f13.net

There needs to be a GD thread for this so us normal folks don't have to rub elbows with those comic book subforum nerds.

I have tickets for the 8:10 show tomorrow night. I am ridiculously fired up. I have been studiously avoiding spoilers and trailers, so anyone who violates that will earn my everlasting enmity, which will include me trying to give you crotch cancer solely with the power of my mind. It hasn't worked yet that I know of, but you really don't want to be the one in my sights when it happens.

Bruce Wayne is Batman(!)

The midnight premier at the place I normally go is sold out. :(

My hometown theater is sold out on all shows til Sat.   :ye_gods:

I've got a 12:20 Saturday showing planned. We'll see if that's sold out or not.

First screening in Norway is 25th and after the last Batman, you know this one is going to be so full of win. Better cast, better setting and darker overall, wish I could see it tomorrow  :oh_i_see:

25th of November?  :grin:

You know, it wouldn't even be surprising if it was 25th of November. Wall-E is coming 27th of August.  :uhrr:

The plan is to see it in IMAX.   :drill:

IMAX are a tough ticket around here, plus the $20 in gas it would cost round trip. If I would have planned better I would have still bit the bullet and seen it there, however.

Any chance you could edit the title to include something like "Direct all spoilers here" or something so that those of us who have another week to go can browse other threads without having the plot ruined?

Tanks.

I think it is safe to assume that there will be spoilers after tomorrow night.

I hope it flops so I can see it sooner on DvD.

I know, this was just a puny attempt at damage control. I guess I could try and avoid the internet for a week, I wonder what life without constant internet is like?

Having watched it last night, that line has me temped to just spoil the whole movie for you right now. :evil:

I hear there's some guy in a bat costume and the plot is something to do with a deck of cards.  :oh_i_see:

WHY. SO. SERIOUS?

I haven't looked forward to seeing a movie this much in a very long time.

It's your crotch health at steak. I have been practicing my mental abilities. I am pretty sure I saw the fuckhead ahead of me in traffic wince the other day when I focused.

i was thinking about going to the midnight showing.  Or wait till a Monday matinee, save 2 bucks, and have more room to stretch out.

I think I can wait till Monday.

How about if I just spoil Watchmen (http://movies.apple.com/movies/wb/watchmen/watchmen-tlr1_h720p.mov) for you normal folks 8-9 months in advance instead?

Edit: linked to hi-res trailer for you comic fearing tards instead.

That was my plan, until my girlfriend informed me that we have tickets for tonight at 12:00.  :grin:

Considering the movie runs 2:32 minutes not counting previews, tomorrow is going to be a very blery-eyed day.

whoa 2.5 hours?! That's worth the ticket price. I think I'll check if I can get one tonight.

Ok Spoiler free review (and very brief to keep it that way.) Just got home from the midnight show...

Excellent flick. Not as good as is being touted in a lot of the reviews I've read, but excellent none the less. The Oscar calls for Ledger are legitimate. He absolutely steals every scene he is in.

And this was the major problem for me. Didn't seem to have enough of the Joker in the flick.

8.5 / 10

I think Nolan was (rightly) afraid of remaking Burton's cheesy little abortion, since that basically just turned into the Jack Nicholson show.  A little Joker goes a long way; don't overplay your villain.

Good movie.  Worth the hype.

You'd think by watching the trailers on TV that the Joker was in every scene.  Also, I couldn't and watch a film for 2 1/2 hours.  Just couldn't do it.  I need breaks.  Another reason I never go to the cinema, other than the smell and horrible people.

I need clean pants.

I am by no means a devotee of Watchmen, but even I had a nice little geekgasm after seeing that trailer.  When a director has love and respect for the source material, it shows.

I also would give it about a 8.5, dragged on a little bit. Heath was fucking fantastic. He stole that movie. Really stole it. They should have called it The Joker like was rumored months ago. I also think he should get an Oscar.

I'm going to make this pen, disappear...... :ye_gods:



 :drill:

You and I have very similar opinions on both film and people.

Fucking Fantastic. Ledger's play as Joke was so entirely, unquestionably, Full OF Win. :drill:

If you do not love this movie, you are a communist.  Fucking fantastic film.

Best batman movie out of them all, best comic-book adaptation ever.

Holy Fuck.

The Trailer.  Not the Pants.  The pants are understandable.

I laughed.

Other great visual joke in the film: a fire engine... on fire  :drill:

I feel sorry for Christian Bale - he's Batman, but he gets pushed off-screen by the rest of the cast. Maggie G. was a good replacement for Holmes, Aaron Eckhart is just fantastic, Eric Roberts et al - it was all good.

Perhaps a bit drawn out, but it was truly a crime film, not a comic book film.

Impressive.

The film achieved genuine darkness.  This is not a film you assume somone is safe because of their importance in plot mechanic - you don't know what is going to happen next.

The "support" casting was almost too good - it was hard for Bale to have the spotlight in this one.

The ending was genius.

Not spoiling but yes the ending was one of those moments were it felt RIGHT, you watch it and I wasn't sure where they were going but when it got there you go

"OH.....well yes, that makes sense, that's how it should be"

Thinking about it, the fact the film is called "The Dark Knight" is very true - it's a film with Batman in it, but it is about a lot more than just Batman. It's actually a lot more about Gotham and the other people who interact there in terms of law and order. It is very "Heat" in that regard.

I like the Heat comparison. 

I am already thinking of Batman 3 now - in specific regard to the ending...

Jesus Fucking Christ, what a plate of awesome. Whoever here said this movie was like the Empire Strikes Back of the Batman trilogy was spot on. Just an absolute masterpiece from top to bottom. It wasn't a comic book movie, it was a crime thriller that happened to have a superhero in it. It was absolutely DRAINING PHYSICALLY to watch, because it was just that intense. Like edge of your seat intense. I had no idea where they were going with the story, despite being a huge comic book nerd and big time Batman fan. I just let the movie take me and take me it did.

Iron Man was a fantastic comic-book movie. This wasn't a comic book movie. It just wasn't. The Heat comparison is apt as well, because it was such a well-crafted piece of work at all levels that it transcended the genre labels. I think trying to compare Iron Man and Batman is useless. They were both so good at what they were trying to do but what they were trying to do was completely different from the other. Two totally separate movies with really completely separate genres.

Heath Ledger... fuck.  :ye_gods: :awesome_for_real: :oh_i_see: :uhrr: :ye_gods:  :drill:

After having seen that portrayal, what happened to him is completely understandable. The writing on that character was so spot on and SO DISTURBING. This performance will go down as one of the truly great performances of all time. Hannibal Lector? Pussy. Ralph Fiennes in Schindler's List? Not close. No other actor should ever ever ever even think of trying to pull of a Joker performance in a live-action movie again. He just absolutely owned the role. If he doesn't win an Oscar... well, we all know how idiotic the Oscar selections are, but really, he deserves the hardware for what that role had to do to him.

I was actually happy to see that Batman was a secondary character in the movie. He was in the shadows as Batman should be. He was the core around which Gotham moved in the story, but he wasn't the story itself. I was also happy to see the shaky cam combat lessened a bit. The only complaint I would have about the movie is that without the shaky cam, you see some of the awkwardness of fighting in that costume. But it was so small and minor, it didn't matter.

I hope Batman 3 has the Riddler as the main villain. With the elaborate plans these guys wrote for the Joker, plans that worked perfectly within the context of the world they'd established, I'd love to see them deal with a character whose whole schtick is cooking up elaborate riddles as crimes.

I liked the Joker a lot. It's a great performance from a promising actor who is now dead.  There's no justification for criticism of Ledger or his performance. 

But there's a lot to criticize about the movie he appears in;

First of all, the purported distinction between Batman and Joker is that Batman follows the "rules" and Joker does not.  Yet Batman engages on multiple occasions in illegal and tortuous interrogations, commits a criminal, extrajudiciary kidnapping on foreign soil, and builds a rights-invasive surveillance system with the capability of producing sound and images of the entire city, a system so offensive to the basic notion of personal privacy, that Nolan had to write in Lucius Fox objecting to it on moral grounds.  This Batman is the Donald Rumsfeld of superheroes.

Yet, he elevates himself to puritanical sainthood, taking on the mantle of the outcast to protect the reputation of Harvey Dent and be "the hero the city deserves."  This is fundamentally at odds with the appealing contradictions of the Batman concept.

First of all, Batman is unabashedly transgressive.  Tim Burton understood the inherent kinkiness of these characters, and "Batman Returns" is really about that, with the sexually charged fight scenes between Michael Keaton and Michelle Pfieffer, and Danny DeVito's lascivious Penguin.  Joel Schumacher unfortunately camped this aspect of the character up until "Batman and Robin" turned into dollar draft night at Club Manhole, and it's understandable that Nolan is trying to distance himself from Schumacher in resurrecting the franchise. 

However, there is something at least arguably wrong about being a masked vigilante; this is a guy who dispenses punishment without process.  He's essentially a fascist, much moreso than, for example, Dirty Harry, who is reviled as a right-wing monster, but who at least does not hide behind a mask, making him impossible to hold accountable.  He's the ultimate example of an end justifying a means; a sacrifice of all conception of due process or rights in exchange for a drop in crime. 

And a lot of people would argue that there is something wrong about being a trust-fund heir to a billion-dollar industrial company.  Arguably, the only difference between Batman and the villains he fights is that his vast legitimate wealth gives him a powerful interest in maintaining stability and the status quo, which counterbalances his vengeful rage over the murder of his parents.  There is also something racist and classist about a rich white man who leaves his suburban mansion at night to go into the city and beat the shit out of gangbangers and drug-addicts.

As a practical notion, most people to the left of Attilla the Hun would find him at least somewhat troubling, and if Nolan invites us to take Batman seriously, he needs to address these issues.
He's interesting because he's mean and angry and scary and unbalanced and because he thinks he's beyond the law.  But when you understand that about Batman, you realize that the interesting aspect of the relationship between Batman and the Joker is the similarity between the two. 

Nolan doesn't seem to get that, and "The Dark Knight" becomes a parable with a moral that apocalyptic terrorism requires a response of greater invasion of the rights of all. 

And also, the bit with the bombs on the boats was bullshit. That was supposed to signify the redemption of the Gothamites and their refusal to play the Joker's sick games.  But no viewer is really going to believe that nobody on either one of those boats would be willing to push that button. 

Ever heard of a spoiler tag?  Make use of it.

I thought it might be fun to look back over that last thread now, you know the about Heath Ledger playing the joker.

Thread Here. (http://forums.f13.net/index.php?topic=7786.0)

I found this bit pretty quick:



Is that crow or foot your eating Stray.  :grin:


And who would have guessed.

Geezus, schild called it?!

There's spoilers here. You were warned.

A valid point but not really off concept. Batman is there to do what others cannot because of his disdain for the normal way of doing things. The Joker happened to be more abnormal though, showing Batman what his limits were. That's the undercurrent of the movie and the comic series. There's certain things Batman won't do. But there's a LOT of shit he will do that others cannot or won't. This movie established much better than the last one that he's going to run off and do it his way because that's what he thinks he needs to do, no matter who's in his way.

I think Nolan gets exactly that, shoved it in our faces, and Batman's, and made it real again. Batman got too chummy with the cops. Then they didn't like what they saw in the interrogation room, and were ready to throw him to the wolves when Dent stepped into the role. Unlike the safe and friendly but only ever implied "massive task force" from the first movie, the cops in THIS movie were actually out to get him.

I just told my wife that not five minutes ago. With all of the "getting into the role stuff" any good actor has to, this one could easily fuck up anyone.

And that's my impression of the movie. Fuck it being a good Batman movie, or even a good comic book movie. By default it is both. This was a fantastic movie by it's own rights, with the true edge of the source material usually reserved to just that source material, and certainly rare in big budget summer stuff. I've never seen a big budget comic book movie get so close to the heart of the IP. And I am genuinely shocked Nolan was permitted to do this by the purse holders.

I'm still digesting it. It wasn't a long movie per se, but it had a lot going on. Easily material for three different movies in there. That too is rare for comic book movies. Shit, it's rare for movies in general with their clean linearity and resolution. I've complained in the past about Old Country for Old Men not having the sort of resolution I usually look for. But in Dark Knight, the lack of clean resolution makes sense in the context of the movie.

The one thing I will say is this is not a PG-13 movie. I guess the MPAA doesn't consider psychological impact. I saw a lot of kids in the showing, the sort a parent usually thinks is tough enough for PG-13 ("they'll be 13 in a few years, and heck, they play GTA"). I also saw a good amount of people leaving with those kids. This movie requires a pre-screening for anyone who has kids under, say, 17. Nolan made the first R-rated Batman.

I'm personally damn glad he did. But this is neither a kids movie nor a date movie unless your SO is really into Batman too.

My wife generally finds superhero movies boring enough that she falls asleep during the first hour.  She walked out of this one saying "That was one of the best movies I've seen in years."

I think it has something to do with what some said above: this is more than just a "superhero" movie.

Being a golden age comic fan, I can't help but wonder why there exists a trend to make these movies so dark.  What I'm saying is that I remember him to use tools at his disposal and a sort of indifference toward the plight of his enemy, but it always felt more like pulp fiction than Goth.  Maybe I just missed the boat. 

I guess it's evolving the superhero to make changes in culture, but I'm not sure I like what this says about current culture. 



Note: I need to quit making stupid posts that don't add to the thread.  My bad.

I'm 28, I don't know if I'm considered 'youth' but as long as I can remember batman was the single darkest character in comics, beyond that I can't emphasize how much this movie is a must see.

Awesome movie, very dark. I'll probably have weird dreams/nightmares about it if I go to bed too soon.

And you are right about the psychological stuff Darniaq, the Joker especially really messes with you.

Actually, I think Nolan DOES get that. I think he gets that all too well. Notice how the torture of the Joker didn't work, and that in the end, all his attempts at control of the situation really came down to things and people out of his control. The people on the boat who did not push the button. He couldn't save them if one of them had pushed the button, despite all his attempts at control. As Frank Miller said, Batman is the ultimate right wing fascist hero and I think Nolan's portrayal hit it perfectly. The Joker is the ultimate anarchist, the Batman the ultimate authoritarian dictator, and NEITHER of them succeeded completely. The Joker corrupted Harvey, Batman rescued the hostages and Gordon, but he did so at the cost of the Batman's reputation.


Actually, I believed it. The guy on the civilian boat illustrated it. It's easy to say you'd push that button, until you have to actually push that button.

EDIT: Nebu, to your point about Batman being a dark character, even in the first appearance of Batman, he was a dark character. He dresses like Dracula, stalks only the night, and in that first adventure, was all too willing to let the villain die. Yes, some of the darkness of the character was in the subtext because the books were written for kids, but before the '50's, parents didn't really coddle their kids when it came to death as much as they do now.

This definitely was not a kid's movie. The psychological impact alone should make parents of kids under say 13 (and maybe older) blanch. It's just that powerful.

Actually, I think the moral of this story is that democratic or rights-sensitive institutions, like Dent (or the US justice system), are weak and corruptible, and ultimately not up to taking on apocalyptic or nihilistic movements like the Joker (or Al Quaeda, or psychos). 

Batman is, indeed an authoritarian force in Gotham, with power derived from the resources at his command and the carte blanche he gets from Gordon.  But Nolan gives a total pass to the power exerted by Batman, by portraying Batman as being unfailingly noble and fair in his exertion of extrajudicial force and unwarranted spying. 

