Jump to content

The OFFICIAL The Dark Knight thread


Recommended Posts

But the Joker should stay in Arkham....

I think their plan for the third film was that The Joker would remain in Arkham and Batman would go to visit him for information - ala Hannibal Lecter.

If they go that route they could make the Joker work. Have him sitting in the shadows of his cell.

And they could call Mark Hamill

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 2k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

If they go that route they could make the Joker work. Have him sitting in the shadows of his cell.

That sounds good in theory, but it would be strange just have him standing around not doing anything (practically) for a whole film.

Link to post
Share on other sites
And finally, did anyone else find the scene were the big, black, mean-looking convict trown the detonator out of the porthole a moment of simple but pure genius?

You know, I was actually expecting the man on the passenger ferry to turn the key, only to have his own boat blow up. I even found myself talking to the screen: "don't turn the key, you're going to die!"

Link to post
Share on other sites
If they go that route they could make the Joker work. Have him sitting in the shadows of his cell.

That sounds good in theory, but it would be strange just have him standing around not doing anything (practically) for a whole film.

Well that's just assuming they bring him back and the focus of the third film is on another villian. If it's done in a Hannibal Lector way then he wouldn't be in the film that much.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would be very dissapointed if that were true. Not because I don't think more can be done with Dent (although I do think that his arc in this film was well-rendered and felt complete), but because it would cause me to lose trust in Nolan and co. I think the film clearly shows, irrelevant of it being a comic-book film, that Dent died. The imagry implied a symmetry in his and Batman's bodies, the two knights. The White Knight was destroyed, the Dark Knight drags himself up to fight another day to preserve what the White Knight stood for. And the death is underlined by the service in his memory, with not even the slightest allusion that he might not be dead. I trust the filmmakers not to decieve me in this fashion. And this is underlined by the way they handled Gordon's 'death'. While I felt it was not perfectly handled narratively-wise, there was no direct follow up to Gordon's death. No service, no Batman mourning, nothing. No unnecessary gratuity in what turned out to not be gratuitous. With Dent, he had a death scene, and a follow up to the death scene.

I see what you're saying to a point, but The White Knight

is destroyed, whether Dent is alive in body or not. That was the whole point. No matter what happens now, he has commited multiple murders. Even if he comes back to sanity (which I would love to see, and would continue the symmetry/parallel between Batman and Dent, in giving them both some kind of redemption in the third film), the public would know that he has commited these crimes, and so in that sense, he is indeed destroyed.

As far as the handling of Gordon's "death" versus the handling of Dent at the end goes: Well, Gordon really got more of a death scene than Harvey did, with him getting shot, and Dent's reaction, and then the cops going to tell Barbara of the news. At the end, really, the dialogue dwells on what Batman decides to do with the people. Batman and Gordon do not acknowledge Harvey as being bodily dead with any dialogue or emotion. The only indication we get is a brief shot of a memorial service. As I said before, I think Batman might have a little more acknowledgment for inadvertently killing a man he respected and, I think, began to care for.

I see your point, but frankly, the White Knight is gone, whether Two-Face survives, so the emotional impact of Batman carrying on the White Knight's legacy still remains, whether Dent is dead or not.

Well, that's pretty much what I was saying. What I was driving at, though, was that I think it's still possible to bring back the character, put him on a track back to a sanity (NOT just making everything squeaky clean with everyone; again, he still commited those murders), and not spoil or spit on TDK.

Link to post
Share on other sites
If they go that route they could make the Joker work. Have him sitting in the shadows of his cell.

That sounds good in theory, but it would be strange just have him standing around not doing anything (practically) for a whole film.

Well that's just assuming they bring him back and the focus of the third film is on another villian. If it's done in a Hannibal Lector way then he wouldn't be in the film that much.

He could get the Oscar too :cool:

I was going to suggest Hammil for the voice too.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I've seen it thrice now. I can't place the following tracks. Can anybody help me?

A Little Push

I Am The Batman

"A Little Push" might be when The Joker throws Rachel out the window. Not sure.

I'm pretty sure "I Am The Batman" is a direct quote when Dent turns himself in as Batman.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I've seen it thrice now. I can't place the following tracks. Can anybody help me?

A Little Push

I Am The Batman

"A Little Push" might be when The Joker throws Rachel out the window. Not sure.

I'm pretty sure "I Am The Batman" is a direct quote when Dent turns himself in as Batman.

Isn't "A Little Push" from Joker's spiel about insanity? "All it takes is a little....push."

Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't understand, the appearance of a skinless human face isn't something they "just came up with". It's supposed to look like The Mummy and Terminator, because they were supposed to look like skinless human faces in the first place (only one was robotic).

As for the

hospital, I was very annoyed that the most impressive shot was included on the trailer, diminishing the effect in the film. the same for the flipping truck.

! Grrr.

Read "The Long Halloween" comic. Harvey appears in that as he does in TDK. So no, they didn't simply copy Mummy or Terminator, but rather followed the source material. Why is every one so determined to say that he looks like something else, when he is simply looking like he is supposed to.

