Sign in to follow this  
Schwaltzvald

The Dark Knight

493 posts in this topic

I'm usually ok with missing a line or two if the audience is having a good time getting into the movie. I remember going to see the first Star Wars prequel opening night. As soon as the Lucasfilm logo appeared, the audience went wild.

The rest of the evening was not so jubilant. :cry:

Misa Jar Ja-OMG SHUT THE FUCK UP!!!

That's about what happened at my theater.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I can't really see a third movie being as good (or making much sense) unless someone steps up to bat for the Joker's part. What they did with him was definitely open-ended.

They can always use Mark Hamill!

Hehe Mark Hamil would be awesome. His Joker is great. Well I guess technically it's the combination of Mark Hamil and the writers of the Animated Series.

I guess they didn't have enough time after Ledger died to do a quick re-shoot to make the Joker's part end with more finality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nolan has a plan, I firmly believe this. He has envisioned an epic second sequel involving the Joker -- long before Ledger died (probably while writing TDK) -- and will likely follow through on that vision with a new actor.

And you know what? I wouldn't be entirely opposed to that. Nolan saw the potential in Ledger to pull off the Joker he wanted, and I have faith that he can find someone else to deliver just as good a performance as Ledger to keep with the vision.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't recall the source on this info, so take it with a grain of salt, but I'd heard the Nolan wanted some time before starting on a third movie. Supposedly, he put every single idea he had into this movie and wants time for new ideas to come.

Again, hearsay. After Dark Knight, I whole-heartedly trust Nolan to bring us a worthy third film (or not, as the case may be).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't recall the source on this info, so take it with a grain of salt, but I'd heard the Nolan wanted some time before starting on a third movie. Supposedly, he put every single idea he had into this movie and wants time for new ideas to come.

Again, hearsay. After Dark Knight, I whole-heartedly trust Nolan to bring us a worthy third film (or not, as the case may be).

I agree, but let's not forget that David Goyer has been pretty instrumental in writing these two movies. It's not just Nolan (and his brother).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
My understanding was that the plan was to revolve the sequel around the newly created Two-Face.

except you know he died

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
except you know he died

I don't know that he died. All I know is that they had a service for Harvey Dent. Batman survived the fall without a scratch. I mean, if a guy with burns on 50% of his body and a hole in the side of his face can be up and about playing vigilante and talking without so much as a lisp, I think he can survive a little drop.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am pretty sure that half of his face is not fifty percent of his body!

Also, Batman probably has, you know, taken long drops into account when fabricating his suit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yet his suit is burned half and half and it was also in the same pool of flammable liquid which caused his face to ignite. It is reasonable to conclude he was half-burned in keeping with the Two-Face motif.

So you're saying Batman is hiding air-bags in his suit?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yet his suit is burned half and half and it was also in the same pool of flammable liquid which caused his face to ignite. It is reasonable to conclude he was half-burned in keeping with the Two-Face motif.

first of all, I may not be entirely sure but I do not remember him wearing a at the very least the coat to the suit

second of all, if that is the case, why did the suit and tie burn exactly right down the middle

and third, why did the suit not just become like any other clothing that has been burned - i.e a smoldering pile of nothing

So you're saying Batman is hiding air-bags in his suit?

at the very least something to cushion his fall especially since he glides around very high a lot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're right it was not, now that I'm watching the clip of him in the bar. His hand looks clean. But Dent's response is also "half" when the guy says he thought he was dead.

It would also make sense that his hand was out of the flammable liquid based on the position he's in when he falls over, and thus would not have suffered the same 3rd degree burns as the rest of him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again though, with the rest of him only his clothing was soaked. It makes to assume that whilst his clothes, on fire, were easy enough to simply removes, the fire on his face was not so simple.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
first of all, I may not be entirely sure but I do not remember him wearing a at the very least the coat to the suit

second of all, if that is the case, why did the suit and tie burn exactly right down the middle

and third, why did the suit not just become like any other clothing that has been burned - i.e a smoldering pile of nothing

Because then he couldn't walk around in a half suit of course.

at the very least something to cushion his fall especially since he glides around very high a lot

It would need to be an airbag or some kind of gel-pack, neither of which is mentioned when they're talking earlier about how the new suit is actually weaker for sacrificing weight for mobility.

The blueprint designs were only on the screen for a moment and too small to see so it would be hard to tell either way, but when it comes out on DVD we can pause it and find out exactly what it is packing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Again though, with the rest of him only his clothing was soaked. It makes to assume that whilst his clothes, on fire, were easy enough to simply removes, the fire on his face was not so simple.