The guy is about one temptation away from being the worst possible supervillain Gotham could have, and if you make him chaste and measured and Christlike, you totally undercut the magnitude of the power he's seized for himself.  Instead of a fascist dictator, he's a philosopher-king. 

I'd like the movie better if he beat a hood to death in a rage after seeing Dent and Rachel togther.  I'd like to see him use his sonar network to spy on them.  I want him to be mean and a little creepy.  This needs to be a character we have a little trouble rooting for.  Frank Miller certainly understood that. I don't think Nolan got that far. 

I don't think you get the batman stories, and as much as I love The Dark Knight Returns storyline, this is not supposed to be Frank Miller's version of Batman, even if it takes aspects from his work on the character.  Also, I have a sneaking suspicion that you are european, but that's probably personal bias lashing out against somebody with a dissenting opinion of The Dark Knight.

You filthy communist.



United Flight 93 kind of proves that this sort of civilian nobility can and does happen in the real world.  That you would think it is complete bullshit probably says more about your own opinion towards random others and not the average viewer's opinion.

But that's sort of the point isn't it? He's constantly warring with himself, by setting up his own boundaries. I thought the best example in the movie anyway was how only Lucius could control total 3D spy machine. Batman knew that a) building it in Wayne Enterprises, b) assigning it to Lucius; and, c) putting in the kill code were the best things to do to prevent him from abusing it. He didn't need Fox to convince him of that. Batman takes the genie out of the bottle, but he puts it back in too.

THAT is why I like the character so much.

Randoms rambling with SPOILERS (if it's still needed - might has well edit the title).

Ledger's performance is amazing.  I'm not sure it's so hard to be good has the joker. It's probably the opposite.  It's a great opportunity to shine.  I often think pepole admire psychotic role because they think it's hard to play.  It's not that hard.  I rarely see a movie were the psycho character is badly played (AAA titles of course).

One great scene no one mentioned was when Gordon becomes arrogant and doesn't want to give a chance to Batman but his snipers would have killed all the hostages.  It was a genius move from the Joker.

An other great part is the pissed off mafia/bank manager in the opening scene.

I also liked how they talked about Rome's emperor.  Overall, the moral dilemma were really good.



A few nitpicking for fun :

There's no way the regular mafia would such a band of pussies.  WTF?

Is the Joker superpower omniscience?  His plans are nice but they a ridiculously well crafted.

Not enough cool fights.

I still think he has the uglies batman mask I ever saw.  WTF?

The boat dilemma... I would have pressed the button in less than 10 sec if I was on the civilian boat.  I would have never stayed downstair, two feet away form the criminals if I was a cop.  Even the prisoner evacuation is complete bullshit, not to mention realizing the boat is loaded with explosive half way trough the river...

You're doing it wrong. Batman didn't succeed against such a movement either. At best he won a pyhrric victory. And Nolan showed that against such an anti-establishment outfit as the Joker's, extreme methods do not succeed. The torture of the Joker? Didn't work, and Batman was given the WRONG information by a clever opponent. It ended up with Rachel being dead. I.e. torture doesn't work. The surveillance? Yes, it found the Joker, but it didn't help him beat the Joker or save the hostages on the boats, because they had to face their own inner demons to save themselves. They had to, in other words, NOT turn into callous, indifferent monsters in order to save themselves.


He in no way portrayed Batman as unfailingly noble and fair. Batman did a lot of bad shit, violated a lot of moral codes and is now branded as an actual outlaw. He went too extreme in trying to counter the Joker's extreme methods, and it cost him the love of the city and his cozy relationship with Gordon and the help of the police force.


How is he NOT mean and creepy? Women can't get close to him, not really, he's spectacularly alone in his personal life, and the Batman, who was getting some measure of love and respect is now branded an outlaw and a murderer. A COP KILLER, in fact. This is a torturer, a man who regularly violated civil liberties and is really pretty brutal and creepy. If you don't have trouble rooting for him in this movie, you have problems of your own. Batman isn't meant to be someone that is easy to root for. He's a hero, but only just and he's always walking a fine line between hero and brutal dictator. I really think you need to see the movie again, because you took all the wrong conclusions from it.

Yes. That's the point.  He always uses his fascist powers responsibly.  That's the cop-out.  That's as unbelievable as nobody on either boat being willing to push the detonator.  How convenient is it that they can find a guy who is selfless and pure and incorruptible to grant these scary, overarching powers?  

When you have the lawyer who is going to reveal Batman's identity, does Wayne kill him to keep him silent? No! He saves the guy's life!

When he builds the Bat-Wiretap, does he use it to spy on people? Nope! He gives it only to Lucius Fox, a man who is apparently more noble and incorruptible than even Batman because he is Morgan Freeman, the magical black guy.  

The realistic measure is that we need rights that put hard limitations on the exertion of coercive state power, because we can never fully trust the discretion of the people who wield that power.  In Nolan's Gotham, we don't need rights, because Batman's discretion is flawless, his power is never used selfishly, and, thus, he is the hero Gotham deserves and a safe and responsible custodian for absolute power.

For example, the Bush administration is arguing that it needs broad unsupervised wiretapping priveleges because this is a state of national emergency, and the taps will only be used to monitor terrorists.  And everyone shits a brick.

In the movie, Batman says he needs a vast wiretapping network that records not merely audio on people's phone calls, but effectively captures always-on video of their homes, because it's a state of emergency and the taps will only be used to hunt the Joker.  And Lucius Fox says "I guess it's okay, just this once."

Well, torture and hard interrogation are even less of a problem, when you only use them on the terrorists.  The problem is, we don't trust the government to only turn the screws on the really bad guys, like we apparently can with Batman.  And we're concerned, given the nature of power to creep, that any exception will swallow the rule.  Batman, with his perfect judgment, can, of course, apply torture on a case-by-case basis, and he'll never throw someone off a building who doesn't deserve it.

And Batman ultimately had to become the outlaw to cover-up the fact that the Joker had corrupted Dent, who basically symbolizes the Constitution. 

The moral of "The Dark Knight" was actually that we have to torture and wiretap terrorists, because they will turn our rights against us.  It's like the film version of the Gonzales memo.




No. Sacrificing his reputation was his final saintly act of the movie.  If he'd let Dent take the fall for kidnapping Gordon's family, the city probably would have declared martial law and made Batman its chancellor.  And of course one of the great fiction of expanded emergency powers is that the people to whom they're granted will willingly relinquish them when the emergency ends, which is effectively what Batman is doing here.

I didn't think the film presented a single instance in which Batman's decisions turned out to be wrong. He is like Benito Christ.

Ummmm, you really need to watch the movie again. In fact, they say MULTIPLE TIMES that the uncorrupted Harvey Dent is the hero Gotham deserves, but that Batman will have to do until that white knight can come along. They almost hammer the point home that Batman is a substitute for what they really need. He is NOT the ideal.

As far it being convenient, well, it IS fiction, built around this character. Of course he's going to be the guy that can get things done, but he's hardly flawless in doing it.


You are watching the wrong movie. Holy fuck, but you are watching the wrong movie. Torture didn't work. The torture only got Rachel killed because the clever captive fed the wrong information. Hell, Batman dropping Meroni off the building (torture) only got Meroni to tell him nothing. Meroni wasn't scared of the Batman's torture because he knew Batman wouldn't kill him. Batman could have crossed that line and become the complete savage.

Don't bother Haemish, I think litigator may be mildly retarded as he seemed to draw every conclusion in the movie 'opposite' of what is was trying to portray. Sometimes people walk into things with their own agendas which is clearly the case and no about of discussion will ever correct this.

The very fact that this movie raises such questions of morality, fascism, terrorism and anarchy speaks volumes about the movie as a whole and it's a goddamned comic book adaptation, so...chew on that for a moment.

I mean, if you want to turn the thing into an allegory, which was clearly intended, I think Dent represents process, Batman represents force and Joker represents terrorism. 

Dent is everyone's ideal of the solution he represents, but, when applied to the Joker problem, Dent falls short. He is ineffective against the threat and ultimately corrupted by it.  The idealization of Dent and his fall both inherently reflect the filmmaker's opinion of the institutions he represents.  It's all well and good to talk about rights and process and everybody wants that in an ideal world, but in Nolan's worldview those ideals can't go to where the terrorists live and put the jackboots on their throats.   This is best exemplefied in the party scene, where, as soon as trouble arrives, Wayne locks Dent in a closet and starts beating the shit out of people.

This isn't countered either, by Dent's early success in locking up a bunch of mobsters; first, that achievement relied on Batman's extrajudicial kidnapping of the mob financier, and, second, that just mirrors the Bush administration-type argument that the Constitution and the mechanisms that operate within it are sufficient for ordinary problems, but that terrorism presents a special circumstance that requires special expansion of executive power.

And, granted, the Joker problem can't be solved costlessly by Batman, but it can't be solved at all by Dent, who is ultimately exploited in service of Joker's agenda.  And the ultimate costs are Joker costs, rather than Batman costs; a more reasonable conclusion of this parable is that Batman gets rid of the Joker, but the city is left with a Batman who peers into their bedrooms and listens to their private conversations on his Bat-wiretap, and beats up whoever he feels like. 

Shut the fuck up and crawl back into your rancid nest of crusty Kleenex, you filthy little degenerate.

They already had that before the Joker. The problem presented is that that approach also spawned the necessity for the Joker from the criminal's side, which required Batman to go ever further down a path from righteous force to outright oppression. And down that path lies Two-Face, the corruption of good. Only by withdrawing from that path, by not becoming that ultimate fascist did any sort of victory emerge. There are some problems for which escalation is not the answer, but sometimes that lesson is a hard-learned one. Batman has learned that lesson.

Indeed, the movie parallels the current comic version's plight as well. In the comics, Batman builds the Brother Eye satellite system, which gains sentience, turns on him and releases the Omacs to kill all the superheroes. He has to learn to work with his fellow superheroes without so much ultimate control in order to fix the problem of his own creation.

No one should ever feel comfortable with a Batman running around out there. They illustrate quite clearly with the copycats early on when the copycats ask "What's the difference between you and me?" Batman replies "I'm not wearing hockey pads," meaning he had the arrogance to assume that his efficacy made his actions right. This movie showed him the error of that statement.

I'm not sure what the point of the Batman-wannabe vigilantes was, except that they were cribbed from "Dark Knight Returns," and they give the Joker somebody to rub out in the first act.  If one guy, with virtually unlimited resources, decides to be Batman with the acquiescence of the state, he's a unitary executive.  If everybody decides to be Batman, it's obviously anarchy. 

I think they do develop the theory that the Joker emerges as a response to Batman, which is the film's real criticism of the Batman idea (and that was also cribbed from Dark Knight Returns).  But even if Batman creates these problems, the only effective solution still winds up being more Batman.   

It IS a Batman movie.

Next time spank my ass when you say that.

One thing you have to wonder about the Boat Dilemma.  This is the Joker.  Do you REALLY believe he gave you the detinator to the OTHER boat?  REALLY?  I might not be so sure.

Thanks for all the work Haemish - I agree with you on your points in responding to Litigator.  Very well put. 

In thinking of the dilmma Batman faced in this film, in confronting himself, I hope that somone out there thinks of Guantanamo Bay :(

Wow.  I think it's kind of sad how much personal bias you let yourself project into your theatre-going experience, and how mistaken your analysis is because of your incorrect observations.  Litigator, you missed out on seeing a phenominally good film.

I really enjoyed the flick. Very well done all the way around.

When I first walked out I did have the vague sense that I had watched an apologia for the Bush administration though, so I don't think Litigator is totally off base. I think he takes a bit too far though in ignoring the costs that Batman incurs both for himself and those around him and the recognition by the characters themselves that it is not ideal. In fact, he misquotes the line I believe. Batman is not "the hero Gotham deserves."  He is specifically "not the hero Gotham deserves, he is the one it needs."  A necessary evil that even Batman himself wants to get rid of.  That's not a rah-rah cheerleading for fascism in my eyes, but more of an examination of what is a common feeling, i.e. "do whatever you need to protect us as long as it is against the bad guys and we don't have to take responsibility for it" and the ramifications of it. It's the tension between utilitarianism and idealism that is being fought here. Just because utilitarianism wins to some degree in the film doesn't mean it is necessarily an endorsement. There may be a longer arc at work here so I'm interested in seeing the inevitable 3rd one.

I did like that the "prisoner's dilemma" scenario that the Joker set up involved actual prisoners on one side of it, which I hope was intentional.

I kind of expected that the Joker wanted the prisoners to riot, kill their captors and steal the devices. But really, I think the Joker just wanted to see somebody, anybody burn.

I'm happy to see that such good political discussion can be had about the film without feeling like we projecting something onto the film that isn't there. I always get pissy when people try to project their own personal hangups onto films (like that crazy feminist who tried to claim that all consensual hetero sex is rape and as such Firefly/Serenity is a misogynist's wet dream), but it seems like Dark Knight actually wanted to explore some of that ground without being ham-fisted and overstated.

It's interesting if you think about it that most of the exegesis on the topic is put directly into the Joker's mouth.  He was one of the few who understood the ramification of a system of rules coming into conflict with someone who was so nihilistic that rules only became a hindrance. His last statement that the two of them (as allegories in some way for chaos and order) "would be doing this forever" was both highly cogent and damn depressing.

I'll take "Reading Too Much Into A Movie" for $1,000, Alex.

Great movie.  OMG BEST EVA?  No, but great movie nonetheless.

I have to agree with Ahoythematey and Haemish. Even with Litigator's allegories, we have force/fascism, who is ostensibly trying to protect justice/constitution, creating terrorism, and through incompetence/underestimating the enemy ("one man or the entire Mob...") it lets terrorism grow to the point where it corrupts justice/the constitution, which is eventually killed by force. And that's with knowing who to torture and when to relinquish power. Not exactly a ringing endorsement IMO. 

I was mildly disappointed that the Joker had a backup detonator at all -- I thought he possibly had total faith that human nature would ensure at least one boat went boom.


I'd say the odds would be better of it being the same boat -- when the guy on the boat without the prisoners stepped up to pull the trigger I was expecting it to go that way.

*SPOILERS*

 - Batman turns out to be wrong about believing in Harvey Dent.

 - Batman makes the decision to save Rachel Dawes over Dent, despite what would be best for the city. The film shows him to make the wrong choice.

 - Batman makes a wrong choice in how he catches the Joker: look how it ends up - he's had to step beyond his own restrictions in the interrogation and it ends up with lots of dead cops.

 - Batman turns out to be wrong in trusting Gordon as much as he does, because Gordon trusts his bent cops.

 - Batman keesp underestimating the Joker.

Suffice to say, there is clear evidence of Batman being wrong in "The Dark Knight". What there isn't, unfortunately, is any scenes of character realisation about that wrongness.

If you want, you can of course turn "The Dark Knight" into an allegory that both justifies and condemns current political circumstances. There is enough material in it to do so.

And I can't wait until we hit this kind of discussion about "Watchmen".  :grin:

Great movie, but imho, not as good as Batman Begins.  A few random nitpicks:

1)  The look of Gotham City.  Gotham is supposed to be Depression-era NYC crossed with 1985 NYC at 3AM, on steroids.  Batman Begins pulled this off brilliantly-  heck, even Batman and Robin had sort of a fevered-baroque-dream Gotham thing going that wasn't terrible (complete with giant kneeling statues of naked men  :awesome_for_real:).  Judging by the skyline in the daytime aerial shots and the wide, clean, empty streets, this movie was filmed in Cincinnati.

