The Dark Knight Rises Could BB3 beat TDk if...

[spideyman101]

Film 2 is the peak, cannot be topped. Though that doesn't mean we have to give up a trilogy. Who says the sequel HAS to top the previous film? We were very happy with Batman Begins. BB can definatly be topped by a 3rd film. I think they need to keep TDK in mind while making the 3rd, but in the end, focus on trying to top BB, not TDK. I think a 4th, 5th and 6th film is even possible. But the fact that the 2nd film will most likely ALWAYS be the best will take away from the series ONLY when people allow it to. I think a 3rd, 4th, 5th and 6th will give Nolan (and whoever steps in latter) a chance to break that unwritten rule about sequels ALWAYS topping the last... I mean, that's the rule that ruined Spider-Man! Raimi should've been bent on making a film that is as good as Spidey 2... but instead he went too far and we got what we know today as "Spider-Man 3".

 

[jmc]

I keep reading comments that the reason Nolan won't return is out of fear, what if he feels artistically like he can do no more with the series? Would people begrudge him for that? For giving all he got into the last two movies and not being able to see any further direction he can take the series? It's quite easy for people on the sideline to say Nolan will return, I'm sorry but we don't know the guy. The funny thing is, even after Nolan has created one of the best film series ever and totally did justice to the character, I'm willing to bet if he was to come out tomorrow and announce he wasn't doing Batman 3 fanboys would turn on him in an instant, all because they didn't get their precious trilogy.

 

[gwynplaine]

^^^^ I am a fanboy and whatever Nolan's decision is regarding Pt3, I'll always be thankful to him for TDK. Thanks to him I saw the Joker vs Batman done right on the big screen (or any screen) in my lifetime.

 

[BigCityBoy]

Imho, I really can't see where the story can go after TDK. To me, I feel, anything made after TDK would be forced and mediocre if not lousy. Thats what happen with the Blade trilogy (Blade 3). Heaven forbid if David Goyer directs the possible third movie if Nolan decides not to come back. David is a good writer but lousy director.

 

[Dcknight]

Nolan like the actors who are fearless, what now is making a big question is if B3 will be as good, is the villain will be as interesting. Let's see now if Nolan is as fearless as his actor choice.

 

[SNIKT1950]

Batman didn't get pushed to the side by the villains in TDK.

I dissagree and so does most of TDK's fanbase.

Its a Joker movie disguised as a Batman movie, or better yet a crime film that happens to feature Batman.

Nolan opens the film with Heath and closes it with Harvey's downfall at the hands of Heath.

Batman was really helpless in this film, and that worked.

Nolan knew what he was doing when he put Heath front and center.

 

[hatebox]

The best approach Nolan can take with the third one is make it as different to TDk as TDK was for BB. If it is both different and good, we'll finally have a truly great superhero trilogy.

 

[hatebox]

I dissagree and so does most of TDK's fanbase.

Its a Joker movie disguised as a Batman movie, or better yet a crime film that happens to feature Batman.

Nolan opens the film with Heath and closes it with Harvey's downfall at the hands of Heath.

Batman was really helpless in this film, and that worked.

Nolan knew what he was doing when he put Heath front and center.

Batman being helpless doesn't mean it wasn't his movie.

TDK was NEVER told from the Joker's point of view, it was never the Joker's story, and that's the crucial difference between the film and B89.

TDK was batman, Gordon and Dent's story. It was their arc, and the drama came from their evolution and eventual resolution. The Joker is only ever the antagonist, and remains exactly the same throughout the entire film. He creates conflict, but has no conflict with himself.

 

[SNIKT1950]

Batman being helpless doesn't mean it wasn't his movie.

TDK was NEVER told from the Joker's point of view, it was never the Joker's story, and that's the crucial difference between the film and B89.

TDK was batman, Gordon and Dent's story. It was their arc, with the Joker only ever as the antagonist.

We must have been watching two different movies because TDK was NOT Batman's story.

The best review I read for the film said something like this: " Its a movie about a terrorist and the men who are trying to stop him."

Batman, Dent and Gordon are really all supporting characters in a Joker movie.

If you were to remove The Joker from the movie, the movie falls.

