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

[wikum]

The only shot a sequel has at beating TDK is if they go with A-listers, ramp up the spectacle, and go with the well-known villains.

this is EXACTLY right.

 

[SNIKT1950]

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.

Wait, wait, wait.

Are you telling me you believed a word the guy said?

The Joker woulda killed Batman eventually, I mean he had no way of knowing the new suit was rottweiler-proof.

The plan wasn't to antagonize Batman, it was to spread anarchy across Gotham by destroying the order of things.

Batman was part of that order, so at some point The Joker would wanna take him out.

 

[CFE]

I'm gonna go ahead and bump this again:

Making BB3 with the sole priority of doing better business then "TDK" would be an incredibly stupid move, IMO.

If Nolan decides that he has a sufficient means of telling the story the way he wants to tell it...and if he sees it as a worthwhile challenge rather than just doing it for the sake of doing it...then that's what Warners and the Producers need to respect and trust.

Just have faith in the story and the filmmaker...I'd rather have a well thought out and expertly executed "BB3" that doesn't top "TDK" financially then a rushed and absurd "BB3" that fails to top "TDK" anyway.

People also need to keep in mind now that, as was said before, there were numerous factors that led to "TDK"s Box Office..."TDK" makes it look easy, but trust me...$500 million is obviously not an easy number to reach.

So despite how well "TDK" has done, please do not use that financial success as the basis for grading any future 'Batman' movies.

What should be the true merit is the story and how passionate and faithful the filmmaker is to their interpretation of Batman. As long as the characters and their adventures are handled by filmmakers who care and are made with love and respect to the material, then that should mean more to fans than any sort of dollar amount.

CFE

As for who's story "The Dark Knight" was...It's Batman's.

The plot of "A terrorist and the men trying to stop him" is the surface.

The true plot is "Batman and the ramifications/consequences of his actions."

The backbone of the story is Dent and his psychological downfall at the hands of the Joker and yes the Joker plays a giant role in the story.

But the heart of the piece is Batman.

Batman is the reason the mob is crippled.
Batman is the force that has brought this chaos and madness to Gotham.
Batman is the inspiration for the Joker.
Batman is the catalyst for the fake Batmen.
Batman is the reason for Gordon and Dent to bend the rules a bit more then they might've without him.
Batman brings Lau back to Gotham.
Batman distracts/deals with Joker long enough for him to be caught the first time.
Batman informs Gordon of the Police with family members in the hospital.
Batman has the Sonar Device built in order to track down Joker.
Batman is the one who discovers the hostage and henchmen gag during the finale.
Batman is the one who prevents the cops from making fatal mistakes in the finale.
Batman catches Joker in the finale.
Batman saves Gordon's son.

And after all is said and done, the film ends with Batman making an incredible sacrifice in order for Gotham to retain its sense of hope in spite of the persecution and enmity the cops and the city at large now has for him.

"Begins" was the story of Bruce Wayne becoming Batman.

"TDK" is the story of Batman becoming 'The Dark Knight.'

And BB3, with any luck, will be the story of 'The Dark Knight' becoming a Legend.

------

CFE

 

[SNIKT1950]

This movie could have easily been called Gotham Falls or The Joker Takes Gotham.

Let me completely counter all that you have listed, for it is being orchestrated by your love of Batman at the expense of The Joker:

Batman is the reason the mob is crippled.

The mob is still up and going, that's why Harvey Dent doesn't trust most people in Gotham. Lau was gonna solve their money problem anyway.

Batman is the force that has brought this chaos and madness to Gotham.

That comment only applies to Batman Begins.

Batman is the inspiration for the Joker.

You don't know that. Nobody knows that. Nobody will ever know what he was really after.

Batman is the catalyst for the fake Batmen.

Who cares?

Batman is the reason for Gordon and Dent to bend the rules a bit more then they might've without him.

That doesn't make any sense because their rule bending didn't do a thing.

Batman brings Lau back to Gotham.

Yeah for nothing. The Joker ruined everything.

Batman distracts/deals with Joker long enough for him to be caught the first time.

Now I know you don't really understand The Joker character.

The Joker WANTED to be caught. Everything he did and that happened to him was planned. Even the fight with Batman at the end to give Harvey time to go nuts.

Batman informs Gordon of the Police with family members in the hospital.

Once again, who cares?

Batman has the Sonar Device built in order to track down Joker.

Once again for nothing. The people on the boats acted honorably by not blowing each other up and Batman completely BLEW IT by letting The Joker live.

Batman is the one who discovers the hostage and henchmen gag during the finale.