2)  Ledger pulled off the Joker fucking brilliantly, given the script he was handed.   Oscar-level brilliant.  That being said, this wasn't a take on the Joker I liked.  I recognized the allusions to The Killing Joke, what with the theme that "anyone can go mad" and all.  But all of the Saw shit was bizarrely out of place.  The Joker probably has played the "you only have time to save one person!" stuff in the comics, but the pool cue and boat stuff just isn't him.  On a related note, the Joker was just too preachy.  In the comics, he is batshit crazy, not an anarchist philosopher who tries to sell his philosophy to everyone he meets with the fervor of a door-to-door encyclopedia salesman.     

3)  Dent's part in this movie should've ended with the hospital scene.  That would've made sense and set him up for the future.  That ending was just stupid, and Batman's "sacrifice" was doubly stupid.

Still better than 95% of movies I've seen in theaters.  Maybe my problem is what others view as a strength- this transcended comic book movie and was more of a gritty drama. 

I've been thinking about why the city looks a bit brighter and cleaner than in begins.  I wonder if they did that deliberately to show that Batman's actions are helping clean up the city, that things are looking less grim now for the average Gotham citizen.

But he ended up saving Dent anyway, and Rachel ended up getting flash fried, so i'm a bit confused about what you mean there.

The Joker set it up so that the locations were switched.  The location given for Dent was actually Dawes.  Batman decided to save Dawes, and ends up saving Dent.

Are you therefore implying that if he had decided to save Dent (and ended up saving Dawes instead) and Dent got blown up (which is the assumption if the situation were reversed), this would have been the correct choice, and therefore better somehow for the city, with Gotham's "White Knight" dead?

Either way his choice would have been technically wrong, because (due to writers deus-ex) someone out of the two ends up dead. And either Dawes ends up a bitter ex-fiance, or Dent ends up a psychological wreck of a broken man.

The inherent value of the choice has nothing to do with the outcome.  He picks his friend, his one belief in a normal life, and his unrequited love over Dent:  the white knight of gotham, the uncorruptable DA, and the force behind the cities unwillingness to sink to the Joker's level.  Rachel has her own value to the society, but not on the symbolic or practical level of Dent.

Joker could have replace either with stuffed purple elephants and it doesn't change what the choice was.  He picked Rachel.

There was no deus-ex involved, the Joker knew who Batman would pick.  He wanted Dent to live.

Whut ?

My point was that Batman tried to save Rachel and both he and Dent got screwed by that decision (and I'm sure Rachel wasn't too happy about it either). I'm simply refuting the statement that Batman didn't make any mistakes or wrong decisions.

Batman's saving of Dent was hardly perfect, either.

One problem with "The Dark Knight" is that it is almost like the Joker got to read the key parts of the script first. Some of his planning was just too clever.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrea_Dworkin#Intercourse

 :oh_i_see:

You asked :awesome_for_real:

I did and I appreciate the info.

The info itself is insane, of course, but it doesn't dampen the appreciation.

Wouldn't that be true for tongues as well? Would it be ok for women to dominate each other that way or is sex always bad for her? Which would explain why her mind snapped.

I could say something about Batman, but the movie didn't start in the cinemas here yet.

Bad ass film. So many things can be taken away from it, be it political commentary, artistic expression, or otherwise.

As far as the look of Gotham goes, I think they filmed it in Chicago, but I'm not sure about that. I kind of agree that in some ways it didn't feel like Gotham, but I did like that it was a city grounded in reality. So, I'm torn on that.

This was a conscious decision by Chris Nolan and Nathan Crowley (production designer) - they wanted to move the whole look of Gotham away from what they felt was a fantasy world and put it firmly into a recogniseable environment. We deliberately avoided gothic/deco structures and even went as far as altering buildings in some of the plates to make them less gothic - Chris wanted this to be very clearly a new film showing another aspect of Gotham rather than an extension of the Batman Begins world. Nathan also made an interesting point when he told us that because there was so much going on in the scenes he didn't feel the need to over-elaborate the look of the film: "we kept blowing stuff up all the time so the environments needed to stay clean and simple".

The actual architecture is pretty much 100% Chicago, though we did add some digital structures based on New York buildings in a few shots. You do get a bit of a "gothic moment" during the Chopper/Truck/Batpod scenes on LaSalle Street which has some of that look.

Who is "we"?

That's what makes him great. The whole point of The Joker is that he's always 3 steps ahead of everyone, especially people who react based on emotions (that he manipulates)

The magic trick was supposed to be indicative of this.


There was some tongue in cheek in this movie though, like every story about how The Joker got his scars was one of his origin stories.

By the way, was the Sen. Leahy cameo my imagination, or was that actually him?

It was him.  Apparently he is a fan. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Leahy)

A big fan of the Batman comics, Leahy lent his voice in an episode of Batman: The Animated Series as a Governor in a western tale involving Ra's al Ghul and Jonah Hex. He also appeared as a cameo in Batman and Robin, and has another cameo in the 2008 film The Dark Knight.[10] Leahy's character, a guest at a fund raiser for Harvey Dent, is grabbed by The Joker and the Clown Prince of Crime tells the guest that he reminds him of his father. Leahy wrote the introduction to the collected edition of Green Arrow: the Archer's Quest and the foreword to the first volume of The Dark Knight Archives, a hardcover reprinting of the first four issues of the Batman comic book.

Dworkin is someone who can be safely ignored. Besides, I though she was dead by the time Firefly / Serenity came out.

For those who are interested:

Dneg - Bruce's penthouse scenes, armored car chase, Batmobile/Batpod/chopper, big crowd scene, ferries, Gotham City views and extensions, Pruitt building sequence, batsignals, digital doubles

Framestore (I'm not entirely sure of their total workload) - Two Face, Hong Kong sequence, Hospital sequence, digital doubles, sonar vision eyes.

Buf -  sonar vision POV shots.

New Deal Studios (miniatures and models) - Garbage Truck crash, Hong Kong pyro building elements.

Cinesite Europe - ground level Batsignal beams, some grapple gun wires, additional comps.

In all there are approximately 700 shots in the final film. I'd guess that around 200 of those are IMAX, the rest are anamorphic scope.

I actually really apprecisated the stripped down production design.  It's minimalism really helped bring the story more down to the characters rather than getting in the way like I thought Burton's did at times.

Chicago, actually. And I thought it did a great job of portraying a modern fictional city without all the extra froo-froo that got way too over the top in the last 2 camp Batman movies. We don't need more naked kneeling guy statues.

Living here, let me assure you that the streets in Cincinnati are not wide, clean or empty.  The major roads downtown are 2 lanes in most places with parallel parking on both sides.   They are trash-strewn on the 'cleanest' day and are always filled with cars due to the lack of parking garages and mass transit within the city proper. (But hey we've got tons of surface lots!  :awesome_for_real:)

Perhaps you meant Cleveland. It's a lot more spread-out and nicely empty due to its mass transit.

Saw it, loved it. Best take on Joker I have ever seen outside of a Frank Miller book. THIS is the Joker who is fucking crazy enough to snap his own neck just to pin it on Batman.

Minor nitpicks- Maggie G just didn't do it for me. Something about the way they made her up and dressed her- she just looked old and haggard.

I thought they rushed through the Harvey Dent storyline, essentially wasting what could have been subplot A of the next flick. Aaron Eckhart rules.

As soon as the two cops hit the screen with one of them speaking while the other was driving incognito, I told my wife it was Gordon. You would think that was the most obvious thing ever, but there were actual gasps of astonishment in the theatre when he was finally revealed.

I really need to see it again- I was still mulling over the previous scene when the new scene picked up. Hectic pace.

Definitely the best movie I have seen this year.

Yes.  Dent dying WOULD have been the better choice for Gotham.  if Dent had died he'd have been martyred and could have been used as a symbol for the people of Gotham to rally around in an effort to clean up the city.  The corruption and fall of the "white knight" was way worse for Gotham and its people then his death.

Isn't that the whole point of why batman decides to take the fall and they cover up Dent's corruption?

At least that's how i perceive it.

Either he died a hero (which the Joker didn't want) or he lived long enough to see himself become the villian (LONG ENOUGH being the key phrase here).

The whole thing was a masterpiece.

Spoilers. I hope by now, though, that anyone reading this thread knows it's chock full of them and won't read it until they see it. Anyways...


I didn't realize the guy in the mask was Gordon. I thought he was going to turn out to be another one of Joker's people.

The Joker had a detonator because of his threat that if anyone got off the boats or anyone tried to save them, he'd blow up both of them... I believe he also said that if neither picked by midnight, he's blow up both.

Same here. I kept waiting for him to shoot the passenger in the truck, then go around back and attack Harvey Dent. I think it was intentional misdirection on the Director's part.

And lest we forget what came before:
http://www.independentcritics.com/reviews/batmanandrobin.htm

I don't think anyone is going to forget Batman and Robin sucked.  The only thing I took away from that link is that one of the reviewers seems to think that Bob Kane was one of the screenplay writers.

Morph, I took those statements about Ledger back after I watched more of his movies.

Anyhow, really complex movie. And good.

Iron Man is still better though. Sorry.

[edit] On another note, I really hope they don't make a sequel (is one even planned?). There's no point in saying anything else than what was in here. Heath has passed away obviously, but as the Joker said, he and Batman will just keep fighting forever. And as Harvey said, the world revolves around chance. Flip a coin. The end.

Just watched it.  A great movie but Iron Man is better.  Ledger is a great Joker but for an 'anarchist' he had some really detailed plans carried out by some rather intelligent goons. 

Likes
Ledger
The cops actually being shown as either corrupt or stand-up guys.  A good job showing the cops and enough detail for these secondary characters.
The pencil trick
The ferry dilemma.
Any scene with the Joker.
The movie actually makes your care about the soul of a city. 

Dislikes
Gyllenhall, just didn't cut it for me
Morgan Fuckinfreeman-Is anyone else out there sick and tired of this old, dignified schtick?


A great movie, glad I saw it, but it is over-hyped to me.

A lot of Batman Begins wasn't done on location, but in an actual set -- a gigantic hangar out in England or some shit. Even some car scenes. Or scenes like ones with the tram at the end, or the ghetto where Batman is climbing around to investigate those stuffed animals (where he first encounters Scarecrow) -- all of those are in a controlled set. So there's going to be more deliberate design choices in that case.

Didn't seem to be the same scenario here. Both were based on and shot in Chicago, but they did it even more in this film (perhaps because they had more cash /shrug).

overall, good flick, but i rate it less than batman begins (and ironman), though it really not a sequel…

POTENTIAL SPOILERS AHEAD (for the few of you who haven't caught it yet)










LIKED

* heath ledger did an awesome job with the joker part
* tragedy occurs to protagonists
* lots of incredible action sequences sans the fruity CGI (or at least done subtlely) that's all the rage these days

DISLIKED

* 1st half was great, 2nd half of flick got bogged down into too many threads, some stuff should have been left for another movie
* batman w/so many lapses in judgment, a few OK but he's like a bumbling idiot by the end
* seemed to be the same sequence repeated a bit, movie could have been shortened
* bale's voice as batman a little too much on the effect

FINALLY, THE ABSURD AND SILLY

* sonar imaging entire city w/cellphones, eh a bit of a stretch even for batman tech
* batman tearing through legions and equipped w/special armor gets manhandled by a couple of measly dogs and mental patient resembling joker

He's got a dog phobia obviously. That was established in the First Act.

And as the Joker himself pointed out, he's just a dog too.

:oh_i_see:


Seriously though, I can sort of see that being close to why. Or at least, I see that that's what is trying to be communicated there. Why he's able to wail on Batman with a pipe and two Rotts, and why Batman makes mistakes with him (there's also the fact that Batman changed his suit for more mobility, at the expense of protection).

There's also that scene with Alfred that pretty much points it out, where Bruce thinks he's gonna track and take the Joker down like everyone else because he's just a "criminal" -- and then Alfred reminds him that the Joker isn't a criminal. He just wants to fuck everything up and set the world on fire. A completely different beast. He can't be predicted or stopped. An "immoveable object" to Batman's "unstoppable force".

Also keep in mind that Batman is being portrayed not as the unstoppable super-genius in the comics but a fallable human being.  This is first encounter with a "freak" who thinks completely different from the mob class that's used to him.  Fear was an asset he used to get the job done as Batman on common criminals.  The Joker is immune to that fear because he knows Batman won't kill him and can take the pain for sure, and, after the Joker relays that to the mob boys, the mob loses its fear of Batman.  They'll get beat up, sure, but they won't die.

Two-Face though... he's put fear into mobsters because he WILL kill.

Ah yes, the Fear.

My favorite scene is the Joker standing in front of Batman's bike, just egging him on to run him over.

Why so serious? It's a good movie. Nay, it's a fucking amazing movie. No need to get all film major on it. I think everyone is enjoying it wrong.

That's the great thing though, he wasn't egging batman on because batman couldn't hear him, he was psyching himself up to get hit by a motorcycle.

It is possible for one to enjoy a movie on more than one level.

I agree. This movie was pure sex.

Sorry to get serious ( :oh_i_see:), but I think there's a part of him that would love for Batman to give in, corrupt himself, and do shit like that... But he knows it isn't going to happen. Hence, no fear. He's immune to Batman's brand of bullshit.

The serious bit was more a response to Litigator and anyone else who inadvertently has this desire to ruin the magic of this particular hollywood Thing. Batman: The Dark Knight is above that shit.

Cool thanks, which one do you work at?

This is why I'm not going to read this thread, amazing movie, better then Iron Man.  Fantastic fantastic flick.

Really? Thought it better than Iron Man eh? Thought you'd be the de facto ultimate Iron Man is the "best adaptation ever" fan for life here.  :-)

Anyways, yeah... read over the whole thread now. A bit much. I don't think that's even "film school" talk...what with the Rumsfeld references and shit. Heh

The power of Myth!

(http://img380.imageshack.us/img380/8554/georgelucaspt1.jpg)

No, he was begging Batman to KILL him. If Batman gets corrupted, if he gives up his rules, the Joker wins. And he's so full of self-loating anyway, he doesn't care if he dies, because all life is just a really bad joke anyway. It all means nothing, including his life. If Batman runs him over, he wins and the pain is gone.

I have to ask though... Some of you said (in a serious way) that he was disturbing, and possibly nightmare inducing. I mean... Really? Don't get me wrong, I thought he was great, but I didn't get that vibe at all. It was still a comic book movie to me and mostly just..entertaining. Do you guys see something about the Joker that I don't? Or even identify with that kind of pain (because that shit would be disturbing)?

I also don't buy that it was the reason that pushed Heath over the edge. Acting is powerful, but not even the most intense method actors get that caught up in it. The idea that they do is overstated, I think. He had a lot of other shit going on to keep him up at nights.

Hmm.. I hope you saw it privately :P

Eh.

