The Dark Knight Biggest Disappointment

[Travesty]

The only way to explain Gambol dying there is that Joker snapped his neck as he cut him.

But you see, that is what makes it sloppy. The Joker clearly has a knife in his mouth, and we have to debate on how he could have died so fast. If the scene was clear enough to understand, then we wouldn't be having this discussion.

 

[Ace of Knaves]

If the scene was clear enough to understand the politically correct, over sensitive censors wouldn't of given it a PG13.

I'm sure they wanted to show it, but couldn't.

 

[Travesty]

If the scene was clear enough to understand the politically correct, over sensitive censors wouldn't of given it a PG13.

I'm sure they wanted to show it, but couldn't.

Well, I'm not worried about "what could have been", I'm just expressing my opinion on "what is", and to me, the scene is sloppy.

 

[Ace of Knaves]

Blame the censors then, not the filmmakers.

 

[Travesty]

Blame the censors then, not the filmmakers.

I'm not really blaming anybody here. I don't know for certain that Nolan didn't want it to be this way, and I don't know for certain that any censors told Nolan to take out any scenes, either. Again, I'm just talking about the finished product.

 

[Bats]

It was either here or somewhere else where someone said you could die from such a wound (the Glasgow Smile). Also read that it appears Joker thrusts upwards with the knife. Either way, Gambol could have died from his wounds later and merely collapsed after getting cut.

 

[Ace of Knaves]

Whoever said you could die from a glasgow smile was talking out of their ash. I've seen plenty of people with glasgow smiles. The only way you could die is if you bled out for like, 5 days. And you wouldn't just pass out from it, you'd be screaming in pain.

The only logical explanation is Joker snapped his neck in the process.

 

[Travesty]

The only logical explanation is Joker snapped his neck in the process.

Which wasn't shown to us, so the scene is sloppy.

 

[Bats]

Whoever said you could die from a glasgow smile was talking out of their ash. I've seen plenty of people with glasgow smiles. The only way you could die is if you bled out for like, 5 days. And you wouldn't just pass out from it, you'd be screaming in pain.

The only logical explanation is Joker snapped his neck in the process.

You kind of contradicted yourself saying that you couldn't die from it and then you could. What I said was that whatever wound Gambol received possibly didn't kill him instantly. Instead he fell to the floor and died however much later.

 

[mothy]

Which wasn't shown to us, so the scene is sloppy.

i don't think it is. does every single detail really need to be explained and shown to us? what we don't see is often more frightening than what we do. imagination is a good thing.

 

[Travesty]

i don't think it is. does every single detail really need to be explained and shown to us? what we don't see is often more frightening than what we do. imagination is a good thing.

Haha, some directors can pull it off, that scene was not that great for suspension, nor, disbelief. Like I said, I don't care for the blood and guts. It was just straight up sloppy, IMO. Sorry....

 

[The Joker]

i don't think it is. does every single detail really need to be explained and shown to us? what we don't see is often more frightening than what we do. imagination is a good thing.

I agree.

Showing the horrified reaction of one of Gambol's thugs, complete with the loud shock music, was fab.

 

[Ace of Knaves]

You kind of contradicted yourself saying that you couldn't die from it and then you could. What I said was that whatever wound Gambol received possibly didn't kill him instantly. Instead he fell to the floor and died however much later.

Well yea you CAN but like I said, it would take a LONG time and you would definitely not just slump to the floor silently, you'd be screaming in agony.

 

[lzzy]

I'm sure Gambol passed out immediately due to that massive dirty knife ripping his face, he likely died very soon after, froom blood loss and/or shock.

 

[returntovoid]

That's why I've never got all this talk of TDK pushing the bounderies of PG-13, coz it most certainly didn't.

Neither did I get the fuss about it pushing the PG-13 rating.

Reading critics review with them saying it pushed the boundaries was laughable.

The only Bat-Film that was pushing it was Batman Returns.

If TDK did really push it, there would have been a backlash like the one that happened with Returns but there was no backlash towards TDK.

The only way to explain Gambol dying there is that Joker snapped his neck as he cut him.

That's definitely a logical explanation.

 

[Ace of Knaves]

I'm sure Gambol passed out immediately due to that massive dirty knife ripping his face, he likely died very soon after, froom blood loss and/or shock.

People don't instantly pass out from being stabbed. And seeing as Gambol is a gangster who has probably seen/been in the **** before, I doubt he would be a squeamish little girl and pass out.

You guys are stretching it way to far. I know from witnessing such acts, people do not just pass out.

 

[Bathead]

As has been shown here with all the different speculations as to what exactly happened, sometimes NOT being as graphic as Nolan could have been in that scene can be more horrifying as the individual's imagination can conjure up much more terrible images than what could be shown on screen.

