Sign in to follow this  
Schwaltzvald

The Dark Knight

Recommended Posts

Also, Batman just tackled Dent, he didn't mean to kill him or anything he just ended up falling. Also notice the coin landing face up, lucky side. Dent can still be alive or he can be dead, it's totally up to interpretation as of now

I thought the coin was supposed to point out the pointlessness of the action taken, Dent died when the boy would have lived anyway.

The flip being for Dent is an interesting way to look at it. I hope he comes back, even if it's not likely. It felt like there was so much more they could do with Two-Face.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yeah see the main difference here was at this point he was shot

Being shot didn't seem to affect him running off at the end.

the bat saved his life, gordon did not save rachel in time

not to mention who knows whether or not he was going to go after batman afterwards

The latter part is true of course.

But he didn't want the Bat to save his life. He wanted him to save Rachael's, which is why he's screaming the whole way out of the building that he should save her. He should be pissed that Batman saved him instead of Rachael. Also the whole situation only exists because of Batman.

That is not to say I don't understand how he decided to target Gordon, it does make sense in its own roundabout way. I'm just saying that it's a weaker story choice regardless. I think it would've been much more powerful if Dent was trying to kill Batman considering he spent the whole movie defending Batman. Not to mention taking an innocent family hostage is several steps removed from whacking out corrupt mobsters or targeting a vigilante crimefighter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Being shot didn't seem to affect him running off at the end.

no he was just stumbling around and falling into walls in pain because he's the goddamn batman

He should be pissed that Batman saved him instead of Rachael.

batman didn't really have time, the buldings exploded pretty much immediatement afterwards

Also the whole situation only exists because of Batman.

yeah this is true

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That is not to say I don't understand how he decided to target Gordon, it does make sense in its own roundabout way.

His thing against Gordon was that he had repeatedly been trying to get Gordon to do something about internal corruption within the police force, and it was the corrupt cops who acted as the Joker's inside-men which eventually led to Rachael getting killed.

Oh, as for Batman killing Dent but not the Joker, I think it has something to do with the immediacy of the situation. Dent had a gun to the kid's head right then and there. It seems like most of the scenes where he directly encounters the Joker didn't involve that same sort of immediacy. Almost kind of like a police procedure thing with regards to deadly force: just because the suspect is wanted for murder doesn't mean you can just run out and kill him unless he's in the immediate act of murdering yet another victim.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

batman didn't really have time, the buldings exploded pretty much immediatement afterwards

Yeah, but as far as Dent knows, Batman chose to save him instead of Rachael, not that the Joker just flipped the addresses to mess with him, at least unless somebody tells him off-screen.

His thing against Gordon was that he had repeatedly been trying to get Gordon to do something about internal corruption within the police force, and it was the corrupt cops who acted as the Joker's inside-men which eventually led to Rachael getting killed.

I know. I just said I understood it. :-)

But it's still very roundabout logic compared to the immediate connection all of the events had to Batman, particularly when Gordon had said repeatedly that he knew about the corrupt cops and was doing the best he could with what he had.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am unfortunately not here to discuss the finer points of the movie, just to joygasm over it, because I'm a gross fanboy. I actually really really liked the movie despite all of the hype about Heath Ledger. I like Heath Ledger, don't get me wrong, but I think a lot of people went to see that movie because of him, and not because it was going to be good/batman/whatever. But I was pleased. It felt way different from the first movie though. Way more almost real-lifeish instead of far away and removed in Gotham. =D But wasn't nearly as good as "Batman and Robin", am I right?

DJ Metal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I tried to catch a showing tonight... I saw the midnight release, but a friend of ours didn't, so we went with her to see it again. Turns out that at 9pm, the 9:15 and 9:45 showings were both sold out. Crazy!

It possibly had something to do with it being College Night at the local theater, so all showings were at matinee prices all day. But still, it's the fifth day of release.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I tried to catch a showing tonight... I saw the midnight release, but a friend of ours didn't, so we went with her to see it again. Turns out that at 9pm, the 9:15 and 9:45 showings were both sold out. Crazy!