Great film... if I hadn't had assorted character baggage I would have had no complaints, but I do not like either this take on the Joker or Batman's response to it. This Joker was, as mentioned, far too clever... especially with how totally off-the-wall nuts he was. There's a difference between being three steps ahead of the heroes and having a screenwriter's eye view of the movie ahead. Additionally, all the sense of gravitas that the Joker has always had, the suit and immaculate hair, was hidden under sweat and dirty greasepaint. Normally the madness doesn't sink in until he's worked himself up to it. Worse yet, the sense of a joke -- the denial of expectation that the Joker thrives on -- was missing from almost every one of his set pieces. His interest was corruption, not art, and I felt that cheapened him.

The Joker has you at his mercy, gun to your face, and... a flag comes out that says "BANG". He doesn't actually shoot you until you think all he's got is fake guns... and then he shoots you somewhere that isn't immediately vital so you can appreciate the irony.

Then Batman himself... how is it that he's willing to throw in the towel and give up just because some crazed psychopath wanders into town. Where is that single-minded, blunt instrument that we know and love? All that holds Batman's encroaching madness in check is his twin consciences, Commissioner Gordon and Albert... so why is Albert the one who has to deliver Batman's lines about needing to see a fight through? That is the LAST thing anybody ought to need to convince him of.

But... again, if I didn't know the characters I would have liked the film. Other than the psychic Joker.

Who the hell is Albert?

Good Movie.

My quibbles.

1) Joker who isn't Joker annoys me.
2) Everything from Batwiretap on was mediocre.
3) Two-face deserved his own movie.
4) The anti-authoritarian elements don't really stack up with the pro-authoritarian elements.  And in the political climate seem like a glib handling of a serious issue, like 24.

Alfred's long lost twin-brother?

Lol wut?  Smoke grenade in bank managers mouth.  Pencil Magic Trick.  "I like this job, I like it I like it."  Laughing at his dumb hood getting hurt by the shocking mechanism on batman's mask.  Nurse's uniform.  Sanitizing his hands.

He's the best joker outside of comic-book form since the one from the animated series, and even better than that one in the context of the this film's style.


It doesn't seem like you know the characters then, considering his name is Alfred and you seem to be confusing batman with James Bond.  Batman is not a single-minded, blunt instrument: he's the greatest detective in the world.  When he fights, he uses tricks and deception to maintain the upper hand and confuse those he is fighting.  The take I got from the movie is that he wants to give up being Batman but deep down knows he can't give it up and sort of "lucks out" with what Dent does, that like Rachel says and Alfred is probably aware of, he needs Batman in his life even if they just want Bruce.

As for the Iron Man thing: hey, I liked Iron Man an awful lot, but TDK is far and away a better movie regardless of personal favorites or preferences.  RDJ was awesome in his role, I thought he did a much better job than Bale did in his this time around, but the rest of the meat in that picture didn't live up, particularly Obediah.

(http://www.angryconservative.com/home/Portals/0/Blog/FatAlbert.jpg)

The thing about Batman in "The Dark Knight" is that he's an extention of Batman in "Batman Begins", not the comic. This Batman is a lot more dependent on outside help - he needs Alfred as a mentor, he needs Gordon as an ally, he wants Dent as a replacement, etc. He's also still a bit rash.

Come the 3rd Batman film under Nolan and I'd expect to see Batman stripped of his support networks and left up against someone like Bane.

Eh? Did the Pope make some by fiat announcement about this or what?

Isn't preference all that should matter? It is as far as I'm concerned, at least. Iron Man is fast paced, colorful, cheeky, metal clanking fun -- the kind of summer movie I would have gone crazy about as a kid. The kind I would rank highly over other types of movies in general. There's also some original things to it that just make it great to me -- for one, it's great to see a favorite actor in a mainstream genre flick (much like PotC). Secondly, the action is something I haven't quite seen on screen before -- some kind of part Robocop, part Superman, part Real Genius, part Top Gun shit. I won't go so far as to say that it's "original" (since Iron Man's been around some 40 years), but it is pretty original as far as movies go. I'm fascinated, much like I was for the Spider-Man movies (which hadn't been seen before either). Those two Marvel movies are done in a way that makes it look like so much fun to be these guys.

Batman doesn't do that for me (well, besides the car...I'd like to have that fucking car). It's dark, cool, mature, cerebral, thoughtfully paced, and all that good shit -- but not exactly fun or fascinating to me. That isn't to say I don't like it, but I'd always rank a movie like Iron Man better than it. That's just me. I think it's cool to finally see the stories finally getting pulled off, and the characters done justice, but it's still done in a way that as isn't exciting as I'd like (maybe that's just the nature of Batman). Thougt provoking (especially Harvey imo), yes, but not fascinating.

Yeah, they really rushed that plotline to the detriment of the series.  All they really had to do with Harvey is end his storyline after he gets all pissy with Gordon in the hospital room.  The descent of Harvey Dent is something that deserves a little bit more gravitas than was shown here, and should have been the main plot of movie 3.

It wasn't the Pope, actually, but his evil-twin Rufus.

I suppose it's more quibbling over small things considering that both movies are so good at what they do, but I guess the reason(s) that I feel like TDK was a better movie over Iron Man mainly had to do with the fact that Iron Man was an origin story and TDK was all follow-up/pay-off to an origin story.  I'll retract comparing the two and instead wait for Iron Man 2 before appointing TDK to The Throne.

Spoilers ahead.
















Liked:
- Best batman movie yet.
- Writing and directing were awesome.
- Heath nailed it.
- Excellent movie to see in imax (although if your imax is like Austins imax the seats weren't made for 2.5 hours of comfort and no concession stand so bring your own)

Disliked:
- Maggie Gyllenhaal - I get that she may add to the darkness/realness of the film but the bags under the eyes milf look isn't exactly what I want for a damsel in distress.  imax definately didn't do her justice (or maybe it did)...
- Batman sure doesn't seem to have much care for civilian casualties (blowing up cars caught in traffic jams, firing vehicle mounted machine guns to break a pane of glass in a crowded shopping mall, self destruct bomb right next to some workers) for someone who's code of ethics is so strict he can't kill the joker...  I personally thought these scenes were just fluff eye candy that did more damage to the movie than good.
- Ya i get the whole voice disguise but the batman voice is a little too over the top and gets old quick, Also makes him look like he is hawking up a loogie.
- I personally don't care for Christian Bale as batman but it isn't enough to ruin the movie.
- Would have liked to see batman go to save the chick at the end only to find out the Joker lied about who was where and end up saving harvey instead.  Sort of looked like it was leading up to that, who knows maybe it got cut.

People keep saying that the Joker made too many plans to be an anarchist... do you people actually ever read the comics?  The Joker often makes incredibly elaborate plans (usually with very simple elements, like bombs and guns)... He is an anarchist in the same way that most people are anarchists, he makes plans in order to mess up other people's plans.

Yes. I have looked at these Batman movies as like one big extended "Batman: Year One" story. Batman is still finding his way, getting his methods down. Hell, he was still changing the suit. This isn't the completely assured Batman of the current comics, he's the very human, flawed character who still isn't quite sure what he's doing and whether what he's doing is the right thing, hence the reason he's ready to chuck it if it will help save Gotham. The same goes for the Joker... I assume that if the Joker character had shown up in later movies, he would have been a little more theatrical, though maybe not with the BANG flags on the guns. He still had plenty of those kinds of jokes though, the pencil thing being my favorite.

Uhm....not sure how to tell you this....but thats exactly what did happen. Joker told him Rachel was at location "X". He went there to save her. But in reality it was Harvey who was there.

I agree, the Joker was too over the top to be truly disturbing, I just found him hilariously awesome. I don't know, but I imagine Heath probably enjoyed the hell out of that role, how could you not? Whatever his personal demons were I really doubt they were related to playing the Joker. If anything, Harvey Dent's transformation was more disturbing.

Anyway, the movie was even better than I was expecting. Even my wife, who usually gets bored and loses interest halfway through my "guy movies" really loved it.

Yeah, Harvey was pretty sad. I don't think I ever understood or appreciated just how tragic a character he was until this. I think his inclusion into the film was fine though... There was a moment there where the film lulled, and I was like "get it the fuck over with already", but he was kind of the icing on the cake to the Batman/Joker dualism. Or something. Maybe I'm making more out of it (then again, this is Nolan..he's probably trying to say even more than I think). And again, I think that should end it. No more sequels. There isn't anywhere to go but down from here.

Every time Joker entered a scene I giggled. He wasn't over the top funny, but just subtly and intelligently amusing. His entry into the mob meeting was the shit..Just deadpanning the laugh. Hahahaha hehe hehe...ho ho ho..hah....ho..heh. You know Heath was just having fun with it, and slightly making fun of the comics there. Also, and I said this when the trailers came out...that voice and the hunched shoulders kind of reminded me of Ed Sullivan. Heh. I couldn't possibly be disturbed by that.

Spoilers ahead...













Guess my ADD set in.  Thought he whispered rachel is at location X and harvey is at location Y and the batman went to Y, I must have crossed the 2.

Either way instead of dumbing it down for me and batman saying I'll take Rachel and the police saying we got Harvey, he said I'll take location X (insert random gotham address here) and the police said okay we got location Y (insert another meaningless gotham address here).  There was so much going on, It was a confusing time for me!

edit: added spoiler alert seeing how I landed on top of the page.

It was that dumbed down.  Batman runs out of the building Gordon asks him who he's going for and he says Rachel and rides away.  I assume since we are discussing plot points it's ok to talk about spoilers but here's a warning anyway.

SPOILER ALERT













I'm pretty surprised by the amount of people I talked to that think Two Face is still alive.  To me at least, it was pretty clear that he was dead considering the funeral and the fact that Gordon and Batman were right there and presumably checked to see if he was breathing.  And if Two Face is still alive it makes Batman taking the fall to preserve Dent's name completely pointless.  As for possible villains in the next film, there is some speculation that Reese, the Wayne Enterprises employee who knows Batman's identity, may become The Riddler.  A bit of a stretch maybe, but who knows. 

Fanboy wankery.

The reason why I don't want another sequel is that basically Nolan's Batman story is already told. Fini. There may be a giant world of Batman material out there, but that doesn't mean it has to be seen. Besides, most of it either doesn't mesh well with Nolan's realism, nor does it bring anything new to the table, as far as his themes about crime and fear go. He'd just be rehashing shit. Not to mention that Ledger's shadow will be looming over the entire thing....you'd have Batman movies with no further references to his arch-nemesis. And it'd be stupid and embarrassing. It's best to just leave it open ended like it is.

I agree with this.

I have so much  :heart: for this movie, that I won't even begin to get into it, since I'll rapidly decend into fanboy hyperbole.

hmm more spoilers, maybe an admin can just tag the thread title already.


still isn't the way I recall it but I already admitted to being too caught up in the moment to take notes, seem to remember batman saying i'll take X and gordon's response was to radio out all units to location Y.  I want to watch it again anyhow, I think this time I'll go the alamo bucket of beer and comfy seat route so i'll probably be too hammered to get it right on the 2nd pass as well.

No, he definitely said 'Rachel' when Gordon asked who he was going for, and then rode away.

Yes, he was going for Rachel. He went to where he thought Rachel was. Joker fucked him, just like the Joker should because HE'S THE JOKER.

"Nothing's ever that simple with The Joker."

I heard "Rachel" as well, but there's a lot of moments towards the end when the audio mix is screwed up, and the music drowns out dialogue. I almost got lost on some points a few times.

He said he was going to get Rachel. Joker knew that. Joker reversed the locations. It's not complicated.

Yeah, I'm not disagreeing. Just giving homeboy the benefit of the doubt.

got it, now spoiler alert the heading for this topic so every 4th line doesn't have to read "SPOILER ALERT"!

The movie has been out for several days now. There are 5 pages of posts about it. If someone is surprised to find a spoiler in this thread, they are a fucking dumbass who got what they deserved. Go see the fucking movie or DON'T READ HUGE THREADS ABOUT IT DAYS AFTER THE RELEASE.

Harvey Dent is alive. I'm almost positive Batman and Gordon said so when they were standing over the body talking about what to do. I thought the funeral was fake and Harvey will end up in Arkham under a fake name, perhaps to break out in the next movie as a full-movie-length villain.

Personally, I'm begging for a sequel. I want them to do the Riddler so bad. I love the Riddler and would relish Nolan's take on him. Hell, he made the Scarecrow actually menacing. The fucking Scarecrow. Of course, the villain they probably are really setting up is Dr. Hugo Strange. In the comics, he knows Batman's secret identity (which could be found out from that Waynetech accountant). Strange fucks with a lot of biology stuff, so he could add Killer Croc in the mix, or could just be Dent's shrink.

Well, whether he was dead or alive in the original script for the next movie doesn't matter. Said it to my friends at the theater, he's going to magically be alive now that Heath kicked it.

The Scarecrow worked because it fit well with the overall theme about fear. Cramming in the Riddler just because he might be a cooler character in his own right just seems like a bad idea to me. Totally different direction. There's a story being told here, and he has nothing to do with it. Hell, he took 4 villains already, all who could play into the fear theme, and it took some brilliance to not have it get too bogged down. Trying to push it and make Batman movies some excuse to explore the "Batman world" instead of telling a proper, continuous story is the path to suck. It's this kind of shit that makes trilogies suck in general.

http://movies.msn.com/movies/movie-guide-summer/the-smart-knight/

I thought this was interesting to read.

Did you notice that they also had him do the voice even when he's alone with Alfred or Lucius?  It was all I could do not to scream at the screen, "Dude, these people know who you really are!"

Well, it's almost too obvious but Mister Reese well...it's not much more subtle than Edward Nygma.

Edit: Jesus I'm fucking up quote tags lately.Sorry guys.

I vaguely seem to recall in the last movie the "voice scrambler" was a worn device.  So in suit regardless of who is listening he hawks up the loogies and out of suit it's normal.  No on off switch other than worn or not worn I guess...

(http://i228.photobucket.com/albums/ee52/baron_of_bean_dip/fpbatman.jpg)

They never say he is alive, and he doesn't appear to be breathing at all.  I don't really want to see Dent come back in the next one, mostly because he's had his character arc and there isn't much more to do with him.  Unless Nolan plans on redeeming him somehow, Two Face would just become a generic villain who could be replaced by any other bad guy.

Also I think the implication that seeing Gordon's son with a gun to his head was enough to finally get Batman to break his "one rule" is an interesting one.

I don't think he purposely tried to kill Dent with that body tackle.

As Bruce Wayne is a fairly smart guy, I'd imagine he'd realize that knocking someone out of a building several floors up is potentially fatal.

I think the best way for Nolan to conclude the story he's telling would be to do something similar to the Dark Knight Returns (although I don't really have any desire to see a direct translation of that story).  Basically he's told the story about that start of Batman's career, and it would be fitting if he concluded things with the end of it.  That leaves a large span of untold stories for WB/DC to fill in since they won't want to end the franchise while it's making so much money, and it lets Nolan tell Batman's story in a bookend sort of manner similar to what Frank Miller had with Year One and DKR.  Audiences get a story with a definitive beginning, middle, and end, which is something we'll never get in the comics.

Or maybe Nolan will just say fuck it and throw something together with Killer Croc, Clock King, and Clayface.

I don't think Dent is dead, simply because Batman doesn't kill. If Gordon can come back from the dead, Two-Face is a dead cert.

It would be sloppy for Batman to have saved the Joker but killed the otherwise (half?) healthy Dent with a fall.

Also, it would be the second time that Two-Face was killed by a fall in a Batman movie (see "Batman Forever").