The ONLY good thing he did in the film besides catching Scarecrow.

Batman catches Joker in the finale.

Once again, that was part of the plan. It gave Dent time to go insane.

Batman saves Gordon's son.

Yes he did.

And after all is said and done, the film ends with Batman making an incredible sacrifice in order for Gotham to retain its sense of hope in spite of the persecution and enmity the cops and the city at large now has for him.

"Begins" was the story of Bruce Wayne becoming Batman.

Agreed.

"TDK" is the story of Batman becoming 'The Dark Knight.'

Agreed, but only partially.

He does become The Dark Knight in this one, but its not his story.

If it were, he'd be the protagonist of the piece like Popeye Doyle in The French Connection.

This is a reversed case of that movie - The Joker drives the film like Popeye Doyle while Batman watches from the backseat like Fernando Rey.

There are alot of crime dramas where the hero and the villain are equals.

Dark Knight is NOT one of them.

HEAT is the best example.

Dark Knight is a villain's journey.

The moment where you know that, is when Heath is standing outside the hospital lookin at the horizon as the place goes up in flames.

Batman doesn't have those moments in the film. Not once.

 

[metalhead_dave]

This movie could have easily been called Gotham Falls or The Joker Takes Gotham.

*a bunch of aggressively presented repeated opinions*

You are REALLY trying hammer your point aren't you. Jeez.

I mean what, are you just lurking and waiting for people to respond just so you can rerespond?

 

[hatebox]

Dark Knight is a villain's journey.

Couldn't disagree more. Emotionally, The Joker goes on no journey in TDK. He is EXACTLY the same at the end as he is in the beginning. And that's the point. Nolan intended him to be an absolute throughout the whole film, and he was.

Your argument appears to be that the Joker commits more actions in the film than Batman (something I'd argue with as it is), but that does not equate to it being his story at all.

I'm guessing by this point we're simply not going to agree on this.

 

[Crook]

I wouldn't say he's exactly the same at all. He doesn't go through a massive character arc, but even Nolan has said that he wanted to depict Joker as mentally deteriorating (i.e. crazier and crazier) as the film went on.

 

[hatebox]

I wouldn't say he's exactly the same at all. He doesn't go through a massive character arc, but even Nolan has said that he wanted to depict Joker as mentally deteriorating (i.e. crazier and crazier) as the film went on.

If that was the intention it was too subtly played out. The Joker's actions became grander, yes, but I'd say his state of mind was consistent.

I don't see the Joker who slayed Gambol as being any less crazy than the Joker who hung upside down.

 

[Crook]

It was played out by Joker's tone and personality. He was very grim in the first scenes, but as it went on, you could see he got a lot more playful and silly, albeit in a twistedly dark manner.

 

[SNIKT1950]

I wouldn't say he's exactly the same at all. He doesn't go through a massive character arc, but even Nolan has said that he wanted to depict Joker as mentally deteriorating (i.e. crazier and crazier) as the film went on.

Agreed.

The character reveals himself to be more and more twisted with each scene.

At first he could be deemed a homicidal bank robber.

Once he starts working for the mob, you could call him a psychotic hitman.

After Gotham burns he proves to be a terrorist by putting the hit on the accountant and blowing up the hospital.

Its a sort of progressive evil.

An evolution of evil.

A villain's journey.

 

[hatebox]

Like I said, the acts are progressively larger in spectacle but to me the Joker's mindset remains pretty consistent throughout the story. Yes, he aims to kill more people than ever by the end, but to me killing a lot anonymous people is no more crazy than taking the pleasure he does in killing a specific person close up.

Also his his 'playful' and 'sinister' personalities are spread out evenly over the whole film. Hell, the bit where I thought he was craziest was during the copycat batman video, and that was relatively near the beginning.

I've never read that progressively crazier quote from Nolan, but I know for a fact he said that TDK's Joker is an absolute throughout the movie with no story arc (he even used those exact words) so to say he goes on some kind of emotionally journey would slightly contradict that.

 

[christpunchers]

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.

I hate to agree with this but that is true.

The only way TDK could be topped is if the 3rd movie is much bolder and takes huge risks. That's why I'm hoping for a more realistic version of DKR (without supes or Robin). We can have Batman once again the center of the story yet it will be more interested as by then he would have battled all of the rogue villains that we've come to know. If we are just to do another TDKish film with the Riddler I'm afraid the general audience will just keep comparing him to the Joker, since the Joker was already as diabolic as they come.

