Where does most of TDK's critisism come from?

[truth]

Originally Posted by Nave 'Torment'

What of the theme of heroism that The Dark Knight meditates on? Is that so generic, so blatant and so perfunctory? Or the political implications that it raised? How about the notion of ideas and hopes destroying and becoming worse and worse, driving you to the point of desperation, and then a hope rises that is dark and compromised? I watch movies, trust me guys I do, but the way TDK has handled its themes and explored them through it's (allegedly contrived) plot makes it a unique experience on its own. Movies like Avatar and Spider-man 3 are guilty of terrible plotting; not The Dark Knight.

But you know what? I do believe this thread isn't for me. I've already explained why, it's not because I am a purist or anything. Anyway. Ciao.

What were these political implications?

And all because Gordon makes a speech about Batman being the hero Gotham deserves, does not mean the entire film explored that concept.

[GothamAlleys]

Originally Posted by truth

Surprising?

I think we all knew he was going to kill people, and we all knew Rachel was going to get killed. The only surprising thing was the boat thing. But can you really call his plots intricate? You want intricate? Try the plot of Silence of the Lambs or more directly, John Doe's murders in Seven. That's intricate.

It didnt have the level of Seven or Silence of the Lambs of course, but it was aiming for something in the same ballpark. Joker's plans were unpredictable and he kept escaping , winning and outwitting Batman and everyone else time after time. He had everyone dancing how he wanted to

[truth]

Originally Posted by El Payaso

Yeah, everything more intricate makes immediately anything else that's any less intrincate not intricate at all. That was a little intricate.

No. Most films have some semblance of intricacy. But when you flat-out say a film had an intricate plot, you are implying that it had intricacy to a much larger extent than most other films.

[truth]

Originally Posted by jamesCameronOnl

It didnt have the level of Seven or Silence of the Lambs of course, but it was aiming for something in the same ballpark. Joker's plans were unpredictable and he kept escaping , winning and outwitting Batman and everyone else time after time. He had everyone dancing how he wanted to

Yes...he did, albeit a bit too unrealistically.

It was aiming for those films, but failed by making Joker unrealistically brilliant and invincible. So all his plans all went to perfection, including loading two ships with tons of explosives without authorities noticing?

And another bit of inconsistency. Joker says he's like a dog chasing cars, that he doesn't really have a plan. Then how come he can execute such large-scale plans? Is he focused and dedicated or just mad and random?

[GothamAlleys]

Originally Posted by truth

Yes...he did, albeit a bit too unrealistically.

It was aiming for those films, but failed by making Joker unrealistically brilliant and invincible. So all his plans all went to perfection, including loading two ships with tons of explosives without authorities noticing?

And another bit of inconsistency. Joker says he's like a dog chasing cars, that he doesn't really have a plan. Then how come he can execute such large-scale plans? Is he focused and dedicated or just mad and random?

Here I agree. I never found TDK realistic at all, I always saw it as a superhero movie which was obviously a superhero movie. Theres too much comic booky plot elements and situations for normal situations or real situations in any way. But theres nothing wrong with that imo, although many TDK fans get really worked up over the whole realism thing. I dont, it means nothing to me (and its not there anyway)

[Travesty]

Originally Posted by truth

And another bit of inconsistency. Joker says he's like a dog chasing cars, that he doesn't really have a plan. Then how come he can execute such large-scale plans? Is he focused and dedicated or just mad and random?

That was just Joker lying to Dent, by corrupting him even more. Trust me, Joker's plan was completely random and contrived in ever sense of the word, but in this particular scene, it should be obvious that he was just messin with Dents head.

[truth]

Why would that be messing with Dent? Furthermore, with relation to that scene, why on earth would Dent not want to kill the very man that killed his girlfriend???? Oh, because he said it was nothing personal? Ha.

Problem is this. Nolan tried to make a very realistic film, once you do that, you have to cmopare it to other realistic films and when you do, it comes up short. It does not feel like a superhero film, because it's not made in that sense. Yes, you have the sonar device, but it goes further to make the film lopsided. Are you trying to be real? Or trying to be a comic book?

[The Joker]

Originally Posted by truth

Why would that be messing with Dent?

"You didn't think I'd risk losing the battle for Gotham's soul in a fist fight with you? No, you need an ace in the hole. Mine's Harvey. I took Gotham's white Knight and I brought him down to our level. It wasn't hard. Madness as you know is like gravity. All it takes is a little push"

Furthermore, with relation to that scene, why on earth would Dent not want to kill the very man that killed his girlfriend???? Oh, because he said it was nothing personal? Ha.