The alternative to Dent not being dead is that Gordon (now without the help of Batman, and with nobody in the police department he can trust with this kind of secret), is somehow able to get Dent declared dead, but without anybody actually being able to examine the body.  Gordon would then have to put him in Arkham and hope nobody there notices his striking resemblance to the someone who was very much in the public eye and was being declared dead at the same time Two Face was being checked into the asylum.

It would be sloppy storytelling for the purposes of bringing back a character whose story has already been told.  How many more times do you need to see him flip a coin to see if someone lives or dies, because that's about all he'll add to the proceedings at this point?

I thought when he was talking about following 'rules' he was talking about his one rule.  He even says, "I only have one rule."  That of course being that he has to be righteous.  The whole point of having a Batman is so that when society's rules fail, he can step in and bring the pain - so to speak.  But as I'm sure you are aware the state of righteousness and following the letter of the law are two completely different things.  You can argue over whether such a thing as righteousness even exists at all, but shut the fuck up.  This is Batman. 

All your other stuff kind of falls apart after you realize that.

Basically, Batman is neutral good. Next!

Edit: Wrong alignment, here we are.

Neutral Good is known as the "Benefactor" alignment. A neutral good character is guided by his conscience and typically acts altruistically, without regard for or against Lawful precepts such as rules or tradition. A neutral good character may cooperate with lawful officials but does not feel beholden to them. A doctor that treats soldiers from both sides in a war would be considered Neutral Good.

* Bullshit *

Bullshit, it won't do a damn thing to his career. If it does, Hugh Grant and Robert Downey Jr, and Russell Crowe should be taken out back and shot. in the head.

Just saw it last night despite having to be up 4 hours later for work when it finished. Amazing. I've been avoiding this thread like the plague and would of had to if I stayed true to seeing it IMAX only the first time.

I'll go see it again in IMAX next week though.

I could see that happening at least. If they waited awhile and/or got older actors. Kind of like the Two Jakes sequel to Chinatown, if you will (which were some 25 years apart, I believe). That's possibly the best way of scooting by the fact that Heath is gone as well.. Someone else could play an older Joker.

In a way though, I kind of see this movie already having a fitting conclusion to Batman's career. i.e. Going underground again, being the Dark Knight, with Gotham's fate still in a tug of war between peace and chaos, and things left to chance. Nolan already gave a sort of nod's up to DKR with the copycat Batmans and shit too. The only thing missing is a slugfest between him and Superman [edit] (and that's probably the only part left of the Batman story worth telling, in this context. His difference with Superman).

Finally saw it tonight. Best movie I've seen in a LONG time. Absolutely amazing from top to bottom. Everyone has summed up the various parts and plot twists, but wanted to point out a couple of things that brought me a lot of enjoyment in my viewing:

The creepy droning violins leading up to the appearance of the Joker in various scenes. Really added atmosphere.

The Joker's facial expressions and reactions when seeing Harvey Dent's face in the hospital.

Here are a couple articles on some of the work that was done. Quite a lot of special effects where you wouldn't have noticed.

http://vfxworld.com/index.php?atype=articles&id=3705 (http://vfxworld.com/index.php?atype=articles&id=3705)

http://vfxworld.com/?atype=articles&id=3707 (http://vfxworld.com/?atype=articles&id=3707)

On the second link you get a real comparison of the 'academy' frame versus the IMAX frame. Amazing cameras.

Completely agree. This really did it for me too. Movie was fantastic, at times I felt spoiled and like I was getting too much of the good stuff when Joker appeared. But I grinned every single scene he was in.

Gordon managed to 'die' and keep it a secret.

But the issue remains: Batman actively killed Dent. Pushed him off a high surface and let him fall. If he was that way inclined, I'm sure the Joker would have gone the same way.

Batman doesn't kill, even indirectly. That's Batman's one line he doesn't cross.

Anyway, we'll find out in the next film. And Nolan could write an excellent Clock King as a minor villain.

Finally took the time to read this thread the whole way through and wish I could unread the first 4 pages. How the hell you people associate some of the things you do is baffling.

Stray - I think what made Joker so disturbing to me was that they had the character played in such a clever way that you were laughing at things that were truly sick. Obviously not the worst possible things, but most of what he did had the intention of causing the most harm to everyone. Of course I still found him delightfully funny in an intelligent way. I still think him stopping to check the detonator was awesome.

How can you NOT laugh or go "OH SHIT" at the Pencil Magic Trick? Best character introduction ever.

Oh, I laughed. It was awesome, but consider seeing something like that in person and having the guy who did it say "TA-DA! It's gone!"

Gordon didn't keep it a secret though.  At least a few people knew, including at least one of the crooked cops (which means the mob and the Joker more likely than not knew Gordon wasn't dead either).  It only helped further the Joker's plan of getting himself caught and thrown in jail.

Also if the Joker was about to shoot Gordon's son, Batman might have reacted the same was as he did with Two Face.   When Batman prevented Joker from falling to his death, the Joker was beaten and nobody was in immediate danger.

Where can I start reading that series?

Start back before Infinite Crisis. I'd say start with Identity Crisis (7-issue miniseries). Wikipedia has a synopsis of the Brother Eye (OMAC) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brother_Eye) stuff and might have a bibliography in there somewhere.

Didn't want to touch this thread until I saw it.  I was not disappointed.  It knocked my socks off.

I'm not suggesting that Ledger's Joker was anything short of awesome or even that he wasn't the best part of the movie, but it's almost a shame that it overshadows how great Eckhart was as Two-Face.

EDIT: looking back on this thread and some of the arguments just makes me appreciate this movie even more.  Great stuff in this thread.

You forget the hilarity of the bank robbery. "WHERE'D YOU LEARN TO COUNT!" and "No, I'm going to shoot the bus driver."

It's a good movie, and hopefully shows how much worse Iron Man was (for everyone singing it's praises, I didn't think Iron Man was that good, but it wasn't outright crap that most other superhero movies are). As others pointed out, it was good because it was a Crime and Thriller movie, not really about Batman himself being Batman.

The Joker's story has been told and I don't want to see him break of Arkam and go through the whole thing again because everyone (Batman, the Commissar, the audience) would know it's all a setup for something. They can get away with it in this movie (the fact that they leave the Joker unchained and with a Detective in the room etc) because it was all very rushed and there wasn't much time for a character (typically a sidekick) to say "hey, the Joker's always been 3 steps ahead of us, why is it so easy now?". Ledger deserves an oscar nomination, though I don't know if he deserves a win.

However, my sense of disbelief failed at the Hospital and complete went out the window and fell 30 stories when NO ONE on board a ship in a city where a terrorist has hidden a mass of bombs (and has already destroyed one building complex) checks the bottom deck (and NOTE: They were trying to evacuate as many people as possible, but we'll leave the entire engineering deck turned off and closed off because it's full of explosive drums). I guess the ship's engineering crew got outsourced to bomb makers. 100's of them.

For that matter, why blame everything on Batman when you can say "The Joker did it" and your friendly corrupt commissioner will supply all the evidence you need, with or without the Joker's protest of innocence. Who's going to believe him when says the Hero DA did it? And the scene with the Mob Boss being dropped the same distance and only getting a sore foot *had* to be for the precise reason to make the point that Two Face would survive the same thing. By the end of the movie the new Commissar and Batman knew the Hero DA was dead to the rest of the world, but it doesn't have to be a physical death.

More nit picking: It would have been straight forward for Batman or his helper to CALL the cops and say "The hostages are the real bag guys, the bad guys are the hostages!". I'm sure he's got the new commissioner's number on speed dial.

Now that the movie has demonstrated why Gothem city needs Batman, I very much hope the NEXT movie is about what happens when the democratic elected Government For the People, With the People and By the People starts doing *everything* Batman does: Illegal wire taps, Torture (I was wondering why Batman hits people to get them to talk when he could just get a wet towel and a cup of water), extra-judicial assaults with deadly weapons, firing large explosive ordnance in small spaces full of civilians and causing collateral damage and killing of suspects because oops dropping someone 4 stories *does* kill them and not just sprain their ankles.

I fear it would just become "Batman vs City Hall and the Mayor is SuperVillan X" but having a superhero try and stop the US government would be an interesting change. Dick Chaney can play himself.

One thing I forgot to ask previously:

What was with all the dog things? There were three separate times when dogs played a big role: twice attacking Batman and the third time chasing him at the end. And then there was the conversation between Lucius and Wayne about the new batsuit. It stuck out for me because it wasn't a big part of the first movie, but due to the screen time seemed to be done enough here to be making some sort of point/foreshadowing/homage.

I agree too that Eckheart was unfortunately overshadowed. He should have been the next movie. And given the anti-Mob element of this movie, sticking closer to the original origin story might have made a bit more sense (though I liked the homage played to it by the one mobster who pulled the gun on him. I'm sure some in the audience thought it was going to be sulfuric acid :wink:). They could have moved the prosecution to the end, had it feature Meroni, had the acid happen and then left it for the next one.

I don't dislike how things happened here. The Joker didn't cause Two-Face per se, as Dent was already going down that path mentally (as seen when he grabbed that guy for interrogation after things started falling apart). But I think the descent of Dent into and through the "death" of Two-Face was an unfortunate casualty for an otherwise interesting character.

Seeing how different this movie was from the first, I truly have no idea what they would do for the next one. I don't think it can just be more Joker by himself, nor do I think they could throw him away as they did Scarecrow (btw, I think it was Cillian Murphy only for when they pulled the mask off. It didn't even sound close to him when he had the mask on). I would love to see the Batman/Superman crossover (loved that billboard in I am Legend), but I don't think the new versions of either IP has been established enough for that. Bane maybe?

Dogs are wild, unpredictable, and aimless. I think the point/reason for their inclusion was made fully when the Joker compared himself to them, when he was being interrogated by Batman. He said he was like a dog chasing a car -- and that dogs didn't have any real goal when they do that...they didn't give a shit about actually reaching the car... they just liked chasing it.

I don't see how this was that different from the first movie. It touched all of the same themes about Fear, the "Heart of Gotham", etc.., just in a more poignant and conclusive way.

That's a good point. I had forgotten what the Joker had said. Ironically though, all of the dogs were under control by someone, including the three the Joker had. Was that further symbology, the fact that the Joker is controlled chaos (which I believe he is) rather than pure entropy?

I only mentioned the first movie because dogs weren't really present there at all iirc so it seemed pointed here.

You should probably draw your own conclusion from what the meaning of the dogs is. My idea falls somewhat in place with what Stray said in that unlike humans, the dogs are chaotic and unpredictable, much like the Joker was and he was forced to adapt to that.

Oh... Well, I think they were in this movie mainly to illustrate the Joker's schtick (hence, why they're not in the first movie). Even when some dog scenes had nothing to do with Joker, the subtext was there.

As for them being controlled, I think you could be taking the symbolism too far. Or maybe not. Who knows. He's chaotic enough to burn a 20 foot stack of cash, and state that all he needs in the world is dynamite, gunpowder, and gasoline. Those are about the only things he cares to control it seems.

Question on that, more lore than anything else: the Joker pulls off some pretty elaborate stuff. Is he able to do that without money because he's taking over others carefully crafted operations? I mean, where'd he get all the barrells of gasoline he had in both warehouses and the two ferries? Or the detonators? Or the thugs? Sure he inherited the latter but they still want their payola. If he really isn't about the money, eventually all the stuff he steals and all the people he uses to do so will dry up. How's that work in the comics?

He recruits naive schizos from Arkham. Or people too self-absorbed with their own goals to even pay attention to what he's doing.

Also, continuity isn't all that important in Batman comics. It's just a bunch of variations on the myth. Hell, continuity isn't that important in most superhero comics, for that matter (although I'll say that it seems like Marvel attempts it more often..with disastrous results). Besides that, most of the best Batman stories, like the ones these films draw upon, are self contained graphic novel deals.

The movie was long enough.  Do you want an extra hour of his trip to Home Depot, arts and crafts time, and the Gotham City career fair?

C'mon Rasix, you have to admit seeing The Joker do all of those things would probably be full of win.

See earlier post: I wanted two movies, split so that Two-Face had more time.

This is probably going to be longer than it should, but I'll try to break it down for a sec (as I see it): Harvey Dent belonged in nothing but this movie imo. He's the "third" side of the coin, if you will.. the middle. None of the points Nolan tried to make in this movie would have worked as well, without him as a plot piece.

Sure, it could have been a tragic story if just Rachel's fate was portrayed -- but a simple damsel in distress tale is helluva a lot more clichéd. It wouldn't have been equally tragic without Harvey's aftermath. There also could have been only general references to Gotham's "heart and soul" (as opposed to encapsulating it in one character like Harvey Dent), but that would have been conventional good guys vs bad guys shit. Instead, they took it a downright Shakespearean level.

Or you could say that it could have had all of those things still, Harvey included, but with the movie cutting off with Harvey pissed on the hospital -- leaving room for a sequel. In which case, I'd still say it'd be wrong. What exactly would he do in that sequel? More importantly, what new things would he do? What story is worth being told for two hours about that?

The idea of Two Face as a proper "villain" just flat out sucks. The typical portrayal of Two-Face is actually one-sided -- with Harvey almost completely lost. Usually, he's just another maniacal fuckhead foiling everyone's plans, and his "good" Harvey side is just an excuse to make him seem crazy by talking to himself. Nothing more. In the end, Harvey doesn't matter and Two-Face always defers back to being a "villain". He's One-Face. And he sucks just like other Batman villains suck. Fuck all of these guys. They're not interesting "mythical archetypes" in their own right. Most of them just do the same shit as the Joker, but in lamer ways. They never truly bring anything new to the table, as main villains. There's more to tap into them when used as smaller plot pieces (like Harvey, or how Scarecrow was portrayed, in relation to Ra's al Ghul).

That's why I said earlier that I never did truly appreciate the character until I saw him this way -- I finally got to appreciate "Harvey Dent". Harvey Dent not as a villain, but just a man. His rampage is realistic and human and personal. Instead of producing meaningless panic in the streets for an entire movie, he's just a guy on his last limb and out for revenge. A final act from a man who lost his will, his faith in the world, and his love. He's not a criminal per se -- he's just postal. Two hours of him prancing around, killing people, and robbing banks (or whatever), playing the part of yet another freak, just negates the real tragedy in the character.

It's also pointless to see that kind of criminal again anyways (so fuck the Riddler and the Penguin too, for that matter), because the Joker does it best. You can't top him, or repeat it again with a different guy. Maybe if Heath was still alive, I could see the point in another sequel, with other characters' stories getting a little more extended in the thick of it -- but that isn't going to happen.

Keep in mind that he robbed a bank for $65 million dollars in the opening segment.

I was disappointed that TwoFace wasn't going to make it into a third... I really expected that he would be the next movie.  But Stray's points above makes a lot of sense.  I also wish the "Penguin as a British arms dealer" idea would have surfaced, but again, how to make that interesting enough for 2.5 hours?

I also wish they would have used the comic version of the Joker's creation... I fully expected it and was really let down that they didn't portray it in the film.  It was a major bummer to see his makeup wearing off when in the police station.  I did, however, fully enjoy the line "I'm like a dog, chasing cars.  I wouldn't know what to do with it when I got to it. I just, do things."  It was one of my favorite parts of the film. 