And I have to agree that the Joker is a large reason why TDK is so good. He just breaks everything, people's spirits, their plans, their schemes. This is why the 3rd film, whether people will admit or not, HAS TO have a truly disturbed Bruce Wayne, a darker one that we haven't seen from Christian Bale as of this moment. He's got the chop, but let him go crazy, I would like to see that.

They have to really find ways to make the film more exciting WITHOUT a joker. What I mean is that I have friends who say "parts of the film were gold, but others I could sleep through". That's why I felt although TDK was good, they really missed the mark with Two Face... from the acting, to his lines (cheesy) and to his actions before he got scarred, he wasn't engaging enough. Even Bruce's scenes were sort of very "meh". I wasn't one bit convinced that he was going to quit or was gonna announce that he was the Batman.

Once you have a force like the Joker, it really makes the other scenes stand out less. I don't want there to be a 3rd film if once again people are just gonna wait for a villain like the Joker to pop up in the next scene.

 

[hatebox]

I hate to agree with this but that is true.

The only way TDK could be topped is if the 3rd movie is much bolder and takes huge risks. That's why I'm hoping for a more realistic version of DKR (without supes or Robin). We can have Batman once again the center of the story yet it will be more interested as by then he would have battled all of the rogue villains that we've come to know. If we are just to do another TDKish film with the Riddler I'm afraid the general audience will just keep comparing him to the Joker, since the Joker was already as diabolic as they come.

There's an easy solution to that: make Catwoman the main villain so the dynamic with batman is totally different to that of the Joker.

But make her different to how she was in BR otherwise it will just get compared to that.

 

[Crook]

Also his his 'playful' and 'sinister' personalities are spread out evenly over the whole film. Hell, the bit where I thought he was craziest was during the copycat batman video, and that was relatively near the beginning.

It was close to an hour of film when that scene occurred. I believe Nolan wanted to indicate how much of an effect Batman had on Joker himself.

If you notice, it wasn't until Joker decided to take on Batman that he began to laugh maniacally and generally enjoy his schemes more. Again, I reference the first 3 scenes; the bank, the mob discussion, and Gambol's death sequence. Joker was portrayed as dead serious and no-nonsense. That dramatically changes in the second half of the film where Joker is clearly having a blast in all the destruction he's caused.

It's even referenced on the phone call to Gotham Tonight. "I had a vision of a world without Batman........and it was sooo boring. I've had a change of heart...."

The inclusion of Batman in Joker's life has freed up the restraints to Joker's madness. He's been liberated and has found a true purpose; to do battle with him 'till the very end.

I've never read that progressively crazier quote from Nolan, but I know for a fact he said that TDK's Joker is an absolute throughout the movie with no story arc (he even used those exact words) so to say he goes on some kind of emotionally journey would slightly contradict that.

It's not much of an emotional journey so there is no contradiction. He is still very much the same person, but just a bit more unhinged with a focused priority.

 

[hatebox]

See, I see a lot of the playfulness even in the first 3 scenes. Especially the the mob meeting scene. I also see the Gambol scene as him about as unhinged as any other. In fact during the hospital explosion he comes across as calm and in control as ever.

I understand your point, I just don't agree with it. But now I'm off to bed.

 

[Crook]

You'll just have to disagree with the director then.

 

[SNIKT1950]

Reviewer David Denvy's thoughts on the matter mimic mine,

"An anarchist by philosophy, the Joker uses terrorist methods (bombs, bombs, bombs) and has an enormous advantage over the principled Batman—he’s ruthless. So the Joker taunts and giggles while Batman can only extend his wings.

It’s a workable dramatic conflict, but only half the team can act it.

Christian Bale has been effective in some films, but he’s a placid Bruce Wayne, a swank gent in Armani suits, with every hair in place. He’s more urgent as Batman, but he delivers all his lines in a hoarse voice, with an unvarying inflection. It’s a dogged but uninteresting performance, upstaged by the great Ledger, who shambles and slides into a room, bending his knees and twisting his neck and suddenly surging into someone’s face like a deep-sea creature coming up for air. Ledger has a fright wig of ragged hair; thick, running gobs of white makeup; scarlet lips; and dark-shadowed eyes. He’s part freaky clown, part Alice Cooper the morning after, and all actor. He’s mesmerizing in every scene. His voice is not sludgy and slow, as it was in “Brokeback Mountain.” It’s a little higher and faster, but with odd, devastating pauses and saturnine shades of mockery. At times, I was reminded of Marlon Brando at his most feline and insinuating."

Without The Joker, or better yet - without Heath's Joker, Batman III has no chance of topping The Dark Knight.

