The Dark Knight Biggest Disappointment

[Harrygucha]

I almost LOL'd in the theater in the end when Gordon is doing the voice over. This is what I heard:

GORDON: He's not a hero. He's whatever Gotham needs him to be.

BATMAN: HRHRHRRRR TRHHHSS HRRR...

BATMAN: Put the dogs on me.

BATMAN: RRRRHAARRR.

Gordon: He's...a dark knight.

END.

 

[TheDarkJoker]

Too rushed for me.
And more Joker time!
He was a little absent in the first moments of the movie..

 

[I'm Batman.]

I didn't like the movie.

My biggest disappointments were that the Joker survived and the extremely short Scarecrow cameo. The shot at the end of Joker falling and laughing was ruined by Batman bringing him back up.

 

[Heretic]

The first moments of the film were Joker and his guys robbing a bank, Id hardly call that absent.

 

[Moviefan2k4]

My biggest disappointments were that the Joker survived...The shot at the end of Joker falling and laughing was ruined by Batman bringing him back up.

To his credit, director Christopher Nolan said from the very beginning that the Joker would not be killed off, as he openly felt that was a huge mistake on Tim Burton's part in the 1989 effort. So, a lot of folks probably went into "The Dark Knight" knowing the psychotic clown would survive.

 

[jtfaria]

It ended.

Right. The movie tried to do too much in too little time. This should have been a two-parter (2 hours each), with this one ending as Joker meets Harvey in the hospital ("Hello, Harvey!" - cut to credits). Second part released in September or November, and Batman chases Joker AND Two-Face all over Gotham, if not beyond.

There was a good deal cut out, and there are a good many transitional or extended scenes that COULD have been filmed to make the 2-parter. Fans would have been much more satisfied with an extended involvement of Two-Face, and a more satisfying conclusion. (Harvey is badly hurt, NOT Dead. Batman STILL takes the rap, covering up what Harvey did in hopes Harvey can recover mentally as well as physically. We can look forward to seeing Harvey again in a future flick.)

The basic story would remain the same, but the film would have had more room to breathe. The fans would have been more satisfied, with fewer choppy edits. We could have easily had more Scarecrow. Batmania would have extended through Christmas. And WB would have made more money. A win for everyone.

 

[DoomRulz]

Right. The movie tried to do too much in too little time. This should have been a two-parter (2 hours each), with this one ending as Joker meets Harvey in the hospital ("Hello, Harvey!" - cut to credits). Second part released in September or November, and Batman chases Joker AND Two-Face all over Gotham, if not beyond.

There was a good deal cut out, and there are a good many transitional or extended scenes that COULD have been filmed to make the 2-parter. Fans would have been much more satisfied with an extended involvement of Two-Face, and a more satisfying conclusion. (Harvey is badly hurt, NOT Dead. Batman STILL takes the rap, covering up what Harvey did in hopes Harvey can recover mentally as well as physically. We can look forward to seeing Harvey again in a future flick.)

Except that Heath Ledger is dead now so that wouldn't work. And this film managed to pull off all three stories together. It didn't end up being Spider-Man 3 all over again.

 

[bingy13]

I guess Bruce Wayne could have been in it a little more, and if he would have had just one flashback to his parents or something... I mean they are the cause of all this ya know...

 

[jtfaria]

Except that Heath Ledger is dead now so that wouldn't work. And this film managed to pull off all three stories together. It didn't end up being Spider-Man 3 all over again.

1) If they had planned the film as two parts, Ledger was very much alive to shoot it. In fact, had he not gone to NYC to 'chill' after TDK shoot, he might not have OD'd. Or, he might just have OD'd later. Who knows.

2) If they had realized they needed to turn this into 2 pieces AFTER Heath's death, they could very well have shot around him. The expanded scenes DID NOT have to be scenes including Joker.

 

[Schlosser85]

My biggest disappointments were that the Joker survived and the extremely short Scarecrow cameo. The shot at the end of Joker falling and laughing was ruined by Batman bringing him back up.

I would have been disappointed if Joker hadn't survived. That whole speech as he's hanging there telling Batman neither will kill the other and they're destined to do this forever is the perfect summation of their relationship in the comics.

 

[Batman jr.]

You can't do good for everyone. I was waiting for someone that said "I don't like fact that Joker lives".

He was always supposed to be ,at least a second big, villain in BB3.

 

[The Joker]

He was always supposed to be ,at least a second big, villain in BB3.

According to who?

 

[jtfaria]

I guess Bruce Wayne could have been in it a little more, and if he would have had just one flashback to his parents or something... I mean they are the cause of all this ya know...

