the earth has really changed or mattered except pain, you actually think that Batman is going to feel bad about killing hired killer who shoot at him? Lol
    1. OGmacrazy
      July 19, 2017
      Yeah, nothing quite like machine guns and a rocket launcher against a vehicle far ahead of what the military has at it's disposal.
      Also, yes, Batman SHOULD feel bad about killing people. Too bad this Batman was too dumb, irrational, and too hopped up on pain killers mixed with alcohol to feel pretty much anything, right?
      1. Kryptonian Knight
        July 19, 2017
        Since when does Batman have inferior weapons? The fact that you still think that a Batman "should" feel bad at this point in the movie goes to show how clueless you are about the interpretation of this Batman. It actually takes the death of Superman to get him back to the more virtuous Batman he once was. "I failed him in life but I won't fail him in death".
      2. OGmacrazy
        July 19, 2017
        And how does that contribute anything to your "it wasn't murder" argument?
        Either way, Batman's main worry in the film is that Superman can "burn the whole place down"... Yet, he's doing that exact same thing. Using the power he has to fuck the law two ways to sunday to exact his own version of "law enforcement". If that ain't hypocritical and just sad for a character named "Bruce Wayne/Batman", I don't know what is.
      3. Cocaine Cowboy
        July 19, 2017
        I’m pretty sure Bruce intends for this to be his last stand, you don’t pick a
        fight with Superman unless you're prepared to die. He’s looking to save the human race, in his mind, millions of lives are at stake. He even tells Alfred that he wants this to stand as his legacy, the only thing he ever did that mattered. With that mindset, why would he have any remaining fucks to give? You stand in his way, you die.
      4. OGmacrazy
        July 19, 2017
        Because he could be wrong, and because he is being hypocritical and completely dumb. "World's best detective" my ass.
      5. Cocaine Cowboy
        July 19, 2017
        No detective work is required, he's already seen Superman do good deeds, he knows he poses no immediate threat. He's steadfast in his belief that the very existence of someone as powerful as Superman poses too great a risk.
      6. Alan Conn
        July 19, 2017
        Hes also seen heroes turn evil plenty of times... did nobody even watch this film?!
      7. OGmacrazy
        July 20, 2017
        Again, it's one thing to have a contigency plan, it's another one entirely to fucking decide to kill a person based on a fucking hunch, bud. But I guess if more people acted that way, the world would be a better place, right? We'd all be dead, but hey! Such a wonderful Earth that we would leave as our legacy.
      8. OGmacrazy
        July 20, 2017
        So "let's just kill someone just because he is more powerful than me?"
        Seems rather illogical. If there's such a being like Superman on Earth protecting it (like he did with Zod), then there's definitely people like him probably on earth already (like he later learned in the very same movie) as there are out there in space, and definitely also bad ones. Is he going to have a rock that weakens each on of them? Or is it maybe better to have Superman, a good guy, maybe helping out instead?
      9. Six By Six
        July 19, 2017
        It amazes me how you're so one sided... Yes. He could be wrong, but the idea was, he couldn't take the chance of being wrong. From what he gathered and went through, that's what he was going with. Could you honestly blame him? He didn't see the movie Man of Steel, you know? He doesn't know who Superman is except a flying man who is invincible and indestructible. Millions die in his wake in battle. He doesn't know Clark Kent. Why is that so hard to comprehend?
      10. OGmacrazy
        July 20, 2017
        Yeah, it's not like there were constant reports that Superman saved people asking nothing in return and all that. Why not just go head first into a confrontation with a man using better methods and being less of a fucking murderer than you, right? He has to be bad! He has powers and flies!
        It's one thing to have a plan in hand (comic book Batman always does). But to actually provoke it and all going from a bad experience which everyone knew (not just the audience) it wasn't Superman's fault? I mean, come the fuck on.
      11. Kryptonian Knight
        July 19, 2017
        LOL... pick up a law book and read the definition of murder and hopefully you will have the comprehensive ability to understand, regardless of jurisdiction the one common thread is the premeditated unlawful killing of another human being without justification or excuse! Retaliation for self defense isn't murder buddy, wise up! Batman is and always has been a killer in the comics or films and your opinion will never change that fact. You only have to kill once to become a killer, never forget that.