He DID want to kill Joker. Did you miss the part where Harvey tossed the coin to decide if Joker would live or die?

[truth]

Still don't buy it. I get where Harvey tosses it for people who have nothing to do with him. But why would care about the coin toss when THIS IS THE MAN THAT CAUSED IT ALL.

Oh and, if he tossed the coin in the end, that meant that Joker did not really bring him down to any level. If it had landed the other way, he would have killed Joker. So....

[The Joker]

Originally Posted by truth

Still don't buy it. I get where Harvey tosses it for people who have nothing to do with him. But why would care about the coin toss when THIS IS THE MAN THAT CAUSED IT ALL.

Wurtz was the one who delivered Harvey to the Joker's men. Ramirez was the one who got Rachel. They both were directly involved, both betrayed them, and they both got a coin toss.

It's like in The Long Halloween, when Harvey escapes from the hospital, goes and kills Carmine Falcone for arranging for Maroni to have the acid tossed in his face, and Vernon Fields, Harvey's assistant, who was working for Falcone and gave Maroni the acid to use.

Both of their deaths were decided with a coin toss.

Oh and, if he tossed the coin in the end, that meant that Joker did not really bring him down to any level. If it had landed the other way, he would have killed Joker. So....

I have no idea what you're talking about. Harvey was going out willing to kill people who he believed crossed him. How is him being a murderer not bringing him down to a low level?

[Godzilla2014]

Originally Posted by Joker

Wurtz was the one who delivered Harvey to the Joker's men. Ramirez was the one who got Rachel. They both were directly involved, both betrayed them, and they both got a coin toss.

It's like in The Long Halloween, when Harvey escapes from the hospital, goes and kills Carmine Falcone for arranging for Maroni to have the acid tossed in his face, and Vernon Fields, Harvey's assistant, who was working for Falcone and gave Maroni the acid to use.

Both of their deaths were decided with a coin toss.

I concur. That's the way Two-Face works: His good side and his bad side are in conflict over what to do, and the coin is a mediator, the decision of which is final.

Originally Posted by Joker

I have no idea what you're talking about. Harvey was going out willing to kill people who he believed crossed him. How is him being a murderer not bringing him down to a low level?

Correct.

[truth]

I've not read Long Halloween in a while, so I won't bring that into it. But going by the film solely and how, just in Begins, a character's motives are explained. Not for Joker, because just like Burton's Batman, he just is and we have to deduct how he came that way.
But we have the transition of Dent to Two Face, just like Wayne to Batman. So, I just do not get why, based off what Joker says (the guy who admits responsibility for killing Rachel) Dent now takes a coin to toss up whether he lives or dies. Why? Why would this White Knight suddenly turn insane to the point of having to flip a coin? I mean, his face got scarred, will that automatically make you mad? Especially a man that was as normal and good as Dent?

[GothamAlleys]

The death or Rachel made him mad, plus he already had a dark side inside of him hidden. It just got loose when he snapped when Rachel was killed

[The Joker]

Pretty much. I mean he abducted a suspect in an ambulance, brought him to an alleyway, tied him up, and terrorized him with a gun because Rachel's life had been brought under threat.

Even before Joker visits him, you can tell he's close to snapping in the scene with when Gordon visits him:

Dent: "Remember that name you all had for me when I was in Internal Affairs. What was it, Gordon?"
Gordon: "Harvey I..."
Dent: "Say it.....SAY IT!!!!!"
Gordon: "Two Face....Harvey Two Face"
Dent: "Why should I hide who I am?!
Gordon: "I know you tried to warn me. I'm sorry. Wurtz picked you up. Was he working for them? Do you know who picked up Rachel? Harvey, I need to know which of my men I can trust"
Dent: "Why would you listen to me now?"
Gordon: "I'm sorry, Harvey"
Dent: "No! No, you're not. Not yet"

[truth]

I mean, to me, there was no indication of a mad man or man with something hidden from Eckhart's portrayal. He was promoted as the White Knight and the good guy, who turned bad.
Adbucting a guy is not proof that you have something hidden. It just shows a DA that's willing to bend the rules and go out of his way to get answers, in order to get the truth.

Also, Rachel was not exactly his wife, just a girlfriend. So, how would the death of her make him mad. And following on from my previous point, he did nothing to show or suggest that this guy could have a hidden dark side.

