131 replies to this topic

[Oberon Storm]

I have a hard time imagining any comic book movie, even one from DC made by Nolan, could ever come close to The Dark Knight. I don't want them to make another sequel. It would only be a dissappointment.

Edited by Chief Fire Storm, 20 July 2008 - 11:00 AM.

[Poore]

That's what I thought about Batman Begins, then what I thought about Iron Man. I'm thinking it again about Dark Knight, but at the same time I'm trying to be cautiously optimistic because a) I've been wrong twice now and b) they're going to make a third one.

[Stew]

I would really like to see Mr. Freeze done right, but that's unlikely in this new realistic batman series. Although, if they could come up with an explanation for his condition, and weapons it could be brilliant! I just always liked his back story, his wife Nora's disease and his crime is out of desperation to save/avenge/or make everyone else miserable because he can't have/love her.


He was a really intelligent and human character when not played by the Governator.


Plus a winter themed Gotham would just be cool. I guess I really want Mr. Freeze from Sub Zero. "Revenge is a dish best served . . . cold."

[Reflectionist]

On Harvey's Fate and Movie 3:

I also believe he is not dead. Containing this theory to TDK alone has been done here already, with very valid points brought up (Maroni's Fall compared to Harvey's, for instance...also the vague dialogue about it). The case for him returning for the next movie, however, is this: psychology. Like everything else in these movies, the movie is held up, by psychology. The theme of the movies. Redemption should clearly play a big part in the next one. If Harvey is alive, then his efforts will be continuing his vengance on namely Batman and Gordon. He's already shown himself (Maroni's Driver, Gordon's Family) to not let anyone else stand in the way of his (a)venging Rachel's Death. Also, with his continued attacks on Gordon, and by extension the GPD, he puts Batman in an awkward ethical position: Attempt to rehabilitate and reign in Harvey with forgiveness and compassion, or attempt to stop him with brute force (after all, the Joker did a great job of convincing Harvey to "Introduce a little Anarchy")? This plays into Harvey's theme of chance and fairness as well. It's a dichotomy Harvey couldn't possibly pass up. If Batman focuses his efforts on rehabilitating Harvey, Harvey may react with a sort of kindness (*shudder* a la Forever's "You've always been a good friend to me, Bruce."), especially if he finds out that Batman is Bruce Wayne. Harvey respects Bruce, and can identify with him, but hates Batman. The reveal there would throw Bats into a new light. However, to do so would be, in Batman's eyes, to appear to be condoning his attacks on Gordon, Gordon's Family and the GPD. Batman cannot tolerate that, and has to protect them too. Even if Batman is the GPD's priority--in fact, no matter what the police think of him, Batman still has his ethics. He protects the police, and he has immense respect for Gordon. That wouldn't fly well with Harvey at all. Trying to reconcile that, and redeem all parties (especially while balancing the Mob, continuing to round up the Arkham inmates, and reassuring the public after the pure anarchy of the Joker) will be a big theme, and the efforts could lead to an expansion, or filling out of Harvey's Two-Face persona. In TDK, he comes off as a Big Bad Harv kind of character, at least after his scarring. But if things work out as above, it comes off as very Dark Victory-esque.

Um.... I kind of ranted through everything I wanted to say. Great movie. Brilliant.

Oh, and one more thing

I noticed in this movie that Batman doesn't just come out when the suit is on. Notice Bruce uses the Batman voice when the Joker arrives, when he sleeper hold's Dent. I thought that was a great nod. Also the initial court scene left me in awe. It plays out just like Harvey's scarring in The Long Halloween, I think...except with a conclusion to the scene that leaves one in awe and inspired at the kind of person Harvey is. Really a brilliant court scene, I thought. Annnd one more thing, I found it very interesting how Harvey played right into the Joker's hands in this. Harvey did want to kill the Joker, and attempted to in the hospital, but the Joker convinced him that he was right, and that it wasn't personal, and when that happened, not only did the Joker 'win' Harvey...but Harvey became exactly what the Joker stood for. Except with motives--the very thing that the Joker said.

Edited by Reflectionist, 20 July 2008 - 06:09 PM.

[Egann]

Hasn't seen it. Still has virgin mind (unspoiled).


O, THE INHUMANITY OF SOLD OUT THEATRES!!!!! IT'S FRICKIN' SOLD OUT HERE 'TILL TUESDAY!!!!

[Poore]

Maybe I'll go see it a fifth time just for you.

[Reflectionist]

Hasn't seen it. Still has virgin mind (unspoiled).


O, THE INHUMANITY OF SOLD OUT THEATRES!!!!! IT'S FRICKIN' SOLD OUT HERE 'TILL TUESDAY!!!!

*cough*checkyourpminbox*cough*

[Egann]

THX!!!

(Translation: I hadn't thought of getting tickets that way...)

[JRPomazon]

Saw the Dark Knight.

Loved the movie.

When is the new one coming out?

