Sign in to follow this  
Schwaltzvald

The Dark Knight

Recommended Posts

what? that's nuts, i'm a projectionist... both those trailers are attached trailers. so he actually had to physically remove those two previews and attach that love guru preview.

which doesn't even make sense since its not customary to put previews on for movies that are already out. quite the contrary, actually.

Maybe the European reels and trailer attachments are different from the US releases. The Love Guru isn't out here yet, so I guess that argument's out. It looks like it's going to suck though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Maybe the European reels and trailer attachments are different from the US releases. The Love Guru isn't out here yet, so I guess that argument's out. It looks like it's going to suck though.

It is. It's going to really suck.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You have to understand that it was the first Batman movie since the campiest movie ever in the first Batman movie. And the idea of a more pathos-driven Batman was starting to take off in the 80's and clearly Tim Burton looked to capitalize on that. I mean, whenever you see Bruce in that movie, it was like a study in the character's self pity and feeling of pity for the city. That was basically what the two Batman movies made by Burton was about. The guy knows how to put in that ironic touch beyond the campiness. If you get hung about the campiness, then that's that. Even the music in that movie was sorta campy but it still ended up rising above the occasion throughout.

Also, you say "Batman killed" but I have to laugh at the notion. It was more like the bad guys getting into it and getting themselves in the situation to be killed. Batman didn't go out there with the idea of killing them (maybe the remote controlled Batmobile bombing aside, but the baddies camped there, Batman flushed it out. Done and done). To me, that kind of Batman makes more sense than some ultra pacifist that seems to only work in the comicbook pages where Batman is infinitely more menacing than any real life Batman adaptation can be.

Batman bombing that building down knowing there were people in there or not is still plain stupid.

He also kicks a guy down the staircase right before fighting Joker. That's was about a twenty story drop. Didn't even bother to try to save that guy.

And there was a scene in Returns where he straps a bomb to someone, throws him down, and the guy blows up.

Burton's Batman doesn't have a no-kill-code. Once in a while he'll try to save someone, but he's got no problem with killing some shmuck. He never says anything about not killing anybody in both films.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ok, so I watched this movie yesterday, and every movie on my top 10 list had to take a step down... This movie was amazing. By the way, Batman Begins is now #2 on my list.

The acting in this movie was ridiculously good. Every actor played his character perfectly, especially the guy who played Harvey Dent!

Haha, you mean Aaron Eckhart. I liked him and his other movies too. The Dark Knight is one of my favs, as good or better than Iron Man or The Incredible Hulk.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Batman bombing that building down knowing there were people in there or not is still plain stupid.

He also kicks a guy down the staircase right before fighting Joker. That's was about a twenty story drop. Didn't even bother to try to save that guy.

And there was a scene in Returns where he straps a bomb to someone, throws him down, and the guy blows up.

Burton's Batman doesn't have a no-kill-code. Once in a while he'll try to save someone, but he's got no problem with killing some shmuck. He never says anything about not killing anybody in both films.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not hard to understand... confusing.

Selective quotation!

Anyway, I didn't think any further clarification that it was the Joker punking Batman was necessary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

- 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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bought the hype eh? STFU. Seriously.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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...)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

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