      12. OGmacrazy
        July 19, 2017
        It's one thing to kill someone out of PURE NEED or accidentally, like he did with Harvey which was his only way to save the kid, by pushing harvey out of the way (since he was shot and was hurt), in The Dark Knight. It's another fucking thing entirely to shoot a car filled with people till that car is nothing more than a firey carcass and then bloody smash it with the Batmobile, for good measure. Or to knock a car out entirely and then throwing a cable and swinging it around, probably to make sure he would kill as many goons as possible, probably a fetish of his. It's absolutely psychotic, but I guess Batman being a hero is way overdone! Frankly, I was disappointed this wasn't Thomas Wayne's Batman. Would have made for some pretty cool (by Snyder's standards of cool) scenes were he would just shoot everyone in the head and be done with it. Oh well!
      13. Kryptonian Knight
        July 19, 2017
        "PURE NEED" lol, nobody needs to kill it's a choice. When someone fires a gun at a vehicle that is being driven by a human being what's their intention when that person dies? If you are unsure ask Bales Batman when he shot and killed Talia's driver in TDKR.
      14. OGmacrazy
        July 20, 2017
        Again. Batman had NO NEED for being in that fucking chase sequence. He was there because Snyder or the screenwriters or both wanted a fucking action sequence early on in the movie featuring Batsy and the batsymobile. Nothing else. It makes no logical sense to track a truck's movement and then just go on a chase when there's risk you may not be able to complete the chase and then the cargo being moved somewhere else (which as I've explained before, was incredibly braindead on the goons' part not to do, but that's expected from a movie such as this). Either way, Batman went on a killing spree for absolutely no reason. He could have just broken into Lex's place like he fucking did anyway. You simply cannot fight this, let it go.
      15. Kryptonian Knight
        July 20, 2017
        It's called a contingency guy, which came in handy. If he didn't have a tracker on the truck he would have never got the Kryptonite. He sure as hell wasnt expecting Superman to come in and do what he did. Look there is NO NEED for you to keep talking with me but you can't let me go so who's the pathetic one in this situation?
      16. OGmacrazy
        July 20, 2017
        If the movie had a decent screenplay, the chase sequence would have never happened, given any decent criminal (here I go again, I have no idea how this doesn't get through that skull of yours) would have immediately changed the vehicle transporting the cargo, while driving the other vehicle to a completely random place, since it would be more than moronic to drive that same vehicle to it's destination either way because:
        A) there was the risk that it was being tracked, and they knew Batman was in on them;
        B) one police officer sees that vehicle in that state and it's immediately stopped for breaking laws out the ass (but I guess those "law books" you read didn't mention this, uh?
        It's absolutely moronic to say the tracker was a contigency plan since it should have been plan A: know where it's going, track it's movements and wait until it arrives it's destination so the cargo can be stolen there, with more stealth and strategy involved, instead of going head first into a confrontation that presents a much higher risk factor.
        But I guess You won't read any of this with an open mind because you're deadset in thinking that the movie was the best it could have been and there's nothing one can do to better it. Such a great mindset, too. Maybe just employ a little bit of thinking and you'll see why such an action (confronting the cars head on) was probably a shitty idea. Remember, it's a fucking super hero movie directed by the mastermind behind Sucker Punch. Not a David Fincher detective-noir film.
      17. Kryptonian Knight
        July 20, 2017
        "But I guess You won't read any of this with an open mind because you're deadset..." You sure make a lot of assumptions that are nowhere near accurate of how I feel about this movie. Do yourself a favor and keep your false assertions to yourself and learn the word pithy for crying out loud.
      18. OGmacrazy
        July 20, 2017
        Exactly, didn't even bothered to respond to any and all arguments. Also, it's pretty obvious that you are. Simply reading this comment chain shows a shit ton of examples where you turn a blind eye to any and all criticism.