As far as the next film, it wouldn't surprise me if they only brought one villain in simply because much of the next film is going to be Batman on the run.  I think a high-tech villain would fit in really well, using some crazy new heavy technology or something. 

To get all film school about it, the dogs represent society to some extent - trained and civilised on the surface, but you don't have to dig deep to unleash vicious animalistic reactions. See the Joker's comment that a loyal dog will still eat its master if he's cut up enough. That Batman kept getting attacked by dogs is representative of his greater struggle with society.

Or: Dogs are Batman's kryptonite.

I want to see Mr. Freeze 'done right'. Batman:TAS had a great version of Mr. Freeze, one you could genuinely feel sympathy for. Set the entire movie in winter and work from there.

So superman will fight batman by getting a gun that shoots dogs?

Indeed.
I am also a fan of Ace (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ace_%28comics%29).  Wouldn't need the JL and Joker could stay in the background.  Nothing says "dark" like termally ill, superpowered, tortured child soldiers.

I have been thinking about the next movie like a lot of you. Nolan has grounded Batman in reality, as much as a superhero can be anyway and I'm having trouble finding a Batman villain that won't camp things up. It could be interesting to see Bane done right, he could even name it Knightfall like that one story arc.

I would like to see Nolan and Bale turn the next movie into a conclusion of their Batman story arc. I doubt if WB or DC would let them, but it'd be nice to see them finish this arc of Batman's life in some way. Maybe Batman gets Gotham City to where it doesn't need him and he hangs up his cape with a promise to put it back on the next time Gotham needs a hero. How he gets there I have no idea.

Maybe they could bring in Talia al Ghul and have her out for revenge for Ra's death in the first movie and introduce a love/hate relationship. Have the league of assassins out to get Batman while the police are also after him.

AND IT WILL BE AWESOME

I will actually shoot dogs who will then shoot bees from their mouths.

Saw this tonight, and the ending... hmmm... the concept of Batman taking the fall for Harvey is fine and makes sense in the context of the complete film, but my problem with the implementation is that Two Face didn't do anything evil enough to be noticed over all the noise the Joker was making. Everything he did could be ignored as a random mob killing except for the final kidnapping, which Gordon could have just not mentioned ever again. The whole thing seemed like some unnecessary emo gesture, and the idea that Gotham turning on Batman was healthy for the city wasn't enough to sustain it; in fact, it felt a little like Nolan was relying on the audience already knowing that Two Face is a Batman villian to sell the fact that he'd become evil. Two Face needed a better final act for this to be as awesome as it possibly could be.

And two-face is dead, don't be daft. I don't really see how two-face can work in this Batman continuity anyhow, which is a shame, because making this film a two hour story of two-face's origin hidden in a Joker main feature would have been just about the most awesome thing ever.

Anyway, I'm complaining too much. This was the best thing I've seen in ages, my reservations are just that it runs at 107% awesome until Rachel is killed, then then drops to merely 98% splenda. It was great to watch a comic book movie that sticks to whatever it wants to be about even through the last 30 minutes of explosions and name taking. Also, I'm going to sound way too beret brigade when I say this, but Gary Oldman should get an oscar nomination, not Heath Ledger. Oldman steals every scene he's in, even when his script goes downhill after he becomes resurrected-super-cop. Ledger is great, but the script does most of the heavy lifting imo.


meh. He's been robbing banks since the epilogue of the last film.

I don't think the point was how much Harvey went evil ... Just that he did. He was the White Knight, and he fell from grace. It was bad news, and if gotten out, would have completely destroyed Gotham's morale. Or something.

I get that, I just feel it got drowned out. If the whole city hadn't been in chaos, maybe it wouldn't have seemed daft to worry about a couple of dead mob guys.

Yeah but a corrupt cop and a mob boss could be explained away as just part of Joker's general rampaging. That way doesn't involve the whole city thinking Batman's turned psycho. It could be easily exploded by the cop who lived squealing or some random witness but that's no less likely if they blame it on Batman. I think it's obviously the direction Nolan wanted to go with this (I predict the third film is going to see an outlaw Batman fighting against a corrupt city government, possibly having its strings pulled by Riddler or some other dark figure).

Finally saw it tonight. Two Face is kinda lame even though I unconsciously said "Don't put it in your pocket, it's your lucky quarter" outloud when he interrogated the crazy perp and got a few laughs instead of getting cell phones hurled against my head like I deserved.

The Joker is fucking amazing. That's about all I have to say about that. I was genuinely depressed when I realized we'll NEVER see that character again.

...batman's voice is awful.  :heartbreak:

Gotham's morale was a big part of the success Batman had achieved. In the first movie, Gotham is the absolute shittiest of the shit. City government is absolutely corrupted at every level, and even the police are not to be trusted. Gordon was the one honest cop. Since Batman started his crusade, Gothamites had started to hope, the city had started to turn around and as a result people felt safer testifying against mob bosses like Meroni. Before Batman, Meroni would never have gone to trial. Batman made Dent's successes possible. Had Dent been shown to be corruptible, all those gains would have been for naught.

Now, with Batman a killer and an outlaw, not only is his work easier (because the mob guys fear him again), but the Gothamites now have regular heroes to look up to (the cops like Jim Gordon).

On the "fascist dictator" vibe that was debated somewhat earlier in the thread, I think Dent's failure and Batman's fall have left Gotham in a situation where there simply aren't any heroes to drag them out of the mire. Instead in hunting down Batman and/or avenging Dent the people of Gotham have got to stamp out crime and corruption, hopefully with a new cleaner police force under the direction of Gordon. For all the talk in the film of a dictator that suspends democracy, Dent's fall shows that noone can really take that role, anyone can go bad. I'll admit Batman doesn't really get 'corrupted' but he's the frickin' hero, it wouldn't make for much of a film if say he'd decided to use his mobile phone trick to establish total surveillance of everyone, everywhere and became de facto dictator of Gotham.

Actually, Batman DID get corrupted, what with the whole surveillance on everyone in Gotham thing. Granted, he knew enough not to give himself total control over it, but that's a pretty big thing, even for him. That's a monumental betrayal of trust on the part of the city's protector. He did it because he thought he had to go just as extreme as the Joker to beat the Joker, and turned into a villain of his own because in the end, while he "got" the Joker, he didn't defeat the Joker.

Back to the dog thing: I forgot about that scene, after the Joker busts out of jail, where he's in the back seat of a cop car, sticking his head out the window. That had to be intended to go with the dog comparisons, I think.

Anyhow, after watching it again, I think it's really great how the dude basically has no origin story. Couple that with the realistic way in how Heath portrayed him, it just begs me to wonder how the Joker got that way. He's got all of his bullshit stories about how he got the scars, but you know his past is something so fucking bad, even he can't be honest about it. The whole take just leaves a lot to the imagination.

There's also this sort of undercurrent of nervousness about the guy -- right from the beginning, like when he first entered the mobster meeting. He's a seriously fucked up dude, no doubt, but someone who isn't exactly a competent criminal -- just a ballsy guy with nothing to lose and nothing to care for. He straps himself with dynamite to just keep himself safe. He has no other kind of leverage. Like he's out of his element, but too bold and careless to give a fuck. There's also that scene when he first goes after Dent at the fundraiser, and Batman breaks it all up -- fight scene ensues. Joker's all tripping around, trying to slash at him and shit. It's funny. I mean, he totally sucks, as far as fighting skill goes. He's just flailing around (yet still putting Batman on his guard). He's an otherwise normal dude, if it wasn't for whatever trauma that pushed him over the edge.

To top it off, he's so alone and caught up in this freakish side of himself, that he kind of reaches out to Batman in a way -- he admits to needing Batman. Even moreso, that scene where he visits Harvey in the hospital -- it's almost touching. Like he's trying to make another freak friend -- and he did it by fucking up Harvey's life.

I don't think I'm reading too much into it. Just that a second viewing is more illuminating.

his handwaving magic aside, his mindfucking terrorist act is quite a mindfuck. I mean, if someone made demand like that on TV: Kill this guy or a building blows up. I'm quite sure SOMEONE will act upon it..

I felt Batman remains ambiguous until his moment of clarity at the very end. If Batman definitively was or wasn't corrupted, the film doens't work so well imo.

I took the point to be that Batman/Bruce lacks a way to judge his own actions, the Joker takes it away from him partly by forcing him into positions others will disapprove of, and partly by giving him the classical moral dilemmas with no 'right' answer. The interesting thing isn't that Batman definitively was or was not corrupted, just that he is put in a position where he doesn't know.

Because we and Bruce see Harvey's actions from the outside, the point where he is corrupted is clear to us, and eventually Batman works out he can use that example to see where the line is, and uses Harvey's example to defeat Joker by taking blame for Harvey's actions.

I think he knew he was fucking up right from the start. Before he uses the surveillance thing at the end, there's a scene far before it, when Lucius inquires about something or other with the R&D department. Bruce doesn't want to tell him any details, saying "he's playing this one close to the chest".

He had already been setting it up before he even had a big showdown with the Joker, right after Lucius demonstrated just the one cell phone trick to map that one building.

I think Batman simply lost the 'one step ahead' game and had to resort to 'cheating' as in creating that surveillance network when he realize if he loses again, there may be more at stake than just Rachel or another Harvey Dent.


I

I thought the surveillance thing was brilliant. The monitors themselves felt more like a prop for the movie than something that would actually be needed in this sort of tool. The entire system was designed only to track down the Joker by homing in on his voice and locating him. For something like that you need exactly one monitor. Hell you could do that on a cellphone. But for the movie, that wouldn't have been as impressive looking.

So I look at the machine as a tool turned into hyperbole only, not as an indication of a descent into fascism. Wayne was playing it close to the chest because he knew that no matter how it was embodied, Lucius wouldn't go for it (which foreshadowed exactly what happened).

Batman failed to stay ahead because he categorized Joker through what he learned from the first film about "criminals". Here again it took Alfred to enlighten Bruce on why the Joker was a different type of enemy (and which even scripted as "this town deserves a better class of criminal"). Batman's analysis and process for take down were wrong. He witnessed the very escalation Gordon warned him about in the last film. But he didn't realize that this particular escalation skewed to anarchy rather than along the predictable path of bigger guns, more armor, that sort of thing.

I do agree that he "lost it", though I feel it was more when he realized he couldn't separate what was the right thing to do from saving Rachel.

Awesome line. With or without the context. It's like the guy had his own brand of justice.

The whole scene between him and Harvey was equally cool. <Puts a gun in Harvey's hand>: "Introduce a little anarchy."

Well, you know in the comics, his origin has had elements of both of those stories he told, but Killing Joke is the closest thing to an origin the Joker really has, and even that's a suspect origin. I think not trying to tell an explicit origin story for this villain is another of the genius that Nolan has brought to the franchise. While it would be an interesting story to write, and probably to watch, the previous Batman franchise relied too much on the villain's origin being the entire movie. And since Batman likely wasn't involved in the origin in anyway (or according to the comics, a really incidental way), telling it the movie would have just wasted valuable time.

The changing stories helped to magnify the Joker's craziness. His view of reality is so skewed, could anyone really trust that his own perceptions and memories aren't completely fucked anyway? God, it's just such a shame Ledger died. I would have loved just a five minute scene in the next movie with the Joker locked in Arkham being interviewed by a shrink. That would have been 5 kinds of awesome.

Heh. I think Nolan did give him a sort of "origin story" in a way, I guess. Right at the beginning of the movie:

"Whatever doesn't kill you, makes you stranger"

Anyhow, I'd like to think of the guy being fairly/otherwise normal, as I said above. Nothing particularly outlandish happened to him -- just some down to earth/more realistic type of trauma -- in a relentless way -- until he finally lashed back. And that HE cracked up made him think anyone else in Gotham could crack up as well -- that is his "mission", so to speak. To spawn other freaks. Probably because he's so fucking lonely.

Awesome film, best two and a half hours I have spent in the cinema in a long time.

Loved Heath, sad that they killed off two-face, liked that the story was not just focused on a single person, but on the relationships between people.

I'm also positive that the people on the boats were given their own detonators.

Mixed feelings on this portrayal of the Joker.  It finally had the amoral murderous psycho bit right, but mostly didn't have the flair the character should have along with it.  Except "Nurse Joker" at the hospital, that bit was right on.

If I'd had to guess, I'd say he did the scars to himself.  As part of transforming a previous utter nobody into his twisted self-vision.

Regarding the surveillance system, it seems totally in character to me.  Bats always stashes away contingency plans on the off-chance he might need them someday (such as a bit of kryptonite for Superman).  He doesn't want to use them, but he will if he has to (and in this case, he gave control to Fox to remove temptation)  It's the kind of thing I'd expect him to pull out of his bag of tricks, but it had to be introduced and explained in the context of the movie so when Batty needed a way to "burn down the forest" to leave his prey nowhere to hide, it wouldn't seem like such a copout.

I've made plans to see this movie three times and something new derails my plans each times. I even barely missed seeing it in IMAX! Is the ghost of Bob Kane punishing me?

(http://i241.photobucket.com/albums/ff26/stuabrtow/aweseomejoker.jpg)

Or, maybe this is just an excuse to use the new Awesome Smiley I found.

I'm of the opinion that the detonators were exactly as advertised. Because if criminals blow themselves up thinking it was the other boat, people would be like "Ya... sounds about right". But if innocent civilians blow up a boat load of criminals and commit mass murder, then we have something to talk about. Which is part of what the Joker wanted. Proving that people are only self interested and would gladly murder others for the sake of self.

I was banking on the innocent civilians blowing themselves up in an attempt to off the scary criminals.  That would also give us something to talk about.

If they did that, there's noone around to prove the detonator didn't accidently go off or that the Joker himself didn't push the button. The only way to truly prove his point is a boat load of "innocent" civilians commiting mass murder.

Just thought I'd chime in and mention that this movie is a lock for second highest domestic gross of all time.  It's already at #4 with $394 million, less than $50 million away from dethroning Shrek 2 for the #2 spot.  It won't threaten Titanic and it's $600 million gross unless it has serious, serious legs that this sort of movie pretty much never does, but it'll come closer than anything else has.

You've got all the prison guards, they'd be as reliable as any of the civilians especially since if one of the criminals had grabbed it they'd have little reason not to tell everyone. I genuinely did expect the guy on the civilian boat to get up and hit the detonator, then see their boat exploding from the prison one.

I don't think anything will ever dethrone Gone With the Wind if you adjust for inflation.  I might be remembering incorrectly, but wasn't GWTW #1 for damned near a year when it came out?

I knew neither boat was going to blow up because there is no way Batman is going to 'lose' and have hundreds of civilians die in his movie.  

Having said that, I'm sure the detonators were set to blow up the other ships, like he said.  After all, he is a man of his word.

Othat than, y'know, the deliberate lies and complete dishonesty throughout the flick.

Over two weeks after the movie comes out and we're still able to debate points like whether the detonators were setup with the old switcheroo, and different interpretations of characters' actions. And not only are we still able to debate them, the debate hasn't diminished the movie at all. That, gentlemen, is fucking art.

Dont forget, we also have a new awesome giant smiley now too!

It really is quite the nuanced work of art. I'm still firmly in the "Iron Man is better" camp though. Given the choice between a day at the gallery and a roller coaster ride, I choose the latter every time. Call me lowbrow.  :-)

There's a line from High Fidelity I always liked:

Hey, I'm not the smartest guy in the world, but I'm certainly not the dumbest. I mean, I've read books like "The Unbearable Lightness of Being" and "Love in the Time of Cholera", and I think I've understood them.