Did you read what I said? I'm agreeing. There's only so many ways a skinless human face can be partrayed. All of these examples - Batman, Terminator and The Mummy are all similar because they're all trying to look like a skinless face. It's not really open to interpretation - there's particular muscles and bone structures that virtually everyone has.

I'm not saying it's a rip-off, I'm saying they all look similar. Because they're supposed to.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't understand, the appearance of a skinless human face isn't something they "just came up with". It's supposed to look like The Mummy and Terminator, because they were supposed to look like skinless human faces in the first place (only one was robotic).

As for the

hospital, I was very annoyed that the most impressive shot was included on the trailer, diminishing the effect in the film. the same for the flipping truck.

! Grrr.

Read "The Long Halloween" comic. Harvey appears in that as he does in TDK. So no, they didn't simply copy Mummy or Terminator, but rather followed the source material. Why is every one so determined to say that he looks like something else, when he is simply looking like he is supposed to.

Did you read what I said? I'm agreeing. There's only so many ways a skinless human face can be partrayed. All of these examples - Batman, Terminator and The Mummy are all similar because they're all trying to look like a skinless face. It's not really open to interpretation - there's particular muscles and bone structures that virtually everyone has.

I'm not saying it's a rip-off, I'm saying they all look similar. Because they're supposed to.

I did read your comment and I was simply using it to further stress the point. It wasn't a direct attack against you but rather I was trying to stress the point for others.

Sorry bout the confusion.

Link to post
Share on other sites

None of the moments in the trailer bothered me because I only saw the trailer once. I don't obsess over them anymore and prefer going into movies as fresh as possible.

As for Two-Face living or not, I watched him very closely at the IMAX screening I went to the other night. His chest was not moving.

Oh, and about The Dark Knight in IMAX, this was my second time to see the movie (my first screening was in 35mm). The 65mm photography looked great. The opening was in the full frame format as was the police convoy chase sequence and part of the China sequence. And then throughout the film various over head shots were in IMAX. Also part of the Lamborghini sequence, too. The sound was also very good.

However, the movie did not hold up on a second viewing. By the time the ferry sequence started I was very restless and just wanted it to be over. I didn't want to sit through the arguments on the boats and I really didn't want to hear all of the speeches at the end. I may knock this down to two stars. I really enjoy the first film and have watched it many times, but this one is not as good. I do not get all of the love (and box office) for this.

Neil

Link to post
Share on other sites

I liked the 2nd alot, cared nothing for Batman Begins.

I can see in 3 or 4 years people will wonder what was all the fuss over the Dark Knight, its very good, but thats it.

Not a masterpiece, not a truly great movie, just a fine very well made crime drama.

Link to post
Share on other sites
As for Two-Face living or not, I watched him very closely at the IMAX screening I went to the other night. His chest was not moving.

I was paying attention on my first viewing (still have only seen it once), and I think his chest moved once, but that could just very well be Eckhart breathing.

Someone can return without that kind of blatant proof, though. Like Mikhail in LOST, his chest was not moving after being thrown through the sonar fence, or after being shot in the chest with a harpoon.

Link to post
Share on other sites
If you did not like that one, why go and see the sequel?

Using that logic I never would have gone to see ROTS

Based on the box office and word of mouth this Batman film looks like it's going to be an improvement.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Katie Holmes for starters.

I saw TDK last Tuesday night. Excellent movie. Bale's Batman voice bothered me a lot. I was waiting for Clint Eastwood to utter "Go ahead punk etc". This is Heath's movie from start to finish which is a shame. His Joker is more psychotic and deliciously evil. I forgot about Nicholson's OTT ranting from Batman (1989). I wonder would TDK have generated as much buzz had Heath lived? Michael Caine had nothing to do except wait on people. Then it dawned on me he was the frigging maid. And the employee's discovery subplot at Wayne Enterprises was a bit ridiculous. I doubt that Lucius Fox was that careless.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Someone can return without that kind of blatant proof, though. Like Mikhail in LOST, his chest was not moving after being thrown through the sonar fence, or after being shot in the chest with a harpoon.

That (sort of) makes sense within the context of the show Lost, because there's all sorts of unexplained supernatural phenomena. Not so with The Dark Knight.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Based on the box office and word of mouth this Batman film looks like it's going to be an improvement.

I thought the first one was only decent at best, but I really liked the new one. If nothing else you should be able to enjoy Ledger's performance.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Someone pointed this out to me and I hadn't thought of it

The Mr. Reese character who

knows Batman's identity

Mr. Reese=Mysteries=Riddler? I just thought it was cool although I don't believe it since I didn't care for the actor

Link to post
Share on other sites

I give this a 4/5 or 8/10 on IMDB. It really doesn't deserve the 'greatest movie of all time' thing that's being hurled around. I actually enjoyed Wall-E more than this. Some really fine action sequences and a brilliant performance from Ledger, but somehow, like Indy 4, it was missing something to make it a truly great movie.