Here's a villain they should use. The CLOCK KING. That would be the most perfect villain ever!

I forgot about the clock king, he was a great villian. But wasn't he just from Batman: TAS?

[Stew]

Is it just me or did Lucius Fox make a very slight hint at Catwoman? When talking about the new suit something to the likeness of "It would stop a cat"

Awesome movie. I will likely see it again in theatres. I really don't see how they could improve it though. And I loved

Two-Face. I hope they bring him back, I really do. Maybe it was that Dent had died, but Two Face would live on?

The suspense at the conclusion was almost so thick I almost couldn't see the movie through it. It was just so well done.

Edited by BunnyStew, 22 July 2008 - 02:30 PM.

[TheAvengerLever]

I think we're all forgetting Hugo Strange. Maybe he takes over Arkham Asylum after Johnathon Crane's incarceration ?

It would be interesting to see one of Batman's first returning villains to show up on the big screen.

Him and the TAS Clock King.

[Steel Samurai]

Bunny made a very good point about Catwoman, and I thought about something else at work. Alfred burning the letter, leaving Bruce to believe that Rachael was going to wait for him. I can imagine that that will be a problem for any future love interests.

The other thing I noted today is that Christian Bale's Batman voice has now taken over Kevin Conroy's in my head, an event which I never thought would happen.

[Reflectionist]

....Luscious Fox, Bunny?

[Steel Samurai]

Morgan Freeman is pretty damn hot for an old guy. And I don't even like guys.

[Stew]

....Luscious Fox, Bunny?

Oooooohh my.

I bet on spell checker


. . .and I lost.

[Poore]

Somewhat related.

Edited by Poore, 22 July 2008 - 03:12 PM.

[Chikara Nadir]

Is it just me or did Lucius Fox make a very slight hint at Catwoman? When talking about the new suit something to the likeness of "It would stop a cat"

I hadn't even thought twice about that comment. But by god, I like it.

In Nolan's attempts to make things fairly realistic, I could see a Catwoman created from a martial arts styled "cat" burglar (like Dark Angel started out, minus the genetic engineering?)...but then again, I'm fine with anything so long as it's the opposite of Halle Berry's rendition of her. Poor Halle, the only actress to ever accept a Razzie for "worst actress" in person.

[TheAvengerLever]

No Penguin or Catwoman, guys.

I'm kinda glad, too

Cause I think in terms of what Nolan is going for with these movies, those two wouldn't fit.

[TheAvengerLever]

Double post, but I find it funny that so many people are pushing for The Boy Wonder to be somewhere in Chris Nolan's films. I just think that's a big no no, I hated every incarnation of Robin. It just ruins the story.

[CID Farwin]

No Penguin or Catwoman, guys.

I'm kinda glad, too

Cause I think in terms of what Nolan is going for with these movies, those two wouldn't fit.

I love how people commenting in that link are all over these villains that wouldn't work AT ALL in Nolan's Batman. Clayface? Poison Ivy? Penguin? Mr. Freeze? No. Just no.

My money's on the (posssible) return of Ra's. and maybe riddler.

Double post, but I find it funny that so many people are pushing for The Boy Wonder to be somewhere in Chris Nolan's films. I just think that's a big no no, I hated every incarnation of Robin. It just ruins the story.

Agreed. Robin? NO.

Although, I must say that after seeing the Dark Knight twice now(WAAAAY better the second time), I think any character, done right, could be pulled off. Not likely, though.

And I totally missed the Catwoman reference.

EDIT:Oh, and Christian Bale just managed to somehow earn more of my respect.

“If Robin crops up in one of the new Batman films, I’ll be chaining myself up somewhere and refusing to go to work.”

Edited by CID Farwin, 23 July 2008 - 01:01 PM.

[Selena]

Do I need to watch Begins in order to understand the Dark Knight?

[Steel Samurai]

No. Though you should anyway. Any basic understanding of the Batman universe and you can understand Dark Knight.

[Masamune]

Though I don't want a Robin either, just to go with that subject... one thing the Batman movies always did was start off Robin as a teenager or adult. The Robin character works better when it's not Batman being a jerk and being overprotective, but when it's a young vulnerable kid in the same situation Bruce was. If they were ever to try to do the Robin character, they would need to start him off as a kid. And more than that, not have him putting on the tights and following Batman around almost immediately after being adopted. Make him establish himself as a supporting actor before he starts getting to go around and fight people.

That said, I'd rather we just avoid Robin... there's no call for him just yet. Batman: TAS had a good run before they ever brought Robin in.

[Steel Samurai]

Actually Robin was in the second episode of TAS. He just didn't make many appearances till later.

[D~N]

Mild spoilers to follow, like characters that are in the movie. Oh mah gawd batman is in TDK. No wai!

Saw it this past Sunday. I really liked it. I'm not a huge Batman fan (or comics fan in general) so I wasn't sucked into the hype. Thusly, I found it to be a good movie. Not the best thing ever, but for a comic book movie, that was really well done.