It possibly had something to do with it being College Night at the local theater, so all showings were at matinee prices all day. But still, it's the fifth day of release.

Dude...have you heard about this movie? It's broken every box office record for everything ever, plus inventing new ones to break. Yeah, you might need to get tickets a bit more than 40 minutes ahead.

(mainly I'm just bitter because this fatass and his whore girlfriend wouldn't move over one seat so my buddy and I could sit together.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dude...have you heard about this movie? It's broken every box office record for everything ever, plus inventing new ones to break. Yeah, you might need to get tickets a bit more than 40 minutes ahead.

(mainly I'm just bitter because this fatass and his whore girlfriend wouldn't move over one seat so my buddy and I could sit together.)

Maybe it depends on where you live. I got matinee tickets at the door the day of release.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dude...have you heard about this movie? It's broken every box office record for everything ever, plus inventing new ones to break. Yeah, you might need to get tickets a bit more than 40 minutes ahead.

(mainly I'm just bitter because this fatass and his whore girlfriend wouldn't move over one seat so my buddy and I could sit together.)

Ha, I wasn't terribly surprised, actually. Like I said, I was at the midnight release here as well... it was pretty intense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, location can be a pretty big factor. I've seen it in Long Beach and Irvine (IMAX) here in Southern California, so that's probably a big part of why it's so packed here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I am unfortunately not here to discuss the finer points of the movie, just to joygasm over it, because I'm a gross fanboy. I actually really really liked the movie despite all of the hype about Heath Ledger. I like Heath Ledger, don't get me wrong, but I think a lot of people went to see that movie because of him, and not because it was going to be good/batman/whatever. But I was pleased. It felt way different from the first movie though. Way more almost real-lifeish instead of far away and removed in Gotham. =D But wasn't nearly as good as "Batman and Robin", am I right?

DJ Metal

Dare I say it? I think Ledger was almost overplayed. I mean, the Oscars? Are you f'n kidding me? I think Ledger did a great villain but maybe not a good Joker. To me, he's more like the force-of-nature solitary evil like the Violator (Clown obviously) than the gangland-oriented Joker. And like some others have said, the Ledger Joker was simply threatening. No jokes and barely no laughing and no real sense of irony. Just plain mass murdering and killing. Again, that strikes me as some of the other psychotic characters than the vintage Joker we got out of Jack Nicholson.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dare I say it? I think Ledger was almost overplayed. I mean, the Oscars? Are you f'n kidding me? I think Ledger did a great villain but maybe not a good Joker. To me, he's more like the force-of-nature solitary evil like the Violator (Clown obviously) than the gangland-oriented Joker. And like some others have said, the Ledger Joker was simply threatening. No jokes and barely no laughing and no real sense of irony. Just plain mass murdering and killing. Again, that strikes me as some of the other psychotic characters than the vintage Joker we got out of Jack Nicholson.

I saw him laughing quit a bit about halfway through the movie on. Even as he was dangling upsidedown from his foot he was still laughing. And there was irony, like how he broke out Lui, then burned him atop the very same pile of money he'd basically stolen from the mobsters. There was also irony in the way he told Batman in the interrogation how everyone would turn on him like a pack of wild dogs eventually, and at the end of the movie they all did once they thought he'd thrown out his no-kill policy despite all the good he'd done. And need I remind you of the pencil trick?

Ledger's Joker wasn't about evil really.....just pure unadulterated chaos. He was all about bringing out the true chaotic nature of people with his works, so that they could all be like him....since he "got it" way before anybody else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No jokes? Is The Joker gonna have to show you a magic trick?

No need to be snide there. Ledger's Joker was simply threatening. Not that it's a bad thing, but I never got that feeling much out of the comicbook versions that's all.