I also felt Christian Bale had almost nothing to do in this one. It was definitely Ledger and Eckhart's movie.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I watched it this night and I was very impressed. This movie has flaws, but still it's better than most of the popcorn flicks thesedays. I believe Nolan (or the producers) got scared when they saw how far that movie went in exploring the dark side of the characters. If the movie ended in

ferries exploding

, that would be something unthinkable in a superhero movie. Still, I think Nolan pushed the boundaries of the genre, which not only provided us with a terrific movie, but also gives a chance that the studios will be more keen on releasing bolder movies without fear they will loose money.

Still to young for memory loss.

Looks like your kitchen after the semi-finals...

Link to post
Share on other sites

I just came back from the screening.

What can I say? I was very reluctant ar first. Overwhelmed by the praise it received, I didn't really believe that it could possibly live up to the expectations. Everyone said it is more of a crime drama and very dark at that. I didn't know if that's what I needed for my superhero summer movie. While watching I was waiting for the moment when it becomes too much. That moment never came though. Sure, there was a lot of preachy dialogue in the film and some of it bothered me in the sense that it became a bit too self-explanatory in places. But it never really fails. In the end, it does not try to give simple answer the many important questions it raises. And I respect that more than any other aspect of the film.

On a purely technical level it is simply gorgeous. Loved the cinematography. One of the greatest assets of the films is the fact it is really epic in scope and spectacualar in places, and yet not for a second I thought about how cool special effects looked. I didn't even think about it. That's pretty rare.

From the acting standpoint it was OK, as all Nolan's are. He seems to have a great sense of what to do with characters and so one doesn't overwhelm the other. Bale was solid and, for me at least, a bit more convincing as Batman. Gyllenhall was a welcome replacement for Holmes. Ledger was certainly very good, but not scary at all. In that very department Eckheart beats him easily. His final scene in the film almost made me cry and his arc is exactly what ROTS (or the whole prequel trilogy, for that matter) should be. I cared for this character, that's why it was a real terror to see this incarnation and think that I probably would end up in the very same place. Oldman was great too. Caine didn't have much to do, but the little moment with the letter was very moving indeed.

Is it a best of all time? I tend not to think about movies (or anything else) in a TOP 10 line of thought. I have no desire to confront it with classics - is it better than some or equal? It doesn't matter to me if a film I like gets an Academy Award or breaks another box office record. It really moved me and I will see it again. Everything else about all this hysteria is a complete waste of time.

Karol

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, one more thing. I was really surprised by the very ending and where Batman character ends up. Now the title makes sense. I thought it was just a catchy marketing phrase. The Dark Knight.

And I hope Nolan won't make another one. There might be no place to go from this point. If they want to keep up the drama. It can only be a follow-up. Nothing more. Which doesn't mean it can't be anu good at all.

Karol - who didn't notice much score in the picture (not that it really needed one).

Link to post
Share on other sites
And I hope Nolan won't make another one. There might be no place to go from this point. If they want to keep up the drama. It can only be a follow-up. Nothing more. Which doesn't mean it can't be anu good at all.

I'm pretty sure he will, but it will be a while from now. The real question is whether or not he could possibly top this with another sequel.

Link to post
Share on other sites

No place to go? Are you kidding?

This is a place Batman has never been in any incarnation to the best of my knowledge. Batman has never had Gordon officially declare him a cop killer--or even a murderer. You have to complete the story. At the very least, you should bring Batman in to the place of relative status quo he is in in the comics. There is so much story and character potential it's ridiculous. And don't forget, Nolan said (both through the script and in interviews) that "things get worse before they get better." In TDK, things got worse...

Red Rabbit: I don't think it should be a matter of topping it. I think even something on par with either of these films would be desirable. And frankly, outside of the crew all getting lobotomies, I don't see how we could really find ourselves with a film that is dramatically worse in quality than Begins and TDK.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think it has to be as powerful--not in the way that TDK is. Ever since Nolan started making the "worse before better" comments--and especially after Goyer talked about the original two-film arc for Two-Face (which, in theory, could still partially happen)--I had the feeling that the first one will have Batman in a very high and optimistic place, the second feeling with take him way down, and then the third, even if it doesn't have Gotham being squeaky clean, will see things on a positive track, some kind of hope, with Batman experiencing some kind of redemption. I think they should have something along those lines. If they hadn't ended TDK in such a uniquely desperate position for Batman, just end it with him knowing he will probably have to be Batman as long as he is able, similar to where he's at in the comics, then I might agree that you could leave it here. But this is such a different, hard position for him, that we need to see what he does with this. How does he operate? I mean, my mind is swimming in possibilities. It's incredible.

I also really want to see the Batcave and Wayne Manor again. I was surprised to see no explicit reference to either one in this film after the "improvements to the southeast wing" line at the end of Begins.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.