I considered a scene in which Bruce is called in to inspect a restoration of a large family oil painting, mostly destroyed in the fire. This would have been an opportunity to reflect and foreshadow events, from several different possible angles. One would be for Alfred to recall how the Waynes faced hardships and unfair situations (such as Batman would face at film's end) that Bruce was too young to have been told when his parents were shot. It's these kinds of 'quiet' scenes where the audience has a chance to catch up between all the frenetic events and explosions.

 

[abcdefz]

Maybe I blinked and missed it, but I was disappointed that I didn't see that fantastic bazooka recoil from the trailers. His henchmen just kept loading and he kept firing.

Did I miss it?

 

[thejon93]

I don't think I heard anyone mention this one but a problem I had with this film were the two boats rigged to blow. Not only was the acting bland and cliche, but the whole scene was mediocre. If I recall, there was a mother with a child in that scene who was crying: "I have a child!". I honestly felt that she should've fought to get to the detonator. There should've been more drama and violence with that scene, like I thought that one of the cops should've shot someone out of fear on either boat, I would've liked to have seen much more tears shed apart from all of these unemotional faces. I'm sorry, but when you ground a film in reality like this one, and then you get a scene like this, you just say to yourself "WTF?!". I liked the message and Joker's response afterwards because usually the villain gets all po'd afterwards, a good example is from 'Batman '89' when Batman took the balloons and launched them into space. "He stole my balloons!" was Jacky's response but Joker's is just so simple and satisfying: "You just can't count on anyone these days". Great line, great response, one of the things that seperates The Joker from every other villain. Another problem I had is why Two-Face went after Gordon and his family, it was Batman who saved him after-all, so really he should be going after Batman and not Gordon. So now that I got that out of my system, I thought that once I got out of the film that they should've ended with a cliffhanger, leading Two-Face into the next film to seek revenge against Batman. They should've ended the film with the scene of Two-Face in the bar with the guy, that would've been perfection. But still, this film is indeed perfection and these little things don't make it any less than an absolute masterpiece.

 

[amazingfantasy15]

I would have been disappointed if Joker hadn't survived. That whole speech as he's hanging there telling Batman neither will kill the other and they're destined to do this forever is the perfect summation of their relationship in the comics.

Yeah, Joker's lines about the relationship between him and Bats was the exact reason why Joker should live.

My biggest disappointment was the Detective turned out to be working with the mob and not Montoya, kept thinking throughout the movie that was Montoya and the overweight guy was Bullock.

 

[AIRWOLF]

Even though movie was a bit fast, but it certainly did a better job at being consistent and not a mess like SM-3.

 

[james283126]

i loved this movie but at times it just felt as though they were throwing clips together a bit sloppy, and the editing botherd me because some of the takes from the trailers i thought were better and i thought joker should have got more screentime, and cranes voice didnt really sound like him all that much

 

[ross2287]

Right. The movie tried to do too much in too little time. This should have been a two-parter (2 hours each), with this one ending as Joker meets Harvey in the hospital ("Hello, Harvey!" - cut to credits). Second part released in September or November, and Batman chases Joker AND Two-Face all over Gotham, if not beyond.

There was a good deal cut out, and there are a good many transitional or extended scenes that COULD have been filmed to make the 2-parter. Fans would have been much more satisfied with an extended involvement of Two-Face, and a more satisfying conclusion. (Harvey is badly hurt, NOT Dead. Batman STILL takes the rap, covering up what Harvey did in hopes Harvey can recover mentally as well as physically. We can look forward to seeing Harvey again in a future flick.)

The basic story would remain the same, but the film would have had more room to breathe. The fans would have been more satisfied, with fewer choppy edits. We could have easily had more Scarecrow. Batmania would have extended through Christmas. And WB would have made more money. A win for everyone.

I agree with absolutely every word you said.

 

[d.k.]

My only minor complaint would be Bale's voice was a bit too much to understand at some points

 

[thejon93]

i loved this movie but at times it just felt as though they were throwing clips together a bit sloppy, and the editing botherd me because some of the takes from the trailers i thought were better and i thought joker should have got more screentime, and cranes voice didnt really sound like him all that much

The editing was fine, I loved how they kept looking back and forth towards the deaths of the commissioner and the judge, finally leading into The Joker at the mansion. The Joker had a great amount of screentime, he didn't feel overused nor underused, The Joker was perfection. Oh! And another problem I had with film, what was with Batman just bending the barrel on the shotgun in his first appearance? Unless it was fake, that was just a rediculous "WTF" moment, I caught onto it when somebody in the crowd mentioned it.

