The Dark Knight

[DarkeSword]

Which is true. The Burton Batman is borderline nihilistic and maybe that version is more the 'disturbed' Batman portrayal since he has such a double sided face to him. On one hand, he does everything, even if it means killing to create justice. While with the Bale version, it's the more idealistic, the more hero-fied version of Batman with the no-kill code. If it was the Burton Batman, he would have ran down the Joker, and end the movie right there.

That's the inherent flaw in Batman's Burton thought--and why it's a bad interpretation of the character. Batman and the no-kill code go hand in hand. It's one of the defining aspects of the character. Take away the no-kill code and it's not Batman anymore. It's the Punisher.

[I-n-j-i-n]

I don't think that's quite true. Even with Burton's Batman, he doesn't make it a point to kill enemies. They're just the casualties that come with the job. Also, as much as Batman detests using guns, he surely loves using them in his vehicles, even in his current version of 'no kill' policy and also in the Bale version obviously. I don't think you can really put Burton's Batman in line directly with the comic versions because he's obviously a bit different. But Batman has always skirted the law and was framed for murder or creating chaos in comic books before. That was always a part of the darker image of Batman. I would not quite equate him with someone like Spider Man or something.

Also, chief Gordon in the 89 Batman probably knows that it was basically a warzone that Gotham has been put through. I think that's the difference between Burton's Gotham and Nolan's Gotham. Burton's ones are always in near war-like frenzy while with Nolan, it's a more classical type of criminal mayhem, but more confined to the villains at hand. Batman has always been pretty reckless as far as the action took him and I think that's the justification for Burton's Batman. Still, I do think the fact that Batman takes it one step further (as in going as far as to kill or even getting into situations where he has no choice but to do so) and is clearly distraught over his past in Burton's version does make him a bit different. Again, Nolan's Batman has more of a hero complex instead of being the distraught one.

[munchi]

I just saw the Dark Knight and it was awesome! Quite possibly the best movie ever in it's genre(s). Now to pseudo-add to the discussion at hand, I think that both Batman's have a "no kill" policy. In Burton's Batman, twice the Joker's life is almost saved by Batman (the vat and the tower) The difference between Nolan's Batman and Burton's Batman is how good Batman is. Burton's Batman is a little less cunning, more "normal" if you will, and because of this he doesn't save everyone and goes thru less mental anguish when some dies. Nolan's Batman is highly trained and super intelligent and goes thru great emotional turmoil when someone gets injuried let alone killed, even if it wasn't "his fault" per se. I personal feel that Nolan's Batman is truer to the source than Burton's. That's why when Azel was Batman after Bruce's back was broken by Bane, Bruce got so mad. Because Azel did not have a "no kill" rule. He had a "whatever the fuck it takes" rule. That's also why there is such a large roster of villians in Arkam, because as superpowered, demented, elusive and downright evil they all are, Batman can't kill them. If he kills them, they win in a very sick way. Which is a point Nolan highlights in this movie, and a point Burton and every other director shy away from in the other Batman movies...which has always been something I didn't like about 'em...and a reason I love The Dark Knight!

[The Pezman]

QFT. Why is this so hard for people to understand?

Not hard to understand... just seemed unlikely after the scene before. Usually, if something like that happens, some kind of acknowledgment is given:

"I couldn't save her... I went after her but it was Dent. Not her!"

In fact, I think a line like that (more well written, though) would have been entirely appropriate and add further to Bruce's grief. The way it was just seemed pointless and confusing.

Talk about something not being hard to understand, though; my mom completely misunderstood one of Batman's last lines: "I killed those people." She had no idea what he meant. Ah well. I was surprised she went to see it at all.

[DarkeSword]

Not hard to understand... just seemed unlikely after the scene before. Usually, if something like that happens, some kind of acknowledgment is given:

"I couldn't save her... I went after her but it was Dent. Not her!"

In fact, I think a line like that (more well written, though) would have been entirely appropriate and add further to Bruce's grief. The way it was just seemed pointless and confusing.

A line like that would have been terrible. There's no need to explain it any further, because it's clear what happens:

1) Joker tells him the addresses.

2) Gordon asks "which one are you going to?"

3) Batman says "Rachel!"

4) Batman walks in expecting to see Rachel, but Dent is there.

That's it right there. As soon as you see Batman walk into the room where Harvey is, you get it. Batman gets it. Joker tricked him.

The only ones that don't get it are Harvey Dent, who pretty much goes nuts anyway, and everyone in the audience that just doesn't pay enough attention to what they're watching.

This is not a confusing movie. Granted, it doesn't hold your hand either, but if a person pays attention, they'll see that everything fits fairly well.

[I-n-j-i-n]

I agree it's not confusing. Just very tongue-in-cheek, which probably won't fly with a lot of viewers understandably. But people bought the hype and are watching it. Whatever.

[Maco70]

3) Batman says "Rachel!"