And I must say that Denvy's comments on Bale also mimic my own.

If Nolan gets a Depp or a Pearce, Batman will once more be upstaged but that means the overall film succeeds both critically and financially at the hands of the villain.

 

[Crook]

I don't really mind. Batman in all forms, has always succeeded BECAUSE of the fascinating world he's embedded in. Largely in thanks to the villains.

Without them, the entire mythos would have fallen apart a long time ago.

 

[christpunchers]

Yes that's exactly it. Nolan has to give Bruce things to say, and I want to see Bale's "A-game" not just "I'm in a really tiring Batsuit so I'll growl"/I'm a billionaire playboy with a secret so I'll act like a cocky *****. I mean even the scenes where he's not Batman, I felt that his performance was just lacking. Heath REALLY did a great job, while Oldman was just very "meh" (I could barely make out what he said to Dent the first time they met). And Ackhart? Well let's just say they could have chosen a more charismatic actor, and perhaps allow us a scene to show WHY he is the only DA who cares enough to take down the mob while the ones before him didn't have to the nerve to.

And that's why I would somewhat classify TDK as a Joker's movie. Half the time when even Batman was on screen I didn't care how awful his fighting styles were and what gizmos he's got (Sonar Vision done poorly), because he felt like a very linear character. I could only imagine what a perfect movie it could have been if we were given a borderline psychotic Bruce Wayne like Keaton.

 

[CFE]

Let me completely counter all that you have listed, for it is being orchestrated by your love of Batman at the expense of The Joker:

What the hell? I love Batman in the sense that I love his world and mythology, which includes the Joker.

The mob is still up and going, that's why Harvey Dent doesn't trust most people in Gotham. Lau was gonna solve their money problem anyway.

I said crippled...I didn't say it was dismantled.

That comment only applies to Batman Begins.

Really? I seem to recall Barbara screaming this exact concept when the police came to tell her of Jim's apparent "death" ...

You don't know that. Nobody knows that. Nobody will ever know what he was really after.

"But I know the truth...There's no going back. You've changed things...Forever."

The Joker might've been a common criminal if not for Batman...but he understands that the stakes have been raised.

Seriously, if there were no Batman, you think there'd be a Joker?

Who cares?

Just being observant of all that Batman was responsible for.

That doesn't make any sense because their rule bending didn't do a thing.

It makes plenty of sense. Just because it ultimately doesn't lead to anything isn't the point. It's both a story element and common element of the material that Dent praises Batman for being able to cross a line they can't. But Batman has a habit of inspiring people in multiple ways. Dent and Gordon act more off the cuff then usual DAs and Cops.

Yeah for nothing. The Joker ruined everything.

Again, being observant. And thanks to Batman taking the fall for Dent's atrocities...the Joker's victory is known only to Batman and Gordon.

Plus Batman bringing Lau back to Gotham was, again, a crutial element.

If it were, he'd be the protagonist of the piece like Popeye Doyle in The French Connection.

You're not using the title "Protagonist" right.

Dark Knight is a villain's journey.

No..."The Dark Knight" is a look at the consequences and aftermath of Bruce Wayne taking matters into his own vengeful hands as Batman.

Because of Batman...The Joker emerges with his particular persona, Rachel dies...there'd be no story without Wayne and his alter ego.

The moment where you know that, is when Heath is standing outside the hospital lookin at the horizon as the place goes up in flames.

Batman doesn't have those moments in the film. Not once.

If we're talking iconic character shots/moments:

1: Batman toppling onto Scarecrow's van.
2: Batman gliding towards LSI holdings.
3: Batman standing backlit atop the Sears tower
4: Batman working on the Richard Dent and Patrick Harvey scene, taking the portion of brick.
5: Batman standing beside the Bat-Pod, awaiting feedback from Lucius
6: Batman standing before the wreckage of 250 52nd street/Batman picking up Harvey's coin
7: Bruce sitting in costume in the Penthouse contemplating Rachel's Death

Not to mention pretty much the ENTIRE ending of the film...

Now I know you don't really understand The Joker character.

The Joker WANTED to be caught. Everything he did and that happened to him was planned. Even the fight with Batman at the end to give Harvey time to go nuts.

I know that...Both because I'm more than knowledgeable about Joker, but because Gordon says it outight.

Y'know, I think at this point...you're counterpointing is being orchestrated out of your love for Joker at the expense of Batman...so I'm just gonna stop right here...

-----

Harvey Dent is the Backbone of the film and that's common knowledge.

And the Joker is the Heart of the film...

But Batman is the Soul of the film.