      19. Kryptonian Knight
        July 20, 2017
        Why would I? They are worthless just like this conversation and since you can't let go, I will. Peace out Holmes.
      20. OGmacrazy
        July 20, 2017
        https://media.giphy.com/med...
    2. Alan Conn
      July 19, 2017
      No! U dont understand! He never trolls!
  3. Fréaláf Hildeson
    July 19, 2017
    I don't think superhero movies, or action movies in general, are for you.
    Stick to cartoons.
    1. OGmacrazy
      July 19, 2017
      Nah, they're definitely for me. I rewatch The Dark Knight Trilogy at least once a year. I love them to death. Also: Raimi's first two Spider-Man movies, Superman The Movie, Man of Steel, Logan, Xmen 2, Days Of Future Past, First Class, Iron Man, Guardians of the Galaxy or Wonder Woman are all movies I thoroughly enjoy or even love, to name a few.
      1. Fréaláf Hildeson
        July 19, 2017
        You should leave and spend all your time at GuardiansOfTheGalaxy-News.com then (and whine about all the people murdered in those movies).
      2. OGmacrazy
        July 19, 2017
        Why? Would that make it easier for you to love these movies? Do I make you doubt your own thoughts?
        https://media.giphy.com/med...
  4. Malcolm
    July 19, 2017
    Dude. Chill.
    1. OGmacrazy
      July 19, 2017
      https://s-media-cache-ak0.p...
  5. Six By Six
    July 19, 2017
    Wait a second. You just said "Batman uses military grade equipment against people with zero resources (compared to what he has at his fingertips)". What kind of idiotic-thinking is that? First off, They had resources whether it was better or not. Just because it wasn't as tech-savvy doesn't mean they have zero resource. They had military grade experience, training, and firearms. They have a criminal network and manpower. Even one of the wealthiest man was backing them up with the world's leading tech company. Zero resource? Knock it off.
    1. Alan Conn
      July 19, 2017
      But no... he totally doesnt troll!
    2. OGmacrazy
      July 20, 2017
      Compared to a vehicle capable of withstanding direct explosive weaponry, capable of firing bullets that shred a car into ashes in a matter of seconds, capable of discharging flares so that any weaponry that uses tracking is made completely useless? Sorry, but yes. Batman had all the advantage, and then some. The chase was useless to begin with. All of that bullshit could have been avoided and he could have just stolen the goddamn thing from the get go with zero casualties. But I do guess y'all's favorite Batman needs to quell his bloodthirst. All of this coming from someone who loves Affleck on the role, loves the warehouse scene's fighting choreography and has many hopes about this Batman. But the movie and how it treated him? Very poor indeed.
  6. Daniel Moshee
    July 19, 2017
    "People with zero resources"
    This guy is fucking laughable.
    1. OGmacrazy
      July 20, 2017
      He is, isn't he? :D
  7. Seb
    July 19, 2017
    Wait a minute... the dispute was whether or not Batman kills in BvS. All you've done is basically reaffirm OG's point that yes, Batman is a murderer in the movie. You just stated it "makes sense" (even though it doesn't, but whatever). You didn't deny the *fact* that Batman kills people. How you got so many likes for basically proving your opponent right, is truly beyond my understanding.
    1. Kerk Lastnameless
      July 20, 2017
      Easy. "Tribalism" is the word of the day, kids!
2. Kryptonian Knight
  July 19, 2017
  Wrong again! Change your name to Clarence Wrongly, that will suit your comments better.
André Alves
July 19, 2017
Cool, I really like this batmobile!
And it seems that Superman's suit in JL will feature a lighter blue than in the two previous movies.
https://www.instagram.com/p...
1. Kouglof
  July 19, 2017
  JL suit should be the same than BvS.
  Here you have MoS / BvS :
  http://image.noelshack.com/...
  And here you have Justice League :
  https://www.instagram.com/p...
  1. OmegaCorleone
    July 19, 2017
    I love that even though the upgrades compared to Man of Steel's suit are rather subtle, they do make the suit look a lot better overall.
    1. Schuyler Finley
      July 19, 2017
      I can already hear people creaming their pants and shouting "Thank God the costume now has a lighter shade of blue and yellow!!"