I honestly couldn't understand what he said there, with his "batman voice". But I caught on once dent starting yelling at batman.

[sae]

1) Joker tells him the addresses.

2) Gordon asks "which one are you going to?"

3) Batman says "Rachel!"

4) Batman walks in expecting to see Rachel, but Dent is there.

Gordon also tells his men to go to the address Joker said Dent was, and they end up seeing Rachel's building blow up.

[EvilHorde]

- Spoilers coming (DUH) -

Watched it - loved it. The only thing bugging me just a bit was the whole "cell phones turn stuff to 3D-imagery so Morgan Freeman can just point out the bad guys and get all Tom Clancy on y'all.." thing. I think it was just stupid. But yeah, just a minor gripe and not something that would affect the plot too much. I had really high expectations and I got what I wanted. The Joker was even better than I expected. That's the way I like to see Joker - I think Nicholson's version is just too nice of a guy. Now we got knives and all that serial-killer jazz going on.. Yay!

A cool moment at the theatre was with the Batman-copycat hostage video. At first everybody laughed because "that Joker guy is so silly and funny". Then Joker screamed "SAY IT!" or something in a truly maniacal and serious tone and the theatre went silent. Just goes to compliment Heath Ledger's portrayal - yes, he can be funny but at the same time immensely distrubing and scary.

Oh yeah, thats the stuff.

- Thus end the spoilers, but if you don't want spoilers what are you doing in this thread in the first place? -

Also, I really laughed at this:

Batman and Robin was awesome. "Ice to meet you."

Good job.

[Nekofrog]

LOOK AT ME!

Yeah, that happened both times I saw it, too. Theater went dead fucking silent when he growled that, and shit got serious.

[EdgeCrusher]

I agree it's not confusing. Just very tongue-in-cheek, which probably won't fly with a lot of viewers understandably. But people bought the hype and are watching it. Whatever.

Bought the hype eh? STFU. Seriously.

[Dhsu]

I don't think tongue-in-cheek is the best description...it has a connotation of humor/irony, which in my opinion doesn't really apply to Joker switching the addresses.

[Ray Falling]

I just got back from seeing it and I can honestly say this movie is awesome on so many levels it's not even funny.

It sort of felt like two movies in one. I figured out that Harvey would become Two Face (I'm not too familiar with the Batman universe but I vaguely recalled Two Face being a guy named Harvey and the coin gave it away in the court room scene) but I figured they'd probably use that character in a 3rd film.

At some point I thought they'd almost be done with the plot, but then they had the two major twists 0_0;

All in all it was a long movie, but it never got dull and everything had the dark feel to it I came to like about the previous film. The Joker was beyond excellent and I was pleasantly surprised by many things that happened throughout the whole thing.

Best film I've seen in a while!

[Nekofrog]

The Joker knew that, given the choice, Batman would make every attempt to rescue Dawes.

Throughout his entire plan, one thing was always there; he wanted to disrupt society and change the rules so that there were no rules. How would he guarantee this? By forcing Dent to fall from grace; the public's "white knight" as it has been put a billion times before.

Best way to do this? Make him go nuts; make him lose the one he loves the absolute most. It was purely incidental that he happened to get burned and turned into "Two-Face", the same result probably would have been achieved with just Dawes getting sploded reel good.

And that is why he lied to Batman. To continue his plan. To Dent, Batman CHOSE to save him over Rachel; therefor Batman was now the enemy.

[Toadofsky]

It's probably been said TO DEATH, but this to me, is single handedly, the greatest comic book movie I've seen yet. The film had a realistic feel. I didn't know what to think when they had Heath Ledger play Joker, until I actually saw the film.

SPOILER ALERT. The minute Joker did his "magic trick", I knew he was perfect for the part. The car chase sequence was awesome, with the truck over turning and batman spinning round on the wall with his bike like it's was nothing, just awesome. Not only that, they managed to use THREE villians in one film, and still make it weave together flawlessly (unlike a certain other 3rd film with a web slinger....)

END SPOILER....

The whole film felt like a roller coaster that doesn't let you go. You can take all the Spiderman films, and put them aside in my opinion (I know they're completely different, you can do that to the third one at least). How Christopher Nolan will surpass this film, I have absolutely NO IDEA. It's such a shame that Heath Ledger is dead, it would have been interesting to see if they would have integrated him in the inevitabel third film.

I only wonder who they could use for the next film. Bane? Riddler? Oswald Cobblepot (aka Penguin)?, maybe Poison Ivy or Catwoman (you know Alfred did mention CATS to deflect from batman's suit...)

[defender!!]

i don't see how it's implausible that batman would choose to save dent over dawes, knowing that the future of gotham mattered more than his relationship with her. he said he was going to dawes, who's to say that he didn't change his destination halfway?

a bit out there, yeah. i also never saw the first movie and didn't know how close he was to dawes or how close he was, or how committed he would be to saving her.

that, and gordon showing up at the other place really should've tipped me off.

i'm just dumb

[Bleck]

i don't see how it's implausible that batman would choose to save dent over dawes, knowing that the future of gotham mattered more than his relationship with her. he said he was going to dawes, who's to say that he didn't change his destination halfway?