[Optimus_Prime_]

I thought the change was fine, made sense. Just kind of abrupt how Two-Face was inserted and concluded. I think originally Two-Face was going to be saved for the third installment, and would've been a major villain. I would've preferred that. Two-Face deserves his own movie as the villain, and I thought Nolan reduced him to more or less a one-note character. He just went and got revenge on a few people who screwed him over, rather than projecting his problems onto Gotham at large, which would've been more interesting.

[El Payaso]

Originally Posted by truth

I've not read Long Halloween in a while, so I won't bring that into it. But going by the film solely and how, just in Begins, a character's motives are explained. Not for Joker, because just like Burton's Batman, he just is and we have to deduct how he came that way.
But we have the transition of Dent to Two Face, just like Wayne to Batman. So, I just do not get why, based off what Joker says (the guy who admits responsibility for killing Rachel) Dent now takes a coin to toss up whether he lives or dies. Why? Why would this White Knight suddenly turn insane to the point of having to flip a coin? I mean, his face got scarred, will that automatically make you mad? Especially a man that was as normal and good as Dent?

Why does a man whose parents are killed become a costumed vigilante? Hiow many people whose parents have been killed have become Batmen? Like zero. The movie makes no sense. No. The character makes no sense.

Or he just happen to have that kind of character inside of him. Plus, a little fiction in the mix that doesn't hurt.

Dent used the coin before the scarring. And it's clear that he got that justice can't be brought by men for men are ciorruptible and flawed. So the coin is the way he can find justice. Cold, emotionless justice by a cold, emotionless coin.

[The Joker]

Originally Posted by truth

I mean, to me, there was no indication of a mad man or man with something hidden from Eckhart's portrayal. He was promoted as the White Knight and the good guy, who turned bad.
Adbucting a guy is not proof that you have something hidden. It just shows a DA that's willing to bend the rules and go out of his way to get answers, in order to get the truth.

You must be joking. How many district attorneys have you heard of who have resorted to such illegal tactics just because their girlfriends were threatened?

He clearly wasn't the full quid. Couple that with actually losing Rachel, being betrayed by Gordon's men, and suffering extreme facial scarring, and you can't buy why he would snap and go and kill those he believed wronged him?

How many people do you know of who have gone off the deep end because they lost someone they cared about? You hear about it all the time. People have committed suicide over losing a loved one, even when they still have other loved ones to live for.

Also, Rachel was not exactly his wife, just a girlfriend. So, how would the death of her make him mad.

So having a ring on her finger would make her more important to him? Ignoring the fact he actually told her in the movie that he wants to spent the rest of his life with her.

And following on from my previous point, he did nothing to show or suggest that this guy could have a hidden dark side.

Except that he did. Unless you consider abducting and terrorizing suspects with a gun as normal behavior.

[Optimus_Prime_]

Originally Posted by El Payaso

Why does a man whose parents are killed become a costumed vigilante? Hiow many people whose parents have been killed have become Batmen? Like zero. The movie makes no sense. No. The character makes no sense.

This is actually one problem I have with many incarnations of Batman, or at least I get the impression sometimes people make the case that Batman is just a regular dude, and that anyone would/could become him. I don't feel that way. I feel like Batman is a cosmic coincidence of sorts. He had all the wrong (or right) stuff happen. The death of his parents is greatly important to his development, but I think it's equally important to make the case that he is, by nature, an extraordinarily rare individual. Just the right combination of intelligence, emotionally immaturity and natural ability/resources to become what he became.

[Godzilla2014]

Originally Posted by Optimus_Prime_

This is actually one problem I have with many incarnations of Batman, or at least I get the impression sometimes people make the case that Batman is just a regular dude, and that anyone would/could become him. I don't feel that way. I feel like Batman is a cosmic coincidence of sorts. He had all the wrong (or right) stuff happen. The death of his parents is greatly important to his development, but I think it's equally important to make the case that he is, by nature, an extraordinarily rare individual. Just the right combination of intelligence, emotionally immaturity and natural ability/resources to become what he became.

The way I see him, Batman is a lot like the Albert Einstein of crime-fighting. He is a genius who is obsessed with being the best at what he does, fighting crime in Gotham.
I like the way that Batman Begins handled his origin. They justified his vigilantism by portraying Gotham as a corrupt hellhole where the police do business with the crooks they are supposed to put in prison and the law is broken at an institutional level. At first, he doesn't think of crime-fighting, he just wants revenge against Joe Chill. When his opportunity is taken from him, he then makes his journey to save his city. It made him feel a little more relatable in that respect.