2. El Maybe
  July 19, 2017
  I wish, but I doubt it will be perceptible under layers and layers of depressing blue filters. Would you believe that Aquaman's armor has green and gold - or any color, really - and that Wonder Woman has her classic red and blue colors only by watching the trailers?
3. Seb
  July 19, 2017
  Pretty sure that's just the BvS suit. Look at his hair. In JL his hair sits the other way around.
Schuyler Finley
July 19, 2017
Hmmmm.......needs more weapons that go "ka-boom".
1. El Maybe
  July 19, 2017
  We should turn the whole vehicle into a bomb, there we go! Thinking about it now, I wouldn't be surprised if it turned out to be one.
  1. Schuyler Finley
    July 19, 2017
    Ok. I enjoy it having weapons. It makes sense since he's going to war.
    1. El Maybe
      July 19, 2017
      Indeed, I'm fine with it as long as he's not murdering people with them.
    2. Boulder Bash
      July 19, 2017
      He is not our enemy!
R2D2Bros
July 19, 2017
Funny how so many people complained about Batman using this Batmobile to kill criminals in BvS, then Zack and Co. turn around and add more guns for JL. LOL.
Just goes to show how insignificant these "true fans" voices really are. Saying "that's not my Batman" or "Batman doesn't kill" typical criticisms. Fans cheer for their properties no matter what.
I'll be there for JL opening day with a big ass smile on my face.
1. OGmacrazy
  July 19, 2017
  >> "Fans cheer for their properties no matter what"
  The most fanboyish thing one can say. It really destroys your credibility and capability of rational thinking... For real. Also, it's *fanboys, not fans. Fans are usually critical about what they like. It's what being a fan is all about, really.
  It does make for an interesting thought. If Uwe Boll directed these movies, I guess you would be watching them with a "big ass smile" on your face as well?
  1. Shane
    July 19, 2017
    I claimed so many times that they don't give a shit about the quality of the film or even who's behind directing it because their mind is already set on loving it. Now those 8 words completely back up my argument and I love seeing who's agreeing with it
    1. OGmacrazy
      July 19, 2017
      I'm 100% sure Zack Snyder's following more than doubled after being chosen as the director for Man of Steel. But they've been fans "all along", they'll say. Wonder where his legion was when he had 3 straight box office bombs before Nolan decided to save his career by literally handing him the job to direct Man of Steel.
  2. Fréaláf Hildeson
    July 19, 2017
    "It really destroys your credibility and capability of rational thinking"
    That is cute coming from a troll spending all his time shitposting here.
    1. Shane
      July 19, 2017
      That is cute, labeling those with an opposing view as "trolls".
      1. Fréaláf Hildeson
        July 19, 2017
        Losers who spend all their time on a fan website for a franchise they hate are definitely pathetic trolls. And I know you will also feel targeted, as you should.
      2. Shane
        July 19, 2017
        The DCEU only consist of two movies? He has repeatedly shown love for MOS and WW especially for MoS but of course you'll ignore that simple fact.
        It's easier to label others as trolls than admitting that you are a pathetic little
        child unable to accept any other opinions.
      3. Fréaláf Hildeson
        July 19, 2017
        He is ranting and posting the same old crap in the comments for an article about a fucking toy car. That says it all about him (also, the fact that a fellow troll like you is defending him).
      4. OGmacrazy
        July 20, 2017
        Damn, have you been so sheltered in your life that the mere sight of people not being as in love with fucking products as you are when in a website about those same products makes you this petty and irrational?
        My god, dude. That's sad. Very sad, indeed.
    2. OGmacrazy
      July 19, 2017
      Care to give examples of trolling from my part? Or is that yet another weak ass reply to a statement you disagree with?
      Not liking something or not being in love with it doesn't mean you're a troll, bud.
      Or do you think a troll actually gives reasons and tries to have a debate about something?
