It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
http://www.totalfilm.com/news/anne-hathaway-defends-her-dark-knight-rises-outfit
http://www.slashfilm.com/dark-knight-rises-set-photo-reveals-batmans-completely-vehicle/
people at slashfilm should do a bit more research before typing the article
http://www.imagebam.com/image/f83b0d144616316
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v323/wx1585/Batwing0128-1_Batwing-Spacesh_004.jpg
Apparently it's a helicopter, with the rotor blades to be added in post-production. Which makes sense, since they'd be very dangerous to actually be fully functioning. It also looks like it ejects from the Tumbler, not unlike the Batpod - the cockpit is identical, and those two turbines look like they'd fit into the front wheel supports. I guess that since the Batpod has already been ejected from its Tumbler, Batman didn't feel the need to add it into another Tumbler.
It's also interesting to see that between the Batcopter and the sequence at Heinz Field, Nolan is using a lot more CGI this time around. He's always gone in for practical effects where possible (which is why I have so much respect for him) to the extent that he actually tried to build a Tumbler that would eject the Batpod in THE DARK KNIGHT. In the end, it wasn't possible, so they had to use CGI for a one-second shot. In fact, that shot, the sonar system and Dent's scars were the only obviously-CGI effects I could see in the entire film. All the same, there are film makers out there who would make the entire Batcopter with CGI effects. Nolan's still got it rigged onto what looks like a spare Tumbler chassis. I suppose his work on INCEPTION inspired a bit more confidence in the use of CGI, but I'm happy that there's still someone out there who is willing to put the time and effort into practical effects.
This one looks a bit Mad Max-y. Nice :-) .
http://www.aintitcool.com/node/50791
It's interesting that there's no apparent anti-torque device. There's no finial for a seconary rotor or fin to be mounted on. I'm guessing it will use a coaxial or tandem rotor, maybe mounted on the underside. Coaxial seems more likely, since it's a small helicopter.
what a piece of crap!!
at least the DeLorean in Back To The Future (go look at the production documentaries on the DVDs) look like it was floating and flying for real!!
HaHa!
Christian Bale's Batman can't drive/fly it!!
http://www.movieweb.com/news/batwing-suffers-major-accident-on-set-of-the-dark-knight-rises
Nolan, you suck!!
he could had used full scale models shells and a crane, like they did for the Harrier in True Lies or the DeLorean in Back to the Future
so that accident it got into: haha, he deserves it, poor choice of SFX Vehicle Prop!!
Look at the scene in CASINO ROYALE where Bond flips the Aston Martin. In order to shoot it, the production crew used a ramp to get the car up on two wheels and a nitrogen canister to propel it over. Yet neither the ramp nor the canister are visible in the final film. Why? Because removing things in post-production is commonly done. Likewise the scene where the plane causes the police car to be blown over - the car was hooked up to a crane that flung it down the runway. But again, no crane is visible. That's not Christian Bale piloting it. It's a dummy. The car itself is controlled from the ATV it is mounted on. The gyroscopic rig which controls the movements of the Batwing are either controlled by someone on the sidelines, or with a pre-programmed computer that will move the gyroscope in accordance with a series of timed movements. It's not mean to drive down the road "normally". It's a helicopter, so of course it's going to bank and pivot around corners. Don't tell me you've never seen a helicopter fly. That's exactly what this is: a full-scale model mounted onto a rig to help film it. It just doesn't have rotor blades attached because they'd be so damn dangerous.
For someone who claims to know a lot about film, you know alarmingly little.
More than one hour? That means less than two hours, otherwise those who claim a "major accident" would have written "more than two hours!"
Now, during a shot of that proportion, two hours are what? The time they need to adjust the lighting or microfones alone probably. So probably by the time they were finished with adjusting the lights or the microfones, the repair was also finished. So apart from some spare parts there probably weren´t even extra costs involved.
Man, a major accident is when they have to interrupt shooting for a week or so. One or two hours of repair is not an accident at all, that´s expected collateral.
And, j7wild, I´m sure you can indulge us with more accurate comments than what you wrote above ;-) .
You mention the DeLorean. Yes, it looks fine and indeed it convinces on screen. But we can safely assume it never flew for real. That, however, doesn't make it any less impressive.
You say Nolan sucks, but sir you wouldn't be able to write a single page of script on his level, you wouldn't be able to even set up a single shot the way he does and you would never get the critical acclaim that Nolan gets. If you dislike the man, fine, but at least conjure up arguments that make sense. You are now attacking the man based on a few clips from the making of this film. You're making no more sense than those idiots back in the day of CR who claimed the film would be a total failure because Craig had hurt himself during the shoot.
Your whole line of thought is so full of holes and lacking legitimacy, it borders on madness. It seems you're just looking for any excuse to repeat that Nolan sucks. Why, sir? You can't stand the fact that this man produces generally well-favoured films? You think it's 'in vogue' to say Nolan doesn't deserve the positive criticism he gets? From what I can say, you're almost OCD'ing on this anti-Nolan thing. This entire thread you've been looking for excuses to make foolish claims that this film will be a total failure even before it has been made, released and watched! Unfortunately, none of those make sense. We move from ridiculous statements concerning Catwoman's costume to pointless bickering about vehicles being transported on and off set.
I think you need to cool down and mature in this matter. If you maintain the notion that TDKR and his filmmakers suck, then please ignore the film is made. In a couple of years, Warner might launch a new Batman series that's more up to your incredibly weird standards. Or you can also patiently wait till you have seen the finished film and then state your reasons for liking or disliking the film and at least we can debate using tangible arguments. I should tell you that is what most adults do.
This could be Warner's first third superhero film in a canon to actually be good. Superman 3 and Batman Forever were, at least IMO, a lot worse than the two films preceding them.
You're right DD, this won't top The Dark Knight but it'll be very close and will still be one of the biggest films of the year with only The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey topping it.
Amazing that despite BB doing only modestly well, they kept going with the same team. And it paid off. TDKR is most likely to make them a lot of money as well. Hopefully they don't sell the rights to Cannon films, who will then proceed by making Batman: The Quest For Peace. ;;)