If you removed any of the other three ---> nothing changes.

If Gordon really died, the Joker would still go through with his plans.

If The Joker killed Batman after the Batpod incident, The Joker would still go through with his plans.

If The Joker had just killed Harvey instead of cooking him, The Joker would STILL go through with his plans.

Batman 3 is gonna have to be about Batman, unless Nolan feels the villain is once again a more interesting character.

The Joker sure was.

 

[DoomGeneration]

We must have been watching two different movies because TDK was NOT Batman's story.

The best review I read for the film said something like this: " Its a movie about a terrorist and the men who are trying to stop him."

Batman, Dent and Gordon are really all supporting characters in a Joker movie.

If you were to remove The Joker from the movie, the movie falls.

If you removed any of the other three ---> nothing changes.

If Gordon really died, the Joker would still go through with his plans.

If The Joker killed Batman after the Batpod incident, The Joker would still go through with his plans.

If The Joker had just killed Harvey instead of cooking him, The Joker would STILL go through with his plans.

Batman 3 is gonna have to be about Batman, unless Nolan feels the villain is once again a more interesting character.

The Joker sure was.

but the joker has no character arc. he simply moves the plot along. batman and harvey dent do have character arcs.

 

[hatebox]

We must have been watching two different movies because TDK was NOT Batman's story.

The best review I read for the film said something like this: " Its a movie about a terrorist and the men who are trying to stop him."

Batman, Dent and Gordon are really all supporting characters in a Joker movie.

If you were to remove The Joker from the movie, the movie falls.

If you removed any of the other three ---> nothing changes.

If Gordon really died, the Joker would still go through with his plans.

If The Joker killed Batman after the Batpod incident, The Joker would still go through with his plans.

If The Joker had just killed Harvey instead of cooking him, The Joker would STILL go through with his plans.

Batman 3 is gonna have to be about Batman, unless Nolan feels the villain is once again a more interesting character.

The Joker sure was.

You're missing the bigger point though: the Joker himself NEVER changes. The other three change significantly. The film is about the effect the Joker has on them. They have the story arcs, they have the drama, the evolve and resolve: it's their story.

It's like Jaws: it's not actually the shark's story, it's about the effect the shark has on the 3 protagonists.

 

[SNIKT1950]

Well you guys are proving my point by saying The Joker drives the film.

Drives is an awefully similar term to Leads [the film].

I don't agree with the shark comparison though, because the character did have an arc, an arc of rising deception and terror.

He started out as a Bank robber, that made himself into a "man-dog" gun for hire, that put together a crew that out of fear followed him into a quest to burn the city - only to learn he was burning it for the thrill and not for the money.

He's an indefinable force hence something more than just a plague on the film's victims.

The Joker's opening shot in the film gives no warning of what he is to become after two hours.

When he said "This is MY town. Tell your men they work for me..." I was shocked because we were meant to believe he was working with the mob.

He grows more and more twisted.

Harvey and Batman just keep losing more and more things.

Without The Joker there was no movie.

Without Batman there coulda been ALOT more movie.

 

[hatebox]

Well you guys are proving my point by saying The Joker drives the film.

Drives is an awefully similar term to Leads [the film].

Unless it's an origin story the villain/antagonist usually is the one to drive the film. I mean, if you have a story with the Joker in it's always going to be him doing things first and Batman responding to those things.

I don't really know how else to convey what I mean though when I'm talking about the idea of TDK being from batman's point of view rather than the Joker's. That's the crux of the matter but clearly we're approaching this from different angles.

Funnily enough, if you were complaining that TDK was more about Dent than Bruce I'd find it harder to disagree with you...

 

[TheScarecrow]

If anyone took the focus off of Batman in TDK it was Dent, not The Joker. You're arguement that "nothing changes" The Joker's plan is completely moot. The same can be said about the villains in BB.

 

[scifiwolf]

Asking if Nolan can beat TDK is too broad a question. Critically? Among fans? At the box office? Critically and among the fans, it certainly can. However, I'm not so sure about the box office. I think, if Nolan wants to draw the people in, he needs to dangle Catwoman or Riddler as bait. He can keep the focus on Bruce, but the general public needs that hook in the villain to go see the movie. Once they're in the seats, it doesn't matter. If the movie's as good as TDK, word of mouth will bring audiences en mass.