      I say, overusing words really takes out any kind of meaning they could have. But I'm sure the hoi polloi of DCEU fanboys currently using this website will upvote your comment or reply with a "NICE ONE! GOT 'EM! I ALWAYS KNEW IT! SOMEONE AGREES WITH ME SO I AM RIGHT" because they too like to go with the "oh you're a troll! Stop disagreeing!" reply since it's much easier than actually having a debate, or not being offended by one at least. Hilarious! Take it away, Michael!
      http://www.reactiongifs.com...
      1. Shane
        July 19, 2017
        Like literally, the fact that Chris hasn't banned you proves it alone.
2. krampe1995
  July 19, 2017
  after wonder woman my faith is restored.
  also many people are not to happy with Whedon but personally i like it. The avengers movies may be cheesy but they have the biggest rewatch factor.
3. Ravager
  July 19, 2017
  You and me both buddy :)
4. El Maybe
  July 19, 2017
  "Fans cheer for their properties no matter what." WRONG.
  They would love to, sure, but REAL fans won't cheer while watching their properties turn into shit. Real fans will rebel, because they and their properties deserve better. If we can have MoS and WW, why should I be content with BvS and SS? We should aim higher and expect better, when we do, so will WB.
  1. Schuyler Finley
    July 19, 2017
    What makes a person a "real" fan? I see that word get tossed around so much that I think it has no true meaning. Why can't people just enjoy something without being deemed as not a "real" fan? If you don't like what you're seeing, that's cool. No one should say that you're not a "real" fan simply because you don't like what you like. And if you don't like what others like, you shouldn't deem them as not being "real" fans.
    1. El Maybe
      July 19, 2017
      Not once I said people who enjoy BvS or SS aren't real fans, you enjoy BvS and I know for a fact you're a real fan. My point is that fans don't have to cheer for their properties no matter what like R2 stated, sorry if I wasn't clear.
      1. Schuyler Finley
        July 19, 2017
        Fair enough and my mistake.
      2. El Maybe
        July 19, 2017
        No problem!
    2. Seb
      July 19, 2017
      Being a "real" fan simply means your love and praise isn't unconditional. That's what we call fanboyism. There's a difference between someone who genuinely enjoyed MoS, BvS, etc (I reckon you are one of those people) and someone who just says he loved it because he feels obliged to... because that's what fanboys do. Love anything thrown at them, even if it's utter garbage.
5. Kerk Lastnameless
  July 19, 2017
  Yeah, he is sticking to his guns so hard that he even removed all the memory of JL from his Twitter account.
  1. FastestKnight
    July 19, 2017
    What memory? All his JL tweets are there.
    If you're talking about the avatar and the background, he had the same profile picture and background while doing Man of Steel and Batman v Superman, so by that logic, he was kicked off those movies too.
    And he keeps sharing JL and DC stuff on Vero, so......
    1. Kerk Lastnameless
      July 19, 2017
      So what would be the reason for deleting the avatar and the background? Especially now when advertisement of JL is about to start to kick in with comicon? I see no other reason than he does not feel like its his movie anymore. Let's see what we know so far:
      - Throughout the entire production of the movie, Snyder and WB have serious disagreements
      - His daughter dies in March, yet he stays
      - He leaves in May, officially because of her death
      - Whedon comes in, officially to finish his movie for him
      - In summer, he starts extensive reshoots
      - In July he gets a new composer
      - Less than a week before comicon, Snyder gets rid of the JL avatar, which was there throughout the entire production period of the movie.
      All of that adds up to one conclusion -- Johns saw his movie and thought it was ass. WB kicked him out under the pretense of carrying in order to save face and not create any more bad publicity. Because it would have been monstrously bad publicity if they acknowledged that he left because they did not like it.
      1. Fréaláf Hildeson
        July 19, 2017
        Snyder lost his daughter, but that won't stop the most disgusting persons from posting deranged conspiracy theories online. You should be ashamed of yourself.
      2. Kerk Lastnameless
        July 20, 2017
        You should be ashamed of yourself for using it as a trump card when you want to silence his critics.
      3. FastestKnight
        July 19, 2017
        First of all, Zack can do whatever he wants. He could change his avatar to a Marvel Studios one and mean nothing. He's a person, not a company, and maybe he needed a break of the movie but again, not of your business.