They're about girls, right?

Just kidding. But I have to say my all-time favorite book is Johnny Cash's autobiography "Cash" by Johnny Cash.

My 2 cents on the detonators?  They're both set to blow up the prisoner ferry.

Testing: 

Why so serious? (http://dl.getdropbox.com/u/40386/Smileys/joker.png)

Win.

You're all focusing on the prisoners being the ones to pull the trigger.

The prisoners never would realistically get their hands on it.

The dilemma was more along the lines of were the innocents really just self-interested sociopaths who had never gotten the opportunity to act out because they're all sheeple or were the 'protectors of the innocent' really just the self-interested sadists everyone really thinks they are.

No, I'm saying it doesn't matter who pulls the trigger.  Any way you slice it, the prisoners are going to go, because you don't want a rash of nobility ruining a perfectly good object lesson.

If the prisoners blow the "good" boat, nobody's shocked. Sure, it's a tragedy, but it's what they expected to happen.  So why would the Joker even allow it?

Either A) the goodies blow up the prisoners (total win for the Joker), B) the prisoners blow up themselves (partial win, because people are always going to believe the folks on the good boat really did it), or C) the Joker offs the prisoners himself (see B).  Added win of offing a lot of mid-level mob management, leaving Joker a better position to take over their minions.

It also fits with the Joker's modus operandi of everything being a mindfuck; nothing he says or does can be taken at face value (his relationship with the cops and batman hasn't come along far enough for him to screw them up by actually telling the truth, because it takes the whole bloody movie for even Batman to realize the Joker's always pulling a fast one.)

But the prisoners didn't have the trigger.

Cops killing innocents to save their own hide is a far more powerful 'object lesson'.

Excellent point that has changed my mind slightly. If the cops blew up the innocent civilians to save their own hide, Joker still makes his point. I'm still firmly convinced that they had each others detonators. The guilty party needed to live to prove the point. Otherwise there's questions of who actually pulled the trigger if the trigger puller is blown up with everyone else.

Actually, I thought he kept his word throughout all of it.  He was a sneaky underhanded bastard about it, but when he said he said he would kill somebody he did (except the mayor and dent, who he tried to but was foiled).  When he said if somebody didn't kill the guy who was going to reveal Batman in 60 minutes, he would blow up a Hospital, he did.  He pretty much carried out exactly every terrorist action he declared he would.

But again, it's a moot point because a boat load of hundreds of people wasn't going to be blown up successfully in a superhero movie.

How many robbers walked out of that bank job at the start of the movie?  Where did he say Rachel and Harvey were located?  And he sure didn't tell that guy with the bomb in his stomach that he was doomed.

I'm quite sure he's happy to kill and destroy when he's said he's going to.  But there's no reason at all to think he won't kill them even though he's said he won't.  He used the "blow up the hospital" bit partly to fuck with people but mostly to get to Harvey, and so far as I can tell torched the building with no way of knowing if the other guy had been killed or not.

------

There were enough prisoners to take the detonator, IMO.  Regardless, *the public has no way to know the cops had the detonator*.   Their perception would be "Prisoners done it", and the cops would probably let them think that.  Yeah, cops are fucked with guild, prisoners are double-fucked.

Except that won't happen, because if the only explosion is the prison boat, then all of a sudden those nasty ol' criminals were the noble self-sacrificing people while John Q. Public are the fearful murdering cowards.

------

Geek arguments beat working any day of the week  :awesome_for_real:

This has all been done before, but I liked it anyway.

http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/4d6d5673d4

I've just read up to your post and I think the same. Now I have to decontaminate my brain.

Also, I repeat what I said in the Iron Man thread. For me, Batman Begins was a comic book movie done right. Iron Man was just a big blockbustery entertainment thing, with some mediocre acting and a predictable plot. The Dark Knight is again what I would call a comic book movie done right, not a "crime film". This movie evoked exactly what was in my head when I read Batman comics.

Maybe it's about the kind of nerd you are. At school I sucked at maths and science, but I was a nerd for things that drew on imagination and creativity, like books and writing. These Batman films feed that in me, and so did the comic books.

Who the hell was mediocre in Iron Man?

Jeff Bridges and Gwyneth Paltrow.

(edit) Also the plot script, the final fight, and the audience.

Umm..The audience??


Sure, I guess Jeff Bridges may have been a weak link -- they coulda had a louder, more hostile type of villain, I guess. The Obadiah Stane of the comics was more along those lines -- but the way they wrote it here, his association with Tony Stark was as a partner. Not an obvious corporate adversary. So I guess it has to be more subtle. And Jeff Bridges has that thing about him where he can play "not quite trustworthy"... I see why he was cast at least.

I'm not sure what Pepper Potts is supposed to be other than what I saw in the movie. It's not the type of role that's ever going to cause an actor to channel their most "awesome acting skills", but not everyone can play hot, yet mousy and softspoken like Paltrow can.

Iron Man was a fun movie but I didn't like the editing. The commercial cut the good lines and key music bits together better than the actual presentation. But the movie itself wasn't meant to be anything more than a fun origin story with sci-fi tech. I continue to think you don't compare that movie with Batman really. That they both come from IP that originated in comic books is the only link they have. Comic book movies with cheese and overacted semi-ok plots can be just as good in their own way as way-serious crime drama comic book movies.

I love this. It's a spoof of the Joker and Batman interrogation scene.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w2yv8aT0UFc (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w2yv8aT0UFc)

That was awesome.

The first twenty seconds or so are really spot-on.

Didn't read the whole thread, just went to see the flick last night now that most of the crowd has dispersed. Great flick, despite batman's guttural mumbling. Other than that my only complaint was that they didn't go very far to try and make Bruce Wayne struggle with his transformation into a straight-up vigilante, you didn't get much good guy vibe from him the entire movie. And that's a minor complaint.

So much superior to Iron Man, and I'm a Marvel fanboi and IM is a great character (and was played well in the movie). Batman just had so much more going on at every level (though Batman himself was played kinda poorly in this film). Plot twists, false endings, great stuff.
But he didn't lie, he said he would cure him and make him see lights.

Sometimes the truth is the best lie  :grin:

That's freakin' hilarious. I didn't catch that right away.

Well - I finally saw it today.

I think you all hyped it up too much, I was a bit disappointed.

I loved how they never showed batgirls face. Course her hair and mom's hair are a bit off....

wat

Gwat
[/quote]Gordon's daughter?

Finally saw this.  Birthday Treat.

Fucking Awesome in every way.  Didn't quite top the first one, didn't need to.  Totally on par.

Those of you saying Two-Face died didn't watch the same film I did.

Further, Joker was perfect.  Fucking awesomely perfect.  Damn Shame.  Damn, damn shame.

 :why_so_serious:

happy Womb Evacuation Day!!

Finally saw this last week.  I was very pleased to see a movie that relied on psychology and mindfucks to get points across, though it was a bit distrubing.

I was confused about the Harvey-Rachel bomb thing until reading here.  I thought Batman had said he was going for Rachel, so I was confused about him showing up for Harvey and nothing being said about it.  Makes sense now.

It's really a brilliant move on Joker's part though.  If Wayne decides to save the love of his life over principles, a living Harvey is a reminder that he compromised his principles to save her, and he still failed.  If Wayne goes after Harvey, his hopes for a better city go up in smoke with him, and is left with a bitter love interest whose fiance died while talking to her.  No matter who lived, they'd be messed up.  Don't forget Rachel was an assistant DA, too.

The boat scene was similar.  My guess was all the detonators were the same, and would have set off both boats.  The Joker didn't care who lived or died.  That wasn't the point of the delimma.  At most he was disappointed that he had to press the button himself.  I did like the big prisoner's response.  To go with the dog analogies, prisoners are often considered nothing but wild animals.  Civility and humanity weren't just masks though, and he knew the right thing to do when everyone else was wavering.  Other side of the coin, if you will.

That was the thing about the Joker's methods -- the exact outcome was never important.  Although he had a pretty good grasp of what would happen, it was how people reacted to get there which he relished.  It's why he was effective.  People were trying to outwit him, when he only wanted to see what they would do, and they only got more and more desperate because they couldn't grasp he wanted to see the means, not the ends.

Batman versus Batmanuel.  I love it!

I guess.  You might want to tell the Nolans that there's a typo in their script then.  Might also want to tell the people that did the novelization of the movie that they got it wrong too.

I'll get right on it.

Finally saw it.  It was good, but I don't see how it lives up to the hype (maybe I just had too-high expectations after all the hype).  I liked it, don't get me wrong.  The Joker was great, and the scene with him and Two-Face in the hospital was especially great.  My list of complaints and nitpicks is fairly long:

-Why does Batman sound like one of the Golden Girls after smoking 3 cartons of Lucky Strikes?

-Batman is, fundamentally, an arch-conservative (indeed, neo-feudal) character.  He's fundamentally anti-democratic and anti-Christian.  That's part of what makes the character uncomfortable and interesting to modern audiences.  However, just where the audience's discomfort with this starts to really take hold, they glom on this "he's built the super-USAPATRIOT Act Computer.  But, ahhh, you see, he gave the keys to that nice old guy from Driving Miss Daisy, isn't that special" bit and so on.  It not only felt trite, but was a complete conflict with the overarching theme of the franchise.  Speaking of the USAPATRIOT Act computer, the special effect for it was lame as hell, and undercut some of the thrill that the climactic fight -- Batman vs three dogs! -- would normally inspire.

-The movie was way, way too long.  They could cut the Obligatory Generic Car Chase Scene down to a mere 45 minutes or so.  The entire going-to-China sequence was a waste of film.  So was Morgan Freeman's character, the "omgz Gordon is dead" crap, lots of the mob shit, and every scene with the Mayor in it.  Movie would be much better if it was tighter.

-I know that every action movie has to have roughly 36 false endings nowadays, but the movie should have ended after the Batman-Joker showdown.  I certainly do not give one single, solitary shit about what happens to Commissioner Gordon's crotchspawn.  It also wastes a good villain.  You can make Batman an outlaw anytime earlier (and do a much better job of it).

-Where's the dark?  The After-School-Special happytime resolution to the Prisoners Dilemma?  Lame. The scene lacked tension because you knew there wouldn't be consequences and, voila, there weren't.  If they insist on giving us the "happy" ending, have both boats make the moral choice and die for it.  If they want dark, have one blow up the other, the Joker claim it's a win, Batman tell him that the people would have done that anyway, roll credits.  Lends moral weight to Batman's crusade to save Gotham while also reinforcing his aristocratic disdain for its actual inhabitants.  Cheating with the after-school-special ending is bad enough, but if you do that PLEASE don't give us painfully long shots of the buttons, OMG HUGE BLACK CONVICT and OMG BERNARD GOETZ to painfully telegraph to the audience that nothing interesting is going to happen.

Also, blowing up two ferryboats is a pretty lame way to infuse mass terror when you have millions trapped on an island.

-any one of those ballet dancers bosoms weighs more than any actual ballet dancer!  However, I will accept this an appropriate artistic license.

Anyway, it was a good summer blockbuster and more than worth the $10.50, but I'm not seeing the great cinema that many others seem to. 

Mimimi (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LCayacFcCX4&feature=related)

Film was class A and I hate people who claim they could've done it sooo much better on any film.
Write your own script and show us.
Also, such films aren't for the nerds, but for the masses.

I hate people who claim that people said something they didn't say and somehow think they can tell them that their opinion is wrong. He had complaints and nitpicks, give me a break, there was no claims of 'I could do this better'.

I loved The Dark Knight a TON, rank it up there in one of my top 5 favorite movies of all times, but that doesn't mean everyone else has to view it that way. Get a grip imo.

There's lots of things El Gallo said that I agree with... coulda been tighter mainly.

Really not seeing anything in Batman that has to do with "class" though. I don't see the "aristocratic disdain". Bruce Wayne, the rich motherfucker side of him, I mean -- that part of him is just an act. Even when he does the whole cellphone/massive spying thing on Gotham's inhabitants, I don't think it came out of some need to be some aristocratic/neo-feudal/arch conservative/what have you. He was simply pushed to the point of desperation, just like everyone else who dealt with Joker.

Wait, wha? Internet much? Ranting about game design and sports is fine but knocking movies is wrong?

I think El Gallo had good points, even if they were wrong and stupid.

(kidding!)

 :grin:

Yes, it's a film. A finished product with no way of changing it. (Who exactly is going to see the Director's cut anyway?)
Games can be patched, or one can make the very same game better and call it different.
And WTH does sports have to do with that?

I just think it's one thing when discussing a plot and what may happened between scenes (nerdy stuff as it's also called) and just coming out and saying "could've/should've/ would've been better".
I know I'm being a dick in this regards (sue me :P), but as I said- I can't stand such talk about a film that was just fine for the most part and 99.9% of people having watched it.

Edit:
Oh and I think I should clear up the "for the masses not nerds" line:
This was thrown towards the "let the boats blow up and kill more people ffs". After all, it's Hollywood!

No.  No.  No.  No.  One does not simply cut out the BatManuel.  His beauty must be enjoyed by all!

(Say it with a bad Spanish accent.  It totally works!)

Beauty like that of soft Corinthian leather...

It's still at #4 and poised to break $500 million this weekend.  I still don't think it's a thread to Titanic's $600 million, but it's showing more legs than I expected...

http://gawker.com/5037992/robert-downey-jr-fuck-dc-comics


 :heart: him

Awesome. Love the last paragraph:

"You know, you're never too old to burn your bridges because I believe I have offended everyone. I think I've got a couple more. 'I'll burn that bridge when I come to it' is my favourite phrase I've ever coined."

The downside is that between Dark Knight and Watchmen, we're potentially looking at comic book movies starting to mirror the "grim and gritty" era of comics from the 80's (which, not coincidentally, really went into full swing when Dark Knight Returns launched, followed by Watchmen a little over half a year later).  We're already seeing hints of it in this interview with Warner Pictures President Jeff Robinov: (http://s.wsj.net/public/article_print/SB121936107614461929.html)


Between that and Sony already contemplating a Venom movie (and Vin Diesel suggesting he'd like to play a Marvel villain (http://splashpage.mtv.com/2008/08/27/vin-diesel-ready-to-suit-up-as-marvel-villain-but-which-one/)), we could be looking at a case of history repeating itself here.

I imagine even Iron Man might tap into Stark's dark side as well. Which is OK, because Downey Jr. can still make that fun too.

It's not a trend I'd like to see too much of though. I dig the heroic/cheeky/popcorn aspect of these stories a lot more.

Never let it be said Warner Bros. can't find a way to fuck up a perfectly good thing.

The problem is (as always) that the reasons for a film's success is often boiled down to its simplest components. "The Dark Knight" (and "The Empire Strikes Back" for that matter) were successful because they were dark films... or because they had a scope to them that a number of other films lack. But I'm sure it was just the darkness in them.

I don't mind them touching on Stark's dark side, but they need to show him rising above it when he is doing the heroics.  (Really applies to any hero.)  Flaws are okay, but there's a line between brooding vigilante and superhero.

And no, Peter Parker from Spidey 3 does not qualify.  That was showing his dork side.  The theater shouldn't be rolling with laughter at such scenes.

I don't think it's possible to ever portray Stark a brooding vigilante, even if they tried. There's just that side of him that's more of a drunk, controlling, megalomaniac.