[JAK®]

Originally Posted by Godzilla2014

The way I see him, Batman is a lot like the Albert Einstein of crime-fighting. He is a genius who is obsessed with being the best at what he does, fighting crime in Gotham.
I like the way that Batman Begins handled his origin. They justified his vigilantism by portraying Gotham as a corrupt hellhole where the police do business with the crooks they are supposed to put in prison and the law is broken at an institutional level. At first, he doesn't think of crime-fighting, he just wants revenge against Joe Chill. When his opportunity is taken from him, he then makes his journey to save his city. It made him feel a little more relatable in that respect.

That's how it's always been in the comics. That part of the story was lifted straight from Year One

[Optimus_Prime_]

Originally Posted by Godzilla2014

The way I see him, Batman is a lot like the Albert Einstein of crime-fighting. He is a genius who is obsessed with being the best at what he does, fighting crime in Gotham.

I would compare him to Thomas Edison, but yeah, same basic point.

I like the way that Batman Begins handled his origin. They justified his vigilantism by portraying Gotham as a corrupt hellhole where the police do business with the crooks they are supposed to put in prison and the law is broken at an institutional level. At first, he doesn't think of crime-fighting, he just wants revenge against Joe Chill. When his opportunity is taken from him, he then makes his journey to save his city. It made him feel a little more relatable in that respect.

There were things I liked about Begins, and there were things I didn't. I liked that they made it a journey. I liked how they included Joe Chill, and how he went to kill him, but honestly I felt that scene would've been better if they had made Bruce 14 or 15 when he went to kill him. I feel like it would've been more powerful to see someone younger attempting to kill another human being. I also thought they made the reasons for his release too legitimate, instead he's being released for a very good reason (which only serves to get him killed). I never bought that they 'needed to have the trail out in the open' so Falconi could have him killed. Falconi could've had Joe Chill killed in prison, or really anywhere at anytime if he was as connected as the movie said. I was otherwise pretty fine with all that though - it didn't bother me, it's just not exactly how I would've handled it. Those are my minor nitpicks there.

[Godzilla2014]

Originally Posted by Optimus_Prime_

I would compare him to Thomas Edison, but yeah, same basic point.

There were things I liked about Begins, and there were things I didn't. I liked that they made it a journey. I liked how they included Joe Chill, and how he went to kill him, but honestly I felt that scene would've been better if they had made Bruce 14 or 15 when he went to kill him. I also thought they made the reasons for his release too legitimate, instead he's being released for a very good reason (which only serves to get him killed). Those are my minor nitpicks there.

What do you mean that the reasons for his release were too legitimate? What would you have preferred?

[Optimus_Prime_]

Originally Posted by Godzilla2014

What do you mean that the reasons for his release were too legitimate? What would you have preferred?

Personally I would've preferred Joe Chill be released because the system was too corrupt to convict him. The problem I had with the movie was that Joe Chill paid the price for his crime, and when they explained why he was being released I couldn't really sympathetize with Bruce as much as I would've liked to. The DA and Katie Holmes were clearly doing the right thing. I also felt like that whole sequence dragged a little bit because they used a lot of exposition explaining the events surrounding his trial. The shot of the Judge in the bar was enough to show that he was corrupt, and unfairly influenced the trial. Plus I didn't really care for the whole scene with Katie Holmes in the car talking to Bruce, she smirked through the whole scene. I didn't really need a bunch of explanation for why he was being released - I understand that the Justice system doesn't lock everyone away for the rest of their lives. They could've left the explanation for his release a bit more ambiguous and I think it would've improved the pacing of the movie. I didn't really have a problem with it, I just thought they overwrote that part of the movie. It also made me wonder why Carmine Falconi was in prison, and why he didn't just pay off the Judge to keep himself out in the first place.

I would've cut it down to it's essentials. Joe Chill is getting released, (a preferably younger) Bruce goes to kill him, and instead Joe Chill is killed a la Lee Harvey Oswald. Then maybe the movie hints in the bar scene that Joe Chill's death was because of some corrupt influence Carmine had over the Justice System. It would've in essence been the same idea, just quicker and with less exposition.

This is pretty much though my problem with BB. I think sometimes it was too thorough in explaining what was going on or how things came to be when it didn't need to be.

[Optimus_Prime_]

I also didn't like Wayne Industries going public, because it was basically a plot device to screw Mr. Earle at the end of the movie - the problem I had with it though is what Bruce did at the end (buying all those shares) is very illegal. It's basically insider trading. Also, ironically, since he returns in the movie he actually could've stopped them from going public right then and there.

Personally I felt Mr. Earle was the weakest antagonist in the film. Just kind of this "weapons = bad", "GRRRRR, no like new manager despite the fact that he doesn't really do anything wrong".