        Whedon (and directors like Scott Derrikson, etc.) doesn't have a Justice League avatar. Maybe because they can do whatever they want. OMG.
        And again, he had his current avatar during Man of Steel and Batman v Superman. It means nothing.
        Now:
        Whedon was hired BY Snyder himself to write adicional scenes during production.
        What you say about Warner and Snyder having disagreements is not true.
        The reshoots were already planned before Whedon took the director's role.
        Your conclusion is straight bullsh!t invented by you.
        Lots of movies change their composers, like Age of Ultron, which by the way hired Elfman too, and Junkie XL had to compose Tomb Raider also.
        Zack himself SAID he didn't want to make public his tragedy, but he knew that if he left without reason, websites and people like you would say what you just said, that the movie is doomed, that Warner doesn't trust him or invent an Armageddon-type of scenario for the movie and the DCEU.
        Have some RESPECT for a man who suffered a tragedy.
        That's all I have to say. I'm tired of this.
      4. Kerk Lastnameless
        July 20, 2017
        So, how long till I get to talk shit about him now? One more month? Couple? A year? When JL comes out, and if it's ass, do I get to call him an idiot and a hack, or should I still be silent out of respect for the tragedy?
        I think it's been long enough.
      5. Seb
        July 19, 2017
        I'm pretty sure that Snyder has much less of an input concerning JL than fans love to believe... Heck, I reckon we won't ever see him direct anything DCEU related again... but using his Twitter as proof? Idk, that's just reaching.
      6. Kerk Lastnameless
        July 20, 2017
        Why would that be reaching? A creator that put hundrids of hours into his creation, advertising it as such all the way through the process, and then suddenly dropping it. Also, keep in mind that Twitter is not just a random comment section -- it's a powerful PR tool. What an artist says on Twitter can have monstrous effects on his work and his future in the industry. Remember Trank? He pretty much committed a professional suicide when he blamed Fox for fucking up his movie. And now Snyder takes down the JL banner less than a week before its big comicon coming? I mean, you are free to think that it's nothing, but I don't believe that. Too much crap lines up nicely.
6. OGmacrazy
  July 20, 2017
  Oh but those aren't real fans! They didn't like it, therefore they ain't no fans! They're haters, trolls and shitposters. All of them. Obviously.
Captain DC
July 19, 2017
Hmm. I wonder if Matt Reeves will have a new Batmobile designed, remove some of the guns from this one, remove all of the guns, or just leave it as is. I wouldn't mind seeing something a little sexier, and less aggressive, in the upcoming movies. https://uploads.disquscdn.c...
1. Orlando Furioso
  July 19, 2017
  I wonder too - I would not mind a reimagining. Just say that Bats has two vehicles, just like Bruce probably has dozens of cars.
2. OmegaCorleone
  July 19, 2017
  The *only* thing I don't dig about the Batmobile are the way the doors flap open. It's okay that they're at the top rather than at the side, as with the Tumbler but those doors were in parts. These are just two big flaps.
  On the other hand, seeing Batman ride it without the doors actually on it and with Aquaman next to him is next level badassery and I think I prefer the way it looks like that :P
3. Canucks Fan
  July 19, 2017
  He could give him a cool water vehicle obviously he would need to incorporate it into his story but that's one vehicle not shown or made yet for the DCEU
4. Gandhi1872
  July 20, 2017
  In his most recent mailbag Jett from BOF (up to you whether you want to believe the source) said he knew for a fact there would be a new batmobile for The Batman.
krampe1995
July 19, 2017
they showcased the 3 mother boxes. also the damn hot toys are here in the back and no one bothers...
diogo02000
July 19, 2017
the Screamer never looked soo good! I envy those what gonna be close to that beuaty!
Scott Peterson
July 19, 2017
I think my favorite feature of the Batmobile in BvS was its ability to transform into a convertible after one confrontation with Superman.
Orlando Furioso
July 19, 2017
You need a little something extra for killing Parademons. That's all there is to it.