The fire would be enough for first to second degree burns by the time they got it off. But even if we concede that everything below the neck was golden, his face is burned down to the jawbone from cheek to joint. They'd have to put him out to keep him from dying of shock. That he can withstand the pain and run around chatting up dirty cops is a big enough stretch that I'd find the idea of a short fall not killing him to be more plausible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's like saying the a guy wearing foot ball padding and a helmet would have the same damage as a serious burn victim would have falling thirty feet.

doesn't make much sense to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying that the movie asks me to accept as a matter of suspension of disbelief that a burn victim with that severity of burns is out and about like Dent is. That means he's got something going for him, pure rage if you like, that is keeping him from spending the rest of the movie either A: unconscious or B: screaming in agony in a hospital bed.

If that's the case, then that same thing should protect him from a mere what, two-story? fall, particularly if the protagonist, who as far as we are told is not wearing a helmet or padding, can land right next to him and get up and run off totally uninjured.

I'm also saying that I find the idea of him surviving a fall like that more plausible in general than running around the city with half of his face burned off.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While I expect Dent really is just dead, something about the whole death and funeral lacked closure. But, then, if Nolan wanted him alive for the third film, I would think he would provide some small hint that Two Face was still around. Having him just show up in film three alive would just feel a bit cheesy.

Bart: "Ralph! I thought you were dead!"

Ralph: "Nope."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's really no way of telling if Dent is dead or not. The only time they say he's dead is during the service, and since he turned into a villain, they're pretty much going to do that no matter what. Influencing public opinion for the good of the people was one of the main themes of the movie in case you guys missed it.

OGNOES I DIDN'T CATCH THAT BIT OF IRRELEVANT SIDE-BANTER.

Shut up and clap.

Why so serious? The actors can't hear you clapping.

I don't know if you knew that.

EDIT: Really, you might say that Harvey Dent is dead, but Two-Face isn't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I want him alive, and I don't.

I Do: Because the character has so much potential that I don't think was truly brought to the forefront. The idea of a genuinely good guy being so emotionally and mentally scarred he becomes corrupted appeals to me much more than a good guy who's simply schizophrenic. This rendition has the potential to remake the character into something more.

I Don't: After having all the shyte go down, it's almost safe to say Dent's/Two-Face's rage focal is "resolved" to a point. His rage and subsequent actions were due to Rachel's death and his need for brutal vengeance. After that, what exactly would his motivation for continuing to be a dark vigilante be? You don't want to stretch the Rachel dying thing too thin....but you also don't want Two-Face devolving into a petty villian who robs banks or the like. I'd rather see him die with the dignity he had at the end of TDK than see him return in a monotonous role.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great movie. There were a few problems though:

Spoilers below!

The beginning was a bit disjointed and did not flow well. Up until they caught Joker, it was kind of hard to keep track of all the characters. They used everyone's names like we should know them all, when theres tons of cops, mobsters, mob leaders, civilians, and politicians all with names. Some parts were kind of awkward, like when Batman falls off his bike. It's like, what? You're Batman. Do a cool trick. But after they caught Joker it was awesome.

Another thing that could've been a bit better was Two-Face's development. I thought it was a good idea for him to go corrupt and crazy, but they didn't really convince us enough that he could turn that way. I mean, his fiance died and his face is half burnt, but he totally shifts the blame from Joker to all the good guys, which doesn't make much sense. He even has the chance to shoot Joker. Then he goes emo repeatedly asking his victims the same question, "Have you ever talked to your fiance right before she died?" or something. It's like, yeah we get it. You had a really bad day. Now if they focused on developing how Rachel girl was supposed to be saved instead, and that it really was a giant unforgivable mistake (which it wasn't), then it'd make much more sense and we would have some compassion for him.

One last thing: why does Batman have to take the blame for the murders? Why don't they just blame it on Joker?

__________________

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Great movie. There were a few problems though:

Spoilers below!

The beginning was a bit disjointed and did not flow well. Up until they caught Joker

__________________

The beginning was the only part I didn't like, especially him going to Hong Kong. Don't get me wrong that "SKY HOOK" thing was badass but it was just to lengthy up until they caught the joker.

I still loved the movie though. Got my wife on the bandwagon and she wants to go this Sunday.

Share this post


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
Sign in to follow this