Whatever angle they use, they need to show the bad behavior leading to bad consequences, and rising above it saves the day.  At least for a superhero flick.

It mostly worked for the Dark Knight, but even there it fell a little flat.

They need to make a movie based on All-Star Batman.  Maybe as a tax write-off....

I AM THE GODDAMN BATMAN. 

Man, I totally missed her in the flick. I'm guessing they were setting up Oracle now that Lucius Fox is out of the game.

Seeing as how Gordon's daughter is, from what little we see of her, a young kid in the movie, I doubt we'll see Batgirl or Oracle any time soon unless they decide to either make it someone completely unattached to Gordon, or his niece or something. 

Also, the movie ends on a note of Lucius not going away, so I doubt we'll be seeing the last of him at all. 

I guess I could start a thread about this in the new Movies Board, but the flick doesn't even have a title yet. Here's the latest rumor surrounding the next installment to the Batman franchise.

Casting rumor from MTV.com (http://splashpage.mtv.com/2008/09/08/dark-knight-exclusive-michael-caine-says-johnny-depp-is-the-riddler-philip-seymour-hoffman-is-the-penguin/)

It's not the latest rumor, so much as the same old rumor recycled and coming from Michael Caine this time.

That pesky Michael Caine..

Johnny Depp as the Riddler is one way to make up for not having Ledger around. Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaand they'll be out of good actors after the new one.

I suppose at least it's a better rumor than the Will Smith as Captain America rumor that just started going around.

Not by much. 

Don't get me wrong, I like me some Depp.  Boy has talent.

Just not that bothered by Riddler.

(yeah, yeah, I know, Scarecrow and all that.)

I think Penguin has always been an incredibly stupid villain myself.  But what else are they gonna do?  Catwoman?

(http://scienceblogs.com/zooillogix/simpsons_CrazyCatLady.gif)

JUDO CAPS FIX!

Most people thought Ledger as the Joker was going to be terrible...

I didn't.

Anyway, Re-Read please.  I'm not getting at Depp.  I'm getting at Riddler.  I don't like the villian.  I've always thought he was lame.

You may want to bring up 'Scarecrow was even lamer until Begins' and I'd agree with you.  Hell, I did agree with you.  Right up there.

Sorry, I don't like the Riddler.

But the team that does this Batman, Coupled with Depp, will probably make him awesome.

I hope it's all clear now.

(Actually, the more I think on it, the more I think that Riddler could be an awful good villian, given the 'realistic' way that Batman is being done at the moment.  Having some nutjob leaving bombs and Riddles actually works better in a realistic setting.)

I'd actually like to see Clayface, Deadshot, or Bane.  Clayface cuz he would be a great in a special effects sort of way, but he wouldn't really fit in with the look of the movies.  Deadshot and Bane would be great as hired thugs brought into take the Bat down.

I'm sure it'll be Catwoman tho... as long as they don't get Halle Berry to play her.

Penguin sucks, Riddler won't hold a candle to Joker, and Mr. Freeze is meh as well.

There aren't really a whole lot of great Batman villains.

Riddler is an AWESOME Batman villain, it's just that most people don't have clue one how to write him. Hell, lately they turned him into a detective who doesn't do crimes anymore in the comics. Writing riddles for crimes is hard, so people either turn him into a Joker-lite lunatic (Batman Forever) or an effete twit. He can be done quite well, and I'm sure the Nolan team is the people to do it right. Penguin is a bit tricker, but I think Hoffman as Penguin would be a great choice. Again, the Nolan team has wildly exceeded my expectations, so I'd go with them even if they picked Mad Hatter.

What if they chose King Tut?   :grin:

(http://www.waswatching.com/archives/KingTut.jpg)

Riddler's OK, but my opinion (as I've said before in this thread) is that he doesn't click with Nolan's theme (fear). Putting him in would just be fanboy pandering (the death knell for comic movies imo), doing shit just for the sake of it, without regard to overall storyline. If diehard fans just took a step back from fantasizing about the overall world, they'd see that there's a specific story that's supposed to be told here.

The reason why Scarecrow didn't suck is because he fit in with the kind of story Nolan wanted to tell. He didn't work necessarily because "Nolan knows how to do Batman villains right". He knows how to do the themes right. Slight difference. And the minute he departs from that theme, it'll stop being fun. I don't care if he resurrected Laurence Olivier to play the Riddler. It's "not part of the plan", y'see?  :why_so_serious:

The idea that I might get capped by some jackass who commits crimes based around riddles should be terrifying. Hell, think Jack the Ripper only with money instead of dead hookers. There are plenty of ways to do the Riddler where fear is a significant factor. Besides, I don't think the themes have so much been fear as it has been how to deal with those who use fear to terrorize. Do you give in to the corruption like the police have and just get your cut? Do you fight back using the system as Gordon has? Do you turn into the ultimate fascist like Batman?

I'm confident Nolan could find a way to make Riddler fit that theme perfectly.

Well, I should add that while Riddler, on the superficial level, is similar to Joker (I mean.. uh.. both have similar names, both like the color "green", both have a similar sort of demeanor - both prance around like Alex in Clockwork Orange), the important difference is that they cater to different kinds of storytelling. Joker stories are all about Batman trying to stop chaos and panic, while Riddler stories are very detective heavy.. Totally different ball game. The entire mood of the series would change with the Riddler in them. And he's totally INDIRECT in how he fucks things up too (his name is the Riddler, after all). Unlike Joker or Scarecrow.

The Joker was all about the chaos that ensued as Gotham evolved beyond its corrupt stage and into a more orderly stage. The Riddler would be the ultimate expression of that order turned in on itself. Whereas the Joker was the diametric opposite of the order Batman was trying to impose, the Riddler would be rigidly slaved to use that order to further his own ends. The perception of the Riddler as Joker clone is Jim Carrey's fault (and to a lesser extent Frank Gorshin).

Hey, I know the Riddler's cool (I said he was OK)... I guess my point is that he forces Batman to sit around deciphering cryptograms and shit. That just doesn't work here. Nolan's Batman series has gone in a completely different cinematic direction at this point.

[edit] And on that note, the whole fucking franchise is cashed. Forget the Riddler, there aren't any other villains that would work on the same level again. None. It would have been cool to get a part 3 with Heath again - y'know, like the old Superman movies kept on having Lex - because that shit would keep on working - but that isn't gonna happen, obviously. So they should just end it here. How about instead of squeezing a franchise for all it's worth (X-Men, Spider-Man), you just spend that money on the gazillion other good comic characters DC has?

Mortal Kombat Vs. DC - The Movie.

(http://img.4chan.org/b/src/1221935070064.jpg)

Halle Berry as the Catwoman = Win??????

This.

People are still looking at possible villians as if the franchise wasn't being run by the Nolans.

They've twice shown that they are perfectly willing to take characters back to basics are work out what is needed to make them shine.


The Riddler is just a villian who likes green and leaves messages to fuck with people's minds. The Nolans won't carry any more baggage than that, and so if they can create the Ledger-Joker, the Murphy-Scarecrow, and Eckhart-Two Face then there no reason they couldn't create an awesome Depp-Riddler.

Since they are basically reinventing these villians from scratch, there is no villian they could announce that is going to make me think 'oh noes'.

I actually think Penguin would be too easy in this context, rich club boss who wears a suit. How hard is that? Establish a disability to give him a funny walk and you're all set. 

That said Christopher Nolan is on record agreeing with you. But he's also on record saying that apart from the Joker he'd prefer to avoid villians that have already been used in films.

They aren't reinventing these villains at all!! They're getting to the core of them, and stripping camp.

And it's quite possible to strip camp from Riddler.

The problem is that his schtick is in a completely different direction than this series. You might as well include anything then.

I think they should do a take on Frank Miller's graphic novel of the same name if they really wanted to end the franchise nicely. Sin City meets Gotham, Wonder Woman as the crack whore and the riddler as a fucked up pimp now that's getting to the core  :grin:

In that case, I hope you never make a film.  Ever.  Even a wedding video.

You've got "The Spirit" to look forward to then.

Fan of camp much?

For what its worth, although the movie itself was unbelievably shitty, I liked Jim Carrey as the Riddler. 

Villains who haven`t been used...hmm.  I don't think Bane or Deadshot has enough heft to carry a Batman movie, especially something that has to meet the high expectations of Dark Knight.  Same with Catwoman, although I can see her getting some sort of cameo.  Clayface could work, especially if they follow TAS and its Clayface storyline.  If Arnold hadn't fucked up Freeze so recently, I'd say the same thing about him and his TAS portrayal.

Pronouncements about used characters aside, I think they'll go Riddler.  Maybe a Clayface cameo (although they seem to be staying away from the real scifi elements) as a henchmen, probably more likely a Deadshot cameo with his capture as a movie opener.  Maybe Killer Croc as a wrestler with a horrific skin disease, if they want to let the CGI boys play.  I also think the Mad Hatter could do well as a Riddler henchman/associate- he's always been one of my favorite villains and I've always felt he was underused.   

That Spirit flick looks pretty underwhelming to me... Wish he didn't take the Sin City direction so much.


Clayface would be really, really cool to see in a movie, but he's way out there compared to the strict criminal theme Nolan has tapped into so far.

Pulling off material for a third Batman is going to be harder than even the fact that he found a good Joker.

This may be geekdom, but has there been any hint in the movies that superpowers exist in the rebooted Batman movie universe?  References to Metropolis, etc.?  Seeing Superman on TV every day or reading about some maniac who fell in acid and can spit fire in the newspaper would (you'd think) result in people less panicky about one nonsuperpowered person. 

There's been no references to Metropolis at all that I can recall. Not even in the background noise.

Villian-wise there's still Killer Croc & Scarface as well.  I thought of the Hatter earlier, too, but Tri already mentioned him.  He'd be really good without being too out-there on the sci-fantasy stuff like Clayface.

That either needs to be in green, or you need to state that you know fuckall about the Spirit character.

Uh, OK.. I know fuckall about the Spirit character.

Hmm, was that supposed hard to admit or something? Not sure why that has to invalidate my opinion on a movie trailer either. It looks weak to me. That is that. I know enough about the Spirit to know who he is, but what I'm commenting on is the green screened Sin City look. I'm already tired of it. I don't want to see a movie like it ever again..except perhaps the Sin City sequel.

Actually, I feel the same way Stray, but I remain to be convinced.

The problem with you saying that about the Spirit trailer is that the Spirit character is pretty much where Frank Miller got the entire visual concept of Sin City from. Will Eisner was doing things with blacks and whites and city scapes and crime noir dramas in the Spirit 40 years before Miller ever touched on those aesthetic themes in his original Daredevil comics, much less 50 years later in Sin City. In other words, it's like saying Warhammer Online ripped off World of Warcraft. You are ignorant of the original source material, hence criticizing the trailer for looking like Sin City makes you sound ignorant.

Frankly, were the director to do anything BUT a Sin City-esque style on the Spirit movie would be a serious injustice to the character. Here, edumacate yourself. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Spirit) Reading the Spirit should be required in school. Bearing in mind it was written and drawn in the 40's for syndicated newspapers, it tackled some seriously dark, adult subjects maturely.

Dude. You're a fanatic!  :awesome_for_real:

And the Spirit comic panels look nothing like that movie btw. They still make use of more colors than just black, white, and red (which is how the Sin City movie can be generalized as... and this Spirit flick now). They didn't have black in printings back then though.. in any comic. Totally different look and feel for the blacks, if you're gonna get literal about comic comparisons. It's not quite a replication of the comics.

Anyways, fuck all of this. I just don't like the trailer. It looks too close to Sin City - the movie  (which didn't quite replicate the Sin City comics either). I'm making a simple statement about cinematography, and not liking things to be too derivative...same crew or not. I don't care to talk about comics history. Just movies.

[edit] One more thing that stands out to me besides the colors.. that makes me focus on the movie comparisons more than Eisner's work..

The backdrops. Totally sparse. Don't see that in the comics either.


Anyhow... On another note, I wonder if Frank if finally getting laid a lot more. Does he still write? I'm curious if it's all still about whores. He must be happier these days.

AFAIK Frank's been in a committed relationship with his colorist for years now.

And yes, I'm very much a Will Eisner/Spirit fanatic. The colors that you speak of? Not necessarily indicative of the use of blacks the Spirit is known for. Also, the movie is going to do some things I'm not happy about, such as showing the Octopus' face (Sam Jackson). In the comics, you never saw him, just a figure in the shadows with these distinctive gloves.

Again, doing a Spirit movie like anything other than Sin City would be untrue to the source material. As a fan, I find that important. The cinemeatography of both Sin City and the Spirit appears to be directly inspired by the comics.

Ok I'm rerailing slightly but just wanted to point out I was being slightly caustic earlier with the Frank Miller take, but this would have been the element of truth I was hinting on, Ronald Reagan (add modern presidential archetype) sends his lapdog Superman down to shutdown the Batman vigilante operation. Batman plugs his new suit into the city Grid and hands out a beating on Supermans ass, epic stuff would make a nice finale though I can't see it happening..

(http://i225.photobucket.com/albums/dd50/jam3ie/dark_knight.jpg)

I just saw it. Awesome movie. To early for further comments from me.

Just ... wow ...

Goyer reiterates that all the current Batman 3 rumors are false (http://splashpage.mtv.com/2008/10/07/the-dark-knight-screenwriter-david-goyer-on-batman-3-rumors-its-all-bs/).

I think I've said this already, but I really want to see Mr. Freeze as the next villain. Similar to the DCAU Freeze. To keep the 'realistic' theme of the movies, you strip away all the Freezegun and instant ice powers, but keep the cold suit and him needing to stay ice cold. Have him clunk around with a re-breather, but instead of normal air, he needs some super cooled liquid nitrogen/oxygen to keep going. His 'power' would be him not feeling pain due to his umm 'Freeze disease', physical trauma not slowing him down. He could use the Liquid Nitrogen, as a tool and calling card. Freezing locks to break them, finishing off his victims etc. 

Freeze is similar to Batman, in that his entire world was taken from him unjustly. Instead of Freeze becoming the brooding vigilante, everything that motivates Freeze revolves around trying to keep his wife alive (or reviving her), keeping himself alive and seeking cold calculating revenge against those who wronged him. In a way, he would be what Batman would have been, if Bruce Wayne had pulled the trigger in the court house in the first movie.

Of course the movie would be set in winter.

Basically : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4VfVTWGwLFo that, but minus the ray gun, mechano man cold suit and the Eskimo fur henchmen.

/dreams

I say bring back Walken from the Burton movies.  :grin:

Not really a good movie (imo), but my memory's been refreshed on how funny he was in that.

Sorry, I'm late to the party due to an acute paranoia involving movie theaters. 

Spoilers and ridiculous speculation.

Here's my take on the next-villain discussion.  Dark Knight was about Batman coming out from the shadows, taking a very proactive role in the future of Gotham and ultimately losing the battle.  He rightly chooses to bear the burden of responsibility for his failed plans.  The next villain is Batman.  Gordon's speech at the end summarizes pretty clearly how the third film will play: Batman will be hunted.  Certainly, there will be another true villain in the film, but that won't be the focus.  I'd like to see Riddler using his antics to further cast Batman as Gotham's true villain, thus nurturing the seed that The Joker planted. 

Anyway, it most likely won't be out until 2012.