 

[SNIKT1950]

If anyone took the focus off of Batman in TDK it was Dent, not The Joker. You're arguement that "nothing changes" The Joker's plan is completely moot. The same can be said about the villains in BB.

What movie were you watching???

Haven't you noticed The Joker is the character that stood out in TDK?

He stood out because without his character the film goes nowhere.

He's also the reason why Nolan might not pursue another Batman film.

Batman was the star of Batman Begins.

The Joker was the star of The Dark Knight.

 

[silentflute]

I dissagree and so does most of TDK's fanbase.

Its a Joker movie disguised as a Batman movie, or better yet a crime film that happens to feature Batman.

That's complete crap.In no way is this a Joker movie.The movie has Bruce and harvey go through major arcs-it's their story.A Joker movie - and a bad one at that - would be Batman 89.


Nolan opens the film with Heath and closes it with Harvey's downfall at the hands of Heath.

And that makes it a Joker movie?Spielberg opens Jaws with a shark and ends it with the downfall of the shark, but the film is not about "'a shark'".



Batman was really helpless in this film, and that worked.

Batman was not "really helpless" in the film.Far from it.



Nolan knew what he was doing when he put Heath front and center.

Actually, he didn't put him front and center.if he had, the movie would have sucked.Ther would be nothing ore boring than a "Joker movie".Without Batman to feed off of the character loses a lot.Brett ratner is an idiot.

 

[silentflute]

We must have been watching two different movies because TDK was NOT Batman's story.

Sure it was. And equally Harvey's story.

The best review I read for the film said something like this: " Its a movie about a terrorist and the men who are trying to stop him."

True, but that's not ALL it's about..

Batman, Dent and Gordon are really all supporting characters in a Joker movie.

********.

If you were to remove The Joker from the movie, the movie falls.

Obviously.The antagonist was meant to be the Joker.

If you removed any of the other three ---> nothing changes.

So if you removed Bruce or Hthe movie would be the same?Absolute crap.

If Gordon really died, the Joker would still go through with his plans.

And your point is?

If The Joker killed Batman after the Batpod incident, The Joker would still go through with his plans.

If The Joker had just killed Harvey instead of cooking him, The Joker would STILL go through with his plans.

Batman 3 is gonna have to be about Batman, unless Nolan feels the villain is once again a more interesting character.

The Joker sure was.

No, to YOU he was. Personaly, I feel Harvey was a much more interesting character than the Joker.And I love the Joker.But the key to the Joker's sucess as a character is to use him well - and part of that is knowing when not to use him.

 

[jpmuftak]

The only way the sequel will beat TDK is if they use someone like Johnny Depp and he DIES before the film is released. AND the movie is actually good.

 

[Jokeneser]

In any movie, any main, supporting, and antagonizing characters removed would dramatically change the movie: bottomline. The movie wouldn't change if Batman was taken out of The Dark Knight? Please! A movie sucks majorly if nothing would change by taking out a character. The outcome would change even if Gambol was taken out...

But why must this film be a specific person's movie? You could say that this story is great because all characters share mass importance to what occurs. Yes, the portrayal of the Joker was great, but the psychology of Dent was way more dynamic. One could say that is why Ledger studied A Clockwork Orange for his character: that is exactly what the character is. He is interesting yet does not change what he does, thinks, etc. Dent may not be as theatrical, but his transition was done beautifully by Aaron.

It is a Batman movie, helped by Gordon, effected by the Joker and surrounding Dent: it's a marvelous formula...

 

[SNIKT1950]

And that makes it a Joker movie?Spielberg opens Jaws with a shark and ends it with the downfall of the shark, but the film is not about "a shark".

You CANNOT possibly continue to compare a shark with potential Academy Award Nominee Heath Ledger. You simply cannot.

Batman was not "really helpless" in the film. Far from it.

Far from it???

What exactly was he able to prevent The Joker from doing?

N O T H I N G

The one thing he coulda done, he didn't do - which was allowing The Joker to die from the fall.