 

[lzzy]

People don't instantly pass out from being stabbed. And seeing as Gambol is a gangster who has probably seen/been in the **** before, I doubt he would be a squeamish little girl and pass out.

You guys are stretching it way to far. I know from witnessing such acts, people do not just pass out.

It was only an excuse for the scene. There's no definitive answer as the movie showed nothing in regards to Gambol dying.

 

[BestGirl]

Neither did I get the fuss about it pushing the PG-13 rating.

Reading critics review with them saying it pushed the boundaries was laughable.

The only Bat-Film that was pushing it was Batman Returns.

If TDK did really push it, there would have been a backlash like the one that happened with Returns but there was no backlash towards TDK.

The actual violence wasn't particularly graphic, but the situations the Joker created were realistic to the point of being frightening. That Batman hostage video, the Gambol killing, shooting the cop from the truck, and the ferry crisis left me feeling very uneasy in the theater, and I'm an adult. Burton's violence was rather cartoonish, by comparison. At least, that's how I remember it.

 

[Brother Jack]

It wasn't so much the huge body count, the violence or anything like that that really made the film so dark (but it certainly helped). It was the tone that Nolan set.

 

[returntovoid]

TDK didn't scare me, at all.

If the violence was not shown, then the talk of pushing the boundaries of the PG-13 rating does not mean s**t.

Yes, Burton's violence was cartoony but it was shown the most in Returns.

In Batman 89, you only had the Joker frying a person with a joy buzzer.

In Batman Returns, there way was more.

 

[Travesty]

Another disappointment for me, was one aspect of Two-Face that they never showed. We never truly saw Two-Face flip-lop from Harvey to Two-Face, it was just straight up Two-Face after his transformation. And while I still think Two-Face was the best part of TDK, I just wish we saw the flip-flop effect, where we see Harvey for a second wondering what he's doing, then back to the blind rage of Two-Face.

 

[Ace of Knaves]

^Yea that would of been cool.

Maybe have him as an actual schizo. Arguing with himself about killing Weurtz.

"He should face justice in a court of law"

"No, he just face our justice!"

"Let's flip on it"

Something to that effect, but obviously less cheesy

 

[Bat-Mite]

If TDK did really push it, there would have been a backlash like the one that happened with Returns but there was no backlash towards TDK.

There wasn't a backlash about it because the times have changed. Some people let their children watch shows like True Blood and things like that these days. Hell, I remember some overly religious types taking their 6 year old children to see Passion of the Christ when it came out, even though it was more gory than any horror movie I've ever seen. I also don't remember anyone objecting to Kate Winslet's nude body being shown in a PG-13 movie, and that was over ten years ago.

If the violence was not shown, then the talk of pushing the boundaries of the PG-13 rating does not mean s**t.

Showing a man screaming in agony as his body burns (immediately after his girlfriend is murdered, no less) and then showing the after effects isn't violent? Showing a bunch of thugs shooting each other to death and running one over with a bus? A man getting a pencil impaled through his eye? Car bombs, drinking acid, three corpses with grins carved into their faces, a man being sat on fire while he sits atop a pile of money? Citizens trying to assassinate Reese due to Joker's threats against their loved ones? Batman breaking Maroni's leg? Two-Face holding a gun to a child's head? None of this is violent?

If anything, it was far more extreme than what happened in Burton's films. His films had Joker shooting people, gassing them, and an extremely cartoony joybuzzer scene. The second one had Catwoman scratching someone, stabbing Batman with her claws, Penguin biting a man's nose, Batman setting a guy on fire, and him strapping a bomb to a man's chest. While these acts were no doubt violent, they still were more often than not portrayed in a cartoony manner, and weren't nearly as extreme as what TDK showed, IMO.

Also, from what I remember, the protests against BR were largely due to sexuality. Penguin made several sexual remarks towards Catwoman. Catwoman made various references to Batman's anatomy and dressed in an S&M costume (complete with a whip!) and licked him while sitting on top of him. TDK didn't have anything remotely sexual, from what I recall.

 

[Ace of Knaves]

The joy buzzer scene was more disturbing than anything in TDK IMO. And no not because it had a cartoony burnt corpse. But because of the way Joker was talking to him, real disturbing like.

And you talk about the bank scene? How the hell was that violent? In fact, when the bank manager got shot in the GUT and there was not one single drop of blood it took me out of the scene. Or when the guy got shot with the shot gun...no blood at all? C'mon you could get away with that "violence" on TV before the watershed.

And I ain't one of these blood and guts fanatics. But it just took me out of the scene. **** Indiana Jones is more violent than TDK.

Hell even Star Wars: A New Hope had blood in it when Ben cut that guys arm off in the bar.

So why was there not one single drop of blood in this film?