NO.

When Batman arrives at the Warehouse, he is visibly surprised to see Dent. He thought he was going for Rachel, that's it. That's all. End of story.

[Cottus and Gyes]

NO.

When Batman arrives at the Warehouse, he is visibly surprised to see Dent. He thought he was going for Rachel, that's it. That's all. End of story.

Why is this such a hard concept to grasp? The Joker even hints it in the movie!!

[Eten]

It's probably been said TO DEATH, but this to me, is single handedly, the greatest comic book movie I've seen yet. The film had a realistic feel. I didn't know what to think when they had Heath Ledger play Joker, until I actually saw the film.

Yes, I agree. I think there were two components that made this movie a hit with me, and probably for many others.

The first, this movie makes an excellent adaption from the original Batman and gets to use the best from what is already one of the most awesome Hero vs. Villian setup in comic books altogether. Batman is already one of the best superheroes ever created in look, theme, style, origins, and detail- much of which has been amply delivered to you in Batman begins and sustained in The Dark Knight(doesn't kill, no guns, broods on rooftops, wears a cape and scares criminals, etc.). The Joker is one of the most classically bad and evil villains of all time- with his seeming insanity on the surface and his twistedly brilliant scheming underneath, his obsession with batman, his laughs, jokes, sounds and appearance. The movie stays true, very much true, in this aspect to the source.

The Joker gives different accounts of his origins.

He can be taken out with a punch, yet can be viscous at the same time.

He's both brilliant in his scheming, a liar, and insane all at the same time.

Has no greater criminal motive than simply the fun he has in it and the will to cause chaos, not money or destroy Gotham, etc.

He's obsessed with Batman.("and I couldn't kill you! You're just too much fun.")

Then the second component. The movie is portrayed in a realistic sense, and a few of the details of the comics are dropped. The Joker's appearance isn't directly copied from the art of the comics, but instead made to take on a more realistic look of it. Things like that. For some reason, this makes the whole movie settle with the viewer very well with the average viewer.

[I-n-j-i-n]

I don't think anyone's going to agree that the movie wasn't hyped. That doesn't mean it's bad. In fact, it has no bearing on quality. He was just saying that hype made people want to watch a movie that they otherwise wouldn't get.

Thank you for saying that. Yes, as great as the movie was, the numbers does not lie. People are watching it for a lot of reasons and it IS a Batman movie. People are going to watch it on the hype and the name alone. I think it's fair to say that most of the audience probably aren't even comicbook fans or would normally would watch it had this movie not get the buzz (for good or bad reasons) and the rave it got.

I don't think tongue-in-cheek is the best description...it has a connotation of humor/irony, which in my opinion doesn't really apply to Joker switching the addresses.

......... what? That's what tongue-in-cheek means. Everything Joker does, you can't take them at face value since they're always threatening and more importantly, ironic.

[The Joker]

Spoilers, but really, who hasn't seen the movie at this point?

You know, I just rewatched the movie, & I noticed a theme that I missed the firt time through. The fine line between chance & choice. I noticed it when the "tiny" Lister threw the detonater out the window in the boat, he made a choice, threw chance out the window.

Secondly, when Dent threw the coin in the air for Gordons' son, everyone assumes it would have landed good side no matter what. The only reason it did land good side up, is because Batman made a choice. He didn't let something bad happen. It's just one more little thing that made me friggin love this movie even more.

[Dhsu]

......... what? That's what tongue-in-cheek means. Everything Joker does, you can't take them at face value since they're always threatening and more importantly, ironic.

Switching the addresses wasn't ironic, it was just a trick. It's ironic if the audience knows something Batman doesn't, but that's not the case here. Unless you're watching it the second time, you find out about the switch at the same time as Batman.

[Lotd2242]

Switching the addresses wasn't ironic, it was just a trick. It's ironic if the audience knows something Batman doesn't, but that's not the case here. Unless you're watching it the second time, you find out about the switch at the same time as Batman.

I thought it was blatantly obvious that the Joker mixed up the addresses when I saw the movie. Most of the "twists" in this movie were easy to spot way before they happened.

I still wouldn't call it ironic though.

[defender!!]

When Batman arrives at the Warehouse, he is visibly surprised to see Dent.

i saw the movie twice and didn't see any such visual cue.

i already admitted that i should've pieced it together before, so chill out sourpuss.

[The Pezman]

The only ones that don't get it are Harvey Dent, who pretty much goes nuts anyway, and everyone in the audience that just doesn't pay enough attention to what they're watching.

This is not a confusing movie. Granted, it doesn't hold your hand either, but if a person pays attention, they'll see that everything fits fairly well.

What the hell, man? You can disagree with me, but there's no reason to put me down.