The Joker certainly didn't have enough screen time. He was so cool, I just wanted him to do more stuff and say more lines, because the more I saw and heard him the more I liked the movie. I was dissapointed to see that Dent ended up with more screen time than Batman or the Joker. It's a shame really, because I thought I was seeing a batman movie where Batman fights the Joker. Instead I got "The Life of Harvey Dent." I certainly don't dislike the movie, but I just wish that Batman and the Joker would have been the main characters of their own movie.

For the time that the Joker was in the movie, he was outstanding. A movie villain to replace all others. Darth Vader, my old iconic idea of "evil" has officially been replaced by the joker. When I think of "evil" the first thought to pop into my head, after seeing this movie, is the Joker. A sickeningly wonderful masterpiece. A disturbing-yet-welcomed villian that I shall always rank among the best, if the the best. Truely, truely outstanding. Perhaps it is for this reason that I felt the Joker did not have as much screen time as he deserved. Honestly, I could watch an entire movie devoted to just the Joker.

More spoilers within - turn back now! Real spoilers this time.

Batman's smoker's voice was weird. I did not like it, and it certainly did not fit Batman at all. I understand that he needs to disguise his voice, but that disguise sucks, to be frank. Batman, the gadget-using, crime-busting, baddass was only two of these things (as in, he didn't use gadgets. He was just a crime-busting badass, without gadgets). Batman's power, to me, is that he uses cool gadgets. And yet, nearly every fight scene consisted of fist combat. Which is fine - I saw Batman Begins, I know he's trained by Ninjas. But where were all of the gadgets?! Not one bat-a-rang? Just for old time's sake? *sigh* The only gadgets he used were that lame-ass sonar thing and his bike. Not what I was hoping for. Still, the lack of gadgets doesn't mean I didn't like the movie either. What he did use, his fists-o-pain, was well done. Fight scenes were well choriographed and interesting. Perhaps too quick to understand what was going on in all of those shadows, but good nonetheless.

Two-Face was realistically introduced and well-executed. Plus, he looked really cool to boot; great CGI there. Additionally, his transformation and all of his moral choices, particularly in the hospital when the Joker "turns him over to the side of anarchy" were really good. It was logical, I thought, and overall just a very convincing good-to-evil/order-to-anarchy swap. The "chance vs. fair" thing was a cool theme, and a side-story that I enjoyed following along with. However, like I said before, I wish the movie focused more on The Joker and less on Two-Face. Like Spiderman 3, even though it's a great movie with cool villians, sometimes having too many cool villians can actually take away from the experience.

Rachel was ugly.

The ending had me confused. I understand why they would want to preserve Dent as the "hero" but why did they have to brand Batman? What did he even get blamed for? I must have missed some important dialogue, because I don't really understand why they had to blame him for anything. If they needed someone to blame, why not the Joker? Couldn't the same ending have been achieved, without the lameness of Batman "becoming an outlaw"? I dunno, a fantastic overall movie, with an odd ending. Also, needed MOAR Joker.

Edited by D~N, 23 July 2008 - 07:26 PM.

[TheAvengerLever]

D~N:

Batman took the blame for all the people Harvey killed as Two Face. If the police found out Harvey Dent killed those people, the 500 people that he prosecuted against and put in jail would go free. So Batman took the blame to keep them all behind bars.

[D~N]

Spoilers to folow?

Okay, that makes sense. However, couldn't they just as easily blame the Joker for those deaths? It's not like it'd have been far-fetched or anything. My opinion doesn't matter much, but I personally think it would have made for a better ending. It could have been just as powerful, but without the clichéd "outlawed Batman" stuff. Maybe if I see it again it will flow better. This movie is so packed with important stuff that you really need to see twice to fully understand and appreciate everything. Maybe the ending will flow more logically if I see it again.

[Steel Samurai]

Morally, blaming the Joker for deaths he didn't cause is wrong. The guy may be a lunatic, and obviously the mob would've had no issues doing so, but Batman is a superhero, and thus cannot. But, he could choose to take the blame himself. In a similar manner to the way Harvey outed himself as Batman in order to lure the joker out, the parallels are unmistakable. If that makes sense. Also, Batman as an outlaw isn't really all that cliche'd.

[CID Farwin]

Also, Batman at least has some reason to kill those people. Joker not so much. He's got hostages and stuff through that part so it would be hard to blame the killings on him.

And "Batman can take it. Because he's the hero Gotham deserves, not the one it needs right now."

It also makes a great set-up for the third movie.

EDIT: also, how would you explain the end scene? Joker's in jail (or Arkham) so he didn't do it, and it's not like Harvey Dent was having a picnic with Gordon and his family.

Edited by CID Farwin, 24 July 2008 - 02:38 PM.

[TheAvengerLever]

SPOILERS AHEAD!


I also have a question. Harvey Dent is dead, the movie makes that much obvious, and don't deny it doesn't. But that would mean...that Batman killed him.


SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO, what the hell.