1. Six By Six
  July 19, 2017
  Yeah, tell that to OGmacrazy who's hellbent on a crusade to crucified Zack and everything-a fictional piece of work. The child can't think outside his hatred. Trust me, I understand why the heavy weaponry is there. They're at war yet the child will come up with something so stupid and think it was clever for him to say.
  1. Ravager
    July 19, 2017
    XD *Slaps knee*
  2. OGmacrazy
    July 20, 2017
    https://uploads.disquscdn.c...
    >> repeatedly calls me child (obviously in order to feel better about himself and his opinions)
    >> likes a comment that states any "real fan" will love anything that has to do with their fandom, regardless of quality.
    Thanks for this brilliant comedy moment, my man!
    Your comment reminds me of a great song, though!
    https://www.youtube.com/wat...
Supermansteve
July 19, 2017
I really hope Zack will be driving it in like he did for Batman v Superman dawn of justice SDCC.
1. Kerk Lastnameless
  July 19, 2017
  He won't.
Ravager
July 19, 2017
I think it's looks really cool, what's your problem?
1. cjflan32
  July 19, 2017
  He and OGmacrazy are jackasses. Or morons. Or both. That's the problem.
2. Ravager
  July 20, 2017
  Ugh
jrvc
July 19, 2017
Looks really cool! Love all the attention to the details!
Vger64
July 19, 2017
Interesting window structure and I love the guns!! I mean look, his super power is, he is rich and he has money for the ammo...
StupidSexyArthurCurry
July 19, 2017
I fucking love that some of the retards in the comment section are arguing about killing fucking parademons. of course hes gonna have guns on his car to fight a souless army.
thefallen83
July 19, 2017
Looks awesome!
Canucks Fan
July 19, 2017
I love the design and it works when he is going to war but I do hope Matt Reeves gives him a less tank like Batmobile something like the 89 version it still has weapons and features but their mostly concealed
Bob Burger
July 19, 2017
Well at least this time he's prepped to kill Parademons as opposed to humans. Hopefully the guns will be removed for The Batman when his back in his right mind-set.
Anyways, I want that small replica, looks mad.
1. jrvc
  July 20, 2017
  But all the Batmobiles ever have had guns...
  1. Bob Burger
    July 20, 2017
    As in the ones which aren't meant for killing people. And if it does have rocket launcher like things, then that should be used for destroying e.g. builidings/ train bridge supporters etc. And that Batfleck won't use it for killing.
    1. jrvc
      July 20, 2017
      Again you are describing all the batmobiles ever... And all of them had "real" guns, no guns "meant for X"
      1. Bob Burger
        July 20, 2017
        I'm simply just saying that Batfleck should have guns which are necessary to get the job done and that Batfleck will not use said guns to kill humans.
  2. jrvc
    July 20, 2017
    aham
    1. jrvc
      July 20, 2017
      Ok, maybe not literally all, but as you said all batmobiles on movis had
  3. Batm
    July 20, 2017
    Because Batman is everiwhere.
residentgrigo
July 20, 2017
It's the car, right? Chicks love the car!
Well ladies, do you?
1. cars
  July 20, 2017
  All the chicks that exist in the world love cars.
  1. emily_10
    July 20, 2017
    I can confirm this. Oh what a dream come true would it be to have that batmobile
2. boots
  July 20, 2017
  eh.
  1. residentgrigo
    July 20, 2017
    Motorcycles are fun, cars... well "eh" fits.
Guest
July 20, 2017
This channel, is very cool
1. Rato
  July 20, 2017
  For sure it is.
  1. stooop
    July 20, 2017
    Stop doing that.
    1. fun
      July 20, 2017
      Why should I..?
      It is very funny.
Armadorian
July 20, 2017
I wonder if they will introduce Wonder Woman's invisible jet in one of the future Justice League movies or a future Wonder Woman sequel. Batmobile is cool but been there/ done that....lets' see another iconic DC Comics vehicle already!

Browse By Topic

Browse By Year

Browse By Author

This is an archive of Batman-News.com from 2010 to 2025. For the latest news, check out BatmanNews.com