Actually, he didn't put him front and center. If he had, the movie would have sucked.Without Batman to feed off of the character loses a lot.

If that was true, The Dark Knight would not be the 2nd highest grossing Domestic movie of all time and the 4th highest grossing Worldwide movie of all time.

The last movie where Nolan put Batman front and center barely made $200 Million.

If this isn't front and center, then tell me what is...

That was hanging at the IMAX where I saw it for the first time, and it was bigger than any other poster there featuring Batman.

Let's not forget who's on the DVD cover, Batman only got the outer sleeve.

Brett ratner is an idiot.

WHAT are you talking about???

Sure it was. And equally Harvey's story.

So it was the story of how Harvey Dent and Batman BOTH fail to do anything about the monster wreaking havok on Gotham.

Yet we're allowed to see more screentime from the monster than we do of his victims...Yeah ok.

True, but that's not ALL it's about..

The reviewer was just summarizing the plot in a few words.

*********.

If that's your way of denying the fact that Harvey, Gordon and Batman are supporting characters, then I recommend you watch this film again and take what I've written below this as a map.

Obviously.The antagonist was meant to be the Joker.

Exactly, in this movie the antagonist is the protagonist.

And your point is?

My point is if a supporting character is killed, a film CAN continue.

No, to YOU he was. Personaly, I feel Harvey was a much more interesting character than the Joker. And I love the Joker. But the key to the Joker's sucess as a character is to use him well and part of that is knowing when not to use him.

Don't know what you mean by any of this, but to wrap up my sentiments on the matter, If The Joker killed Batman after he crashed off the Batpod, ALL of the events that took place after would have transpired.

Nothing would have changed.

The people on the boats would have still chosen not to blow each other up, Harvey would still become a vigilante, Rachel would still be dead and most probably the Mayor too.

Batman sat by as The Joker destroyed the city.

That was Chris Nolan's brilliant choice, the brilliant choice that makes this a great film and not just ANOTHER superhero movie.

Its a crime drama, and hopefully Nolan will continue to think like this if he makes a third one.

 

[Quantum39]

It really boils down to a matter of what the story lends itself to. Sometimes, Batman can really work best when he's more of a mysterious character, secluded in the shadows and taking everything in. Adds to the effect of the character. But again, that depends on the story.

Other times, delving into Bruce Wayne's psyche seems the most interesting way to go, considering how much he places on himself and how much torture he sustains within his own mind, such as never letting go of the memory of the murder of his parents.

It also depends on the villain. If it's someone that Nolan chooses to develop through their criminal counterpart rather than their origin, like The Joker, then it doesn't require as much focus as Batman. But if it's someone who requires that development to invest the audience into the villain, like Harvey Dent's transformation into Two-Face, then Batman may have to share the spotlight.

 

[hatebox]

Don't know what you mean by any of this, but to wrap up my sentiments on the matter, If The Joker killed Batman after he crashed off the Batpod, ALL of the events that took place after would have transpired.

You forget one massive point though: Joker did his actions to antagonize batman. He only came out of the woodwork because Batman did, as even BB alluded to. No Batman, no Joker. Without Batman, the Joker isn't half as interesting. he is defined by their relationship.

PS: It was Nolan himself who compared Joker to Jaws.

 

[SNIKT1950]

You forget one massive point though: Joker did his actions to antagonize batman. He only came out of the woodwork because Batman did, as even BB alluded to. No Batman, no Joker. Without Batman, the Joker isn't half as interesting. he is defined by their relationship.

PS: It was Nolan himself who compared Joker to Jaws.

We really don't know if The Joker did what he did to destroy Batman as a symbol.

I think his plan was to burn Gotham and Batman became his opponent by being Gotham's protector.

*Nolan was referring to JAWS as a threat of force not as a character/study comparison to The Joker.

 

[hatebox]

We really don't know if The Joker did what he did to destroy Batman as a symbol.

I think his plan was to burn Gotham and Batman became his opponent by being Gotham's protector.

But, as Joker himself explicitly stated, he didn't want to kill batman. He enjoys batman, so it's arguable that he wouldn't have bothered to carry out his plan if Batman were dead because antagonizing Batman is the plan.