Holy Unadulterated Awesomeness Batman!

Admit it. Now you can’t wait to see it.

Advertisements

13 thoughts on “Holy Unadulterated Awesomeness Batman!

  1. I admit it I will be there in line at midnight the first night. I havent been looking forward to a movie this much since Return of the King.

  2. Is it okay to admit that I never saw Batman Begins? I got a little sick of the Batman movies once the lame sequels started coming and never paid one ounce of attention to the new generation.

    It wasn’t even until relatively recently that I learned that Christopher Nolan directed it. Then I regretted not seeing it because I love Christopher Nolan – well Memento, and Following at least.

    I was planning to see this one anyway. This poster just ramped up my excitement level.

  3. This actually has to be one of the most irresponsible movie posters I’ve ever seen. What a slap in the face to those who’ve died at the WTC on 9-11. Everything about the building in that poster looks like the side of one of the buildings.

    And what is the poster trying to communicate?

    “Welcome to a World Without Rules”????

    What? Don’t get me wrong…I like Batman, and I want to see this movie…but, I just don’t get this poster. Did Batman do that to the side of the building? If so, why? If he did…does a world without rules mean he can do that to buildings? And if that’s the case…are we to equate him to a terrorist?

    Someone please explain this poster to me because I really don’t get. It’s looks totally irresponsible to me. (And please don’t respond with some Loose Change theory crap).

  4. 9/11 never crossed my mind.

    (Sort of reminds me of the whole Vogue discussion a couple weeks ago.)

    Remembering that Batman is actually a good guy, the poster translates one of a few ways to my brain:

    A) (My first impression.) There was a huge battle between Batman and the Joker. During the battle, there was significant damage done to a city building (as there always is in every single super hero movie I’ve ever seen). Batman emerges victorious and is so badass that the fire in the building just happens to make his logo.

    B) (Going with your terrorism angle.) There has been an awful act of terror committed on a building in Gotham city. Batman springs into action, ready to respond. And he is so badass that the fire in the building just happens to make his logo.

    C) Batman is so badass that the poster’s designer found a badass way to make fire in the building just happen to make Batman’s logo in a poster that conveys action, suspense, drama and extreme amounts of badassiness.

    9/11? Terrorism? Loose Change theories? I thought Batman was a fictitious comic book hero, set in a fictitious city with a fictitious arch enemy that dresses like a clown?

    Seriously dude, I think you’re reading way too much into it. But – all kidding and sarcasm aside – if it’s of any consolation to you, you’re not the only one who sees it that way.

  5. @Cricky,

    Never crossed my mind either. Not to give anything away, but one of the plot points to the movies is that The Joker employs a bunch of Batman impersonators. This is no doubt an example of their handy work in trying to frame the Dark Knight to ruin his credibility. Remember, Batman is new on the scene. Not too many people know what his agenda is yet.

    As for 9/11, people tend to see what they want to see. Truth be told there is only one way a fire in a large building can look. So does this mean because of 9/11 people can have buildings on fire in movies anymore. You have to be reasonable. If you’re this hyper sensitive, The Dark Knight may not be fore you. I’ve heard that people die in the movie, just to warn you.

  6. @superman1224 _ Would you be offended if I told you that I was extremely surprised at how level-headed and spot on your response was?

    I was expecting a D-nozzle drop or two.

  7. I guess my “hyper-sensitivity” has very little to do with the movie, because I’m sure it will be an awesome movie, and I will go see it. It has little to do with Batman because I’m sure it may be any one of the scenarios you guys mentioned above. It has little to do with explosions in movies or killing (even though these days there is a bigger deal made when animals die on film rather then humans…but, that’s another topic).

    My problem is a blatant use of this kind imagery in their advertising for a movie that almost needs no advertising at all. Nothing is done in movies, TV, and advertising etc. on a whim. I’m sure the makers of this poster knew exactly what they were doing and in the end figured “What the Hell!” To me, that just seems irresponsible. But, for them…I guess…the end justifies the means because…it’s potentially controversial, and it will generate more “buzz.”

  8. Shane, I think you’ve officially exceeded your “badass” quota for the Spring.

    Did not & do not see a resemblance to WTC.

    I do see an uncanny resemblance to awesomeness though.

  9. Alright, no more use of the term (deleted).

    As far as resemblance to 9/11, I can see the argument that the damage on the poster is similar to the damage to the WTC. The building doesn’t look anything like the towers, but as far as the visual of something having made impact with the building and a similarity with the burning damage. I get that.

    I think it’s a stretch. But I get it.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s