3

From the climactic scene in The Dark Knight Rises:

The cops are approaching two tumblers. The batcopter swoops in, does something to the tumbler on the left, then leaves.

What did he do to the tumbler on the left, and why didn't he do it to the tumbler on the right?

Improve this question

2 Answers 2

Reset to default
4

Oddly, the screenplay indicates that he "blasted" both tumblers, not just the one.

The Tumblers fire into the line of Cops, throwing men into the air, screaming. The line of Cops is about to scatter – whoooshhh. The Bat drops down in front of the Cops and blasts both Tumblers, flipping them sideways.

The Bat rises and the Cops run towards the Mercenaries, firing – until they are close enough to fight hand-to-hand. The street is filled with thousands of men in pitched battle.

And in the film's official novelisation the tumblers were supposed to flip over and explode a bit.

Then, out of the sky, the Bat came swooping over the street. Its own cannons targeted the tumblers, blasting away at them. The armored vehicles flipped over onto their sides, smashing down on the sidewalks. Smoke and flames rose from the mangled metal. Their wheels spun uselessly in the air.

As far as I can tell, what should have been a massacre on both sides seems to have been dramatically toned down, presumably to make the film less bloody and hence to lower its censorship rating.

Improve this answer
5
  • 1
    I'd ignore the script too, if it called for the destruction of half a million dollars worth of props. - What part of this answer addresses what he does to one and not the other?
    – Mazura
    Commented Jul 11, 2016 at 4:26
  • @mazura - It speaks to what the screenwriter origibally intended.
    – Valorum
    Commented Jul 11, 2016 at 6:33
  • 1
    OK, I can see how that'd be "useful", but I still fail to see how that answers the question. (What did he really do?) He "blasts" one of them and then not the other. - "Why?" (and what did that 'blast' do? and why does he seemingly ignore the other two tumblers?)
    – Mazura
    Commented Jul 11, 2016 at 6:42
  • Well, evidently he disabled all three of them since they're not in action during the conflict. Perhaps his actions toward the others was just a little more subtle.
    – Valorum
    Commented Jul 11, 2016 at 8:10
  • 1
    @Mazura You do know that the answer can be "because real world issues caused inconsistancy in the film".
    – user001
    Commented Jul 11, 2016 at 12:32
4

He disables the turret on the left tumbler, which was tracking the approaching mob. The other two tumblers don't seem to be engaged in 'turret mode'.

While stored, the heavily armored turret has a protective boot that covers the business end. Nothing gets in; nothing gets out :

The turret may have only been momentarily damaged, but Batman's intent was achieved: (a feint) provide covering fire (some of which was for effect), and at the same time provide a distraction using himself as bait to draw enemy fire away from the crowd.

The other two tumblers not having their turrets deployed, are neither a threat nor a target. Except for the one in the middle that was directly facing the crowd, as tumblers do have forward firing machine guns...

Thankfully, henchmen aren't known for RTFM.

Improve this answer

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.