 

[Evelisse]

First off, I thought the movie was great,

One thing I would have liked to see is, a scene with The Joker interacting briefly with Bruce Wayne. Would have liked to hear what the Joker thought of him, <sort of like the Batman 89 scene in Vicky Vale's apartment>.

 

[3eyes]

I don't think I heard anyone mention this one but a problem I had with this film were the two boats rigged to blow. Not only was the acting bland and cliche, but the whole scene was mediocre. If I recall, there was a mother with a child in that scene who was crying: "I have a child!". I honestly felt that she should've fought to get to the detonator. There should've been more drama and violence with that scene, like I thought that one of the cops should've shot someone out of fear on either boat, I would've liked to have seen much more tears shed apart from all of these unemotional faces. I'm sorry, but when you ground a film in reality like this one, and then you get a scene like this, you just say to yourself "WTF?!". I liked the message and Joker's response afterwards because usually the villain gets all po'd afterwards, a good example is from 'Batman '89' when Batman took the balloons and launched them into space. "He stole my balloons!" was Jacky's response but Joker's is just so simple and satisfying: "You just can't count on anyone these days". Great line, great response, one of the things that seperates The Joker from every other villain. Another problem I had is why Two-Face went after Gordon and his family, it was Batman who saved him after-all, so really he should be going after Batman and not Gordon. So now that I got that out of my system, I thought that once I got out of the film that they should've ended with a cliffhanger, leading Two-Face into the next film to seek revenge against Batman. They should've ended the film with the scene of Two-Face in the bar with the guy, that would've been perfection. But still, this film is indeed perfection and these little things don't make it any less than an absolute masterpiece.

Two-Face went after Gordon because Gordon allowed the crooked cops in his division in the first place. If Gordon had listened to Dent earlier about working with them(I think he specifically points out Ramirez) then the whole kidnapping wouldn't have happened. That's why Two-Face is pissed off at Gordon.

 

[DACrowe]

Nolan doesn't cut movies in half. He wanted a single good complete vision as opposed to a two-parter just so fanboys could have more Joker and Two-Face killing people. Nolan made the right decisions in condensing the story. I think the first act was a little rushed (the begining to capturing Lao), but it ultimately worked very wel. Two movies of one story is self-indulgent and I am glad they didn't do the lame "stretch it over two movies." I could see it stretching to three hours with more introspection by Bruce and a slower build up to Joker at the beginning and his capture at the end...but going Pirates/Matrix divide a single story into two movies on this...no thanks.

 

[The_Raganork]

Right. The movie tried to do too much in too little time. This should have been a two-parter (2 hours each), with this one ending as Joker meets Harvey in the hospital ("Hello, Harvey!" - cut to credits). Second part released in September or November, and Batman chases Joker AND Two-Face all over Gotham, if not beyond.

There was a good deal cut out, and there are a good many transitional or extended scenes that COULD have been filmed to make the 2-parter. Fans would have been much more satisfied with an extended involvement of Two-Face, and a more satisfying conclusion. (Harvey is badly hurt, NOT Dead. Batman STILL takes the rap, covering up what Harvey did in hopes Harvey can recover mentally as well as physically. We can look forward to seeing Harvey again in a future flick.)

The basic story would remain the same, but the film would have had more room to breathe. The fans would have been more satisfied, with fewer choppy edits. We could have easily had more Scarecrow. Batmania would have extended through Christmas. And WB would have made more money. A win for everyone.

This is so silly.

one movie in July the other in September? Are you into film...like trying to make them?

The movie was fine; Harvey Dead...so what get over it! that's the story; i wasn't particularly upset he was dead; it was sad ; but, like he said "I can't escape this" Harvey Never intended on living probably; he wanted revenge for Rachel; other than that...what's he got to live for?

Why more scarecrow? It wasn't about him; he was in there cause annoying 'fans' would have *****ed about him not being in it; if nolan kept him out. What do you guys want?

I don't understand; ypou got a wonderful movie with a great story and actors and you're complaining that it wasn't enough!?

If you want a comic book timeline then you've got to read a comic; in the real world people die and keeping Harvey alive would not have made sense to his character. After trying to kill Gordon's family what would he have done?


Turned himself in and gone to jail...and I wouldn't want to see a film of Harvey Dent just sitting in a jail cell.

Appreciate the WONDERFUL film you got and write a fan-fic of these silly ideas; I'll read it;; but, i wouldn't DARE want to see Batman handled in such a careless manner.