MovieChat Forums > Batman (1989) Discussion > A conspicuous Batmobile - how stupid is...

A conspicuous Batmobile - how stupid is that?


This is a generic remark on all Batman fiction so far: The guy is supposed to be this stealthy crime-fighter clad in dark cape and cowl, and nimbly scale the buildings and fight the bad guys, and yet, he has this recognizable car with stylized bat-wing tailfins, and/or Batman-logo on the bonnet etc, as if he wants everyone to know that this is the ride of, well, someone who is supposed to be an anonymous vigilante. I don't understand the strategy. Shouldn't his ride look unremarkable, at least on the outside? In that way he could park the car anywhere he wanted, and no one would be alerted to his presence if he wanted to make a surprise attack. A rich guy like Wayne could even afford himself a fleet of various unexceptional cars he could switch from time to time to further mask his tracks. I don't care what he puts inside the car, but on the outside it shouldn't stand out in my opinion.

reply

I think when the Batmobile was first introduced it may have been a little more believable, but in a day of satellite tracking and surveillance cameras everywhere it's a bit harder to justify. But the car has become as iconic as Batman himself so it's one of those things we need to suspend disbelief for.

reply

Batman just wanted to kick asses and looking cool while doing it.

reply

"cause I'm Batman."

The first Batmobile was a regular car, it then changed to over time. In Nolan's movies the Burton Batmobile would look out of place because he took a more realistic approach but the other Batman movies tend to have a fantasy feel to them so it matters a little less.

reply

Well, Nolan seems to have worked a bit harder when it comes to somewhat plausible world-building. So, his Batmobile is an armored military reconnaissance vehicle, which indeed is conspicuous, but at the same time it's able to jump buildings and ram through brick walls and easily monster-truck it's way out of danger. It kind of worked for me. And as for the ability to keep it secret, TDK even had the interesting subplot about a blackmailing employee who dug out the vehicle's blueprints: At least the possibility of disclosure was addressed. I kind of view Nolan's TDK trilogy favorably.

reply

FOX Let me get this straight: You’re saying that your boss, one of the richest and most powerful men in the world, is a vigilante who spends his spare time pummeling hardened criminals into bloody pulps with his bare hands, and your plan is to blackmail this individual? (pause, wry smile and intonation) Good luck.

POLICE OFFICER (describing first sighting of Batmobile) It’s . . . a tank.

The Batmobile was a boisterous, commerce-driven element of Batman, intended to please the crowd. When Porsche introduced its groundbreaking Porsche Carrera 906 racing car in the 1960s, it was instantly dubbed the Batmobile. Nolan moved the car into a more utilitarian and plausible paradigm, for which I applaud him.

BATMAN It’s the car. Chicks dig the car.

“Batman, Batman, Batman” tee-dee-dee-dee-dee (surf music mode)

reply

The blackmailing employee is the one loose end I was really bothered by not being tied up after the events of TDK. Since the film ended with Batman on the run for the murder of Harvey Dent, wouldn't the police conduct extensive questioning of this guy who claims to know the Batman's identity?

reply

well, wayne wins his loyalty by saving him, so its kinda wrapped up

reply

I think everything in the TDK trilogy looks ugly, clunky and inelegant.
Over the course of the trilogy, I was hoping things would become more sleek and stylish, but they never did.

reply

yeah i dont like the batmobile in tdk either. i loved the comcial over the top supercar of og

reply

why conspicuous police cars?

reply

Um... because they are a part of the the established system. Batman, on the other hand, is a vigilante unsanctioned by the government the way the police are. Need I go on?

reply

well his batmobile is a way of warning too. Give it up, Nolan sucks and so did his batmobile.

reply

Don't turn this into Burton vs. Nolan debate; They both deserve acclaim for delivering their own distinct visions.

reply

Nolan doesn't because it's crap.

reply

Maybe you're taking a kid's comicbook movie a bit too seriously...

We might as well ask why Peppa Pig walks on two legs... 😂

reply

However outlandish a piece of fiction may appear, it nevertheless has to have internal consistency.

reply

I don’t honestly think that imperative applies to comic book-derived material. Think about it: Clark Kent has the exact body and face as Superman, but goes unrecognized—BECAUSE HE WEARS GLASSES. Oh, right: he’s mild-mannered and The Man of Steel is BOLD and DYNAMIC!; but Kent looks IDENICAL to der Ubermensch and is NEVER AROUND when Supes is! Silly? Of course it is; but such suspension of disbelief has become an accepted convention in the genre of comic-book superhero fiction. We’re not talking Ray Bradbury, or Isaac Asimov or Phillip K. Dick here. Those speculative-fiction authors obeyed rules of internal consistency, which is one of the reasons why we remember them. And they were too good to write comic books.

reply

You don't get it, Kent's "disguise" is a perfectly internally consistent piece of narrative: heroes hide in plain sight as people pay little heed to other people, particularly to lowly clerks or bespectacled journalists like he is. I personally find this brilliant.

reply

Speaking as a former journalist for a major newspaper in Boston, I can tell you that reporters get a lot of attention.

reply

people only see what they believe and nobody would suspect Kent to be the super man

reply

The only problem with having an inconspicuous car that you could park anywhere you want is that as soon as you get out of the car, you're still Batman. And you don't even have the Batmobile. You're just Batman driving a Nissan Altima.

reply

The Lamborghini then. Much more subtle.

reply