Yes the Joker physically drives the film, as has been stated before. His physical actions of threatening the hospital or setting charges on the ferries or attacking Loeb, Serrilo and Dent simultaneously physically push the plot forward on a superficial level...

But there'd be no character or personality of the film without Batman.

The Joker, while intelligent and incredibly perceptive, is by in large a one dimensional character.

And the heart may keep the thing going on the most basic of levels, but the soul of the thing is what truly gives it life.

That's why a Joker stand alone film wouldn't work...no matter what Brett Ratner or anyone else says.

And talk about not knowing the Joker. I know the Joker well enough to know that just because Heath Ledger gives a brilliant Oscar-worthy performance and steals every scene he's in doesn't make it a Joker film.

CFE

 

[Melkay]

I don't really mind. Batman in all forms, has always succeeded BECAUSE of the fascinating world he's embedded in. Largely in thanks to the villains.

Without them, the entire mythos would have fallen apart a long time ago.

Let's take two movies liked by critics and fans alike: "Begins" and "Mask Of The Phantasm". In both movies Bruce/Batman's role is considerably larger and more relevant than his villains. Are you saying they didn't succeed as movies?

 

[SNIKT1950]

Let's take two movies liked by critics and fans alike: "Begins" and "Mask Of The Phantasm". In both movies Bruce/Batman's role is considerably larger and more relevant than his villains. Are you saying they didn't succeed as movies?

They succeeded as movies for the fans, but didn't stand out critically or financially.

The Dark Knight is both a financial juggernaut and a potential Oscar Nominee for many categories.

 

[Melkay]

Agreed.

The character reveals himself to be more and more twisted with each scene.

At first he could be deemed a homicidal bank robber.

Once he starts working for the mob, you could call him a psychotic hitman.

After Gotham burns he proves to be a terrorist by putting the hit on the accountant and blowing up the hospital.

Its a sort of progressive evil.

An evolution of evil.

A villain's journey.

OMG.... are you Thomas Schiff?

 

[Melkay]

They succeeded as movies for the fans, but didn't stand out critically or financially.

The Dark Knight is both a financial juggernaut and a potential Oscar Nominee for many categories.

Well, forget my question above... you're definetely Schiff.

MOTP sunk financially but it was (eventually) extremely well receiced among critics. Let me quote Wikipedia:

"...filmmakers blamed Warner Bros. for the unsuccessful marketing campaign; however, Mask of the Phantasm would eventually pass its $6 million budget with its various home video releases."

Annddd.....

"Based on 23 reviews collected by Rotten Tomatoes, Batman: Mask of the Phantasm received an average 87% overall approval rating."


Not happy about that? Let's talk Begins... the film was the first of a reboot that was so succesful that led to a sequel which is now the second highest grossing moive of all time.

And here comes Wikipedia again to the rescue:

"Batman Begins was critically and commercially successful. The film opened on June 15, 2005 in the United States and Canada in 3,858 theaters. It grossed US$48 million in its opening weekend, eventually grossing $370 million worldwide. The film received an 84% overall approval rating from Rotten Tomatoes."

Dare to explain what happened there?

I've seen your posts and I don't agree with a single thing you've said there. The end of the story orchestrated by the Joker? If you happened to walk out of the theater when Dent died, maybe.... but Batman's final decision... THAT'S the end of the movie. And that decision is partially what it makes it so heavy and sucessful with among the critics. Did Ledger's performance outshined Bale's? Yes, it did. But the character was not wrote to be the centerpiece of the story. He was there to be the main threat, not the protagonist. Ledger got the best out of him, but he was never meant to be publicized as the film driving force. If you happened to go to a theater with a bigger Joker's poster than the rest of them, that's a theater decision, not WB's or Nolan's. Ledger's death became the main reason for many people unfamiliar with the Batman mythos to see the movie, that's why the theater chose to publicize his character more than the others... to attract audience. But what about the 18-feet high bill with Bats and the batpod? Or the other three posters that showed Batman only? Or THE TITLE OF THE MOVIE?

You're being too silly for this argument and I wish people here just ignored you.
Props to ComicFilmExpert for putting you in your place.

 

[SNIKT1950]

I've seen your posts and I don't agree with a single thing you've said there. You're being too silly for this argument and I wish people here just ignored you.

Props to ComicFilmExpert for putting you in your place.

Buddy ---> You're being a tad bit confrontational for no good reason.

If you can't debate politely or dissagree with me through kind words, maybe you oughtta stay out of this discussion.

COMICFILMEXPERT didn't show me any hostility during our debate, so don't bring him up.