I saw him laughing quit a bit about halfway through the movie on. Even as he was dangling upsidedown from his foot he was still laughing. And there was irony, like how he broke out Lui, then burned him atop the very same pile of money he'd basically stolen from the mobsters. There was also irony in the way he told Batman in the interrogation how everyone would turn on him like a pack of wild dogs eventually, and at the end of the movie they all did once they thought he'd thrown out his no-kill policy. And need I remind you of the pencil trick?

Ledger's Joker wasn't about evil really.....just pure unadulterated chaos. He was all about bringing out the true chaotic nature of people with his works, so that they could all be like him....since he "got it" way before anybody else.

Yes, I actually agree completely with you. The irony was there, but again, that seemed to be drowned out by the way Nolan tried to make Joker simply threatening than anything else. All the 'oh noes, here comes the creepy Joker' scenes gave me that hint that maybe the irony part of the classical Joker wasn't really the point of this new Joker.

In that terms of bringing unadulterated chaos, I still think that's something you see more out of someone like the Violator Clown, causing mayhem just to create mayhem. Or maybe Joker when he goes berserk in some comicbook angles. Also, I'm not sure what to make of the Ledger version apparently being born simply because his daddy was a bad guy. Again, the the Nicholson Joker was picture perfect except for him being Batman's parents' killer. Falling into a vat and everything and while being murderous, only doing so in spurts and not quite on a full killing spree like Ledger's one (that, and the consistent insistence from the comics that Joker is fully sane while being the villain, hence why he is such an evil villain). I don't fault anyone for liking Ledger's Joker. I just never grew up with that type of character, that's all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I actually thought the Joker in TDK was completely sane. Everything was planned out, despite what he says about just doing stuff. The way he reads peopl, as well as the social commentary.

Oh, & about his daddy being a bad guy, that was a half truth, or an outright lie on his part. He told two different scar stories to fit the context of where he was at, & who he was talking to. I thought this Joker was the truest to the comic book as you can get. Also, I hate the Nicholson Joker.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Also, I hate the Nicholson Joker.

Time to start playing favorites? meh

If we're comparing based on pure subjectivity, I thought Val Kilmer made a slightly better Batman. There, I said it. At least he didn't have the asthma-voice of the new one. Speaking of the Bale Batman, I didn't really fall in love with the cocky-Bruce of Batman Begins. I always gelled to the pathos/brooding Wayne most of the older versions of Batman. Which leads to Keaton's Batman which I liked the best because he made the best Bruce. The only knock being that Keaton was relatively short so he didn't have the intimidation factor of Kilmer/Bale. But personality-wise, I don't think there's a peer with Keaton yet (not to mention I feel Keaton is the more well tooled actor overall than any other Batman actor). Again, all that's subjective. I still think Bale did a great job for his role and that specific type of Batman. It's just that it's not the type of Batman I was accustomed to either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Nicholson did a better job of creating a comic book character. His Joker is more in tune with the sort of whackjob that runs around pulling crimes like they're pranks on the establishment.

Ledger's Joker is just a regular genius psychopath. He plays a great one, no question there, but in terms of capturing the feel of the comic book Joker I don't think he comes nearly as close to it as Nicholson did.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think Nicholson did a better job of creating a comic book character. His Joker is more in tune with the sort of whackjob that runs around pulling crimes like they're pranks on the establishment.

Ledger's Joker is just a regular genius psychopath. He plays a great one, no question there, but in terms of capturing the feel of the comic book Joker I don't think he comes nearly as close to it as Nicholson did.

read more comics

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think Nicholson did a better job of creating a comic book character. His Joker is more in tune with the sort of whackjob that runs around pulling crimes like they're pranks on the establishment.

Ledger's Joker is just a regular genius psychopath. He plays a great one, no question there, but in terms of capturing the feel of the comic book Joker I don't think he comes nearly as close to it as Nicholson did.

read more comics

Yeah seriously. I mean, read Batman right now. Joker in the RIP storyline is right in line with Ledger's Joker, perhaps even more psychotic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this