The Dark Knight Likes And Dislikes

[Rikxiepoo]

Batman 3 is already in the works.

It would take the apocolypse for TDK not to be a major B.O. success. I don't think that scene is necessary to secure a sequel.

Sequels are always in works. Box office is what green lights them. Obviously TDK wont bomb, but they want to recover as much money as possible by reaching a wide audience. Plus the more money they recover the more money then can spend in a second sequel .

 

[Phallic]

The fact that it is a Batman movie is enough to sell the movie to kids.

 

[Drz]

Batman 3 is already in the works.

Proof? ;o

 

[Rikxiepoo]

The fact that it is a Batman movie is enough to sell the movie to kids.

The fact that there is a clown in this movie is enough to sell the movie to kids .

 

[BatmanFanatic]

and for the record my son is ten and will be with me opening night. and he will be just fine.

Well that's up to you, I may be more protective but then I haven't exactly gotten to see the film and dissect it's objectionable content either. If he's seeing this Batman at 10, how old was he when he saw Batman Returns? Just curious.

But anyway those kids in the tv spot were like what, 5? Five year olds don't need to go see a a PG-13 movie. I'm saying that parents can get the wrong impression of what the films tone is actually like if all the marketing shows is tons of joke dialogue and little kids playing in the street before Batman comes on his big motorbike, YAY! Clearly the actual movie itself is going to be far more disturbing, violent and horror-like because of everything the Joker does. So it's misleading... and some moms may be upset that these explosions n' jokes commercials making it seem like one big popcorn flick didn't reflect the true dark nature of the final product, and they took their children based on the "comic book hero" factor and based on the TV spots.

At least it's not rated R, because people would still take their 10 year olds even if it was rated R because it's a Batman movie. I've been to some really graphic rated R movies in the theater and gotten ticked off to see people bringing tiny children and sitting them down in the front row.

 

[Mandalore464]

But anyway those kids in the tv spot were like what, 5?

Not likely. My sister is 12 and looks younger than them.

 

[Psoliagos]

The arc about Batman hoping for Dent to replace him is gonna raise many pitchforks among the fans i think.

I mean, why would Bruce spend 7 years of his life living like a criminal and training if he is not gonna do this for long? So it seems to me that this version of Bruce isnt just using Batman to do something productive with his obsession and pain, but he also uses it as a symbol that will help Gothamites rise again.

Big deal you ll say, we knew that. Well, it seems that Dent is the "legal vigilante", the white knight that will take the baton and carry on the fight. In other words, in Dent and the vigilantes, we see that Batman has brought a revolution and an uprising in Gotham. So maybe he is not needed anymore as a drastic measure against crime.

So, since he has aspirations for a normal life with Rachel, he will abandon the Batman.
Now, i have two questions:
1) Bruce isnt obsessed anymore? To him Batman is necessary. He is Batman more than Bruce.
2) Why the hell did Rachel deny him at the end of Begins? It was just...stupid. She could have been with him. What, you think only Mary Jane puts up with the superhero thing?


Now, before you all jump on this screaming "ITS NOT LIKE TEH comics", put this in your head first. There have been many instances where Bruce was about to abandon the Batman persona in order to live a normal life with a woman. One of these was in BTAS, but there have been others as well in the comics.

But what troubles me is that its too soon for this Batman. It hasnt even been a year. Has his obsession been erased? Has his need to use Batman as a painkiller gone?
Of course, this Gotham was like Metropolis at first, a great city. With the depression it sunk into crime and injustice, so an extreme response like Batman was needed. Now that the train seems to be getting back on its tracks, maybe Batman is no longer needed. So maybe there wont be much for him to do anyways. That would justify this arc a bit.

Anyway, i really like how Bruce looks up to Dent, i like how Dent is hope for him. How by rescuing Dent he saves himself. He can continue helping by charity work, etc while justice is being delt in courtrooms during daylight and not in the dark alleys.

Its an innovative arc and i am grateful that Nolan didnt just copy the Long Halloween. Besides, before the Long Halloween, wasnt the Dent arc a lot simpler? That convoluted arc that involved his wife, the Holiday killer and most of the criminals in Arkham was something new. Well Nolan did something new as well and brought some fresh air to it, like he did with the Joker and Batman's origin. People accept retcons and re-establishments of origins and characters when they come from the comics, but they never do when they come from the movies. As if Nolan is inferior to the comic writers and its ok for them to do the stupid crisis and introduce the freaking "Monitor" and goddamn "Antimonitor". Christ!

I like this arc a lot. My only concern about it, is the handling of Bruce's dedication and obsession. Cause to Bruce it was meant to be more than just a year. The dude trained for this for 7 years in BB and besides, Batman is his psycho-therapy. His painkiller. If these aspects of Batman are handled well, and not sacrificed to make room for this new arc, then i'll be very happy with this.

People need to understand that Nolan has just as much a right to redo or **** Batman up the ***, as much as Miller or the other writers have. Whether we like it or not is another issue. But Batman's (like any other superhero's) stories are alive. They evolve through the years. Nolan can, NO, Nolan has to bring some fresh air to it.

The last few days a huge debate over BB's handling of Batman's origin has arised where people have dug so deep into the little details that everything has fallen apart. Nolan has given us a new BW/Batman. One that wasnt instantly transformed into Batman. One that came to be after a big journey through pain, sorrow and anger. Maybe Nolan's work isnt top notch to some and maybe after 50 years of comics it can be refined to reach a top level. Besides, hasnt Batman's current story been revised and refined over the years to reach the solidity and quality that it has now?
I dont know if Nolan's origin is top notch. Maybe you can change a few little details to make it so. What i do know is that for me, this new path, this new view of it all, is much more intresting and compelling than the 12 y.o juggernaut that knows everything.

So maybe, just maybe this new Dent arc is flawed. Badly flawed. But maybe after some work and some refining it can be perfect. Maybe this whole thing happens 10 years into Batman's life, at a time where Bruce and Selina, or Bruce and Jessica Alba, etc want to live a normal life. And Bruce is looking for Dent to carry on for him.
I'm just saying that this will be a movie and it wont be perfect. You can always blot out the "nice coats" that it will have and have a perfect movie in front of you. And it might open some new roads and interpretations of the Batman mythos that, well, Miller or Loeb havent of thought of yet.

 

[Mandalore464]

As you point out, there is a difference between this incarnation of Bruce and the one from the comics and BTAS. As I recall, the character Batman was introduced in comics as training for all his early life to become the perfect instrument against crime. Meaning, he hones his mind and body for the purpose of fighting criminals.

I think in Batman Begins, Bruce Wayne decides to leave Gotham only because he's lost. I don't think the Bruce from the comics has ever felt lost. On the contrary, from the very start he knows what he wants to become and trains for it. He's driven and focused all along. In BB, he has this long period in which he just wanders in different countries, stealing, joining criminals, certainly to try and understand them, but not necessarily with the thought that he will someday go back to Gotham and kick some butts.

I think that's a major difference in what drives Bruce Wayne in the film and in the comics.

I also think that the Nolan Batman's main objective is to "shake people out of their apathy" and make them join the fight against crime. Yes, he wants the city ridden of the criminals, but firstly, he wants people to wake up. And when in TDK he sees Harvey Dent ready to lead the fight, the thought that his mission may already be complete might come to his mind.

What I'm saying is, "The White Knight" obeys the law, fights corruption and crime with legal tools. He is a "legal Batman", and as such, Bruce may think that people are more likely to join Dent in the fight than the mysterious vigilante that Batman is to most Gothamites. So yes, he might think about putting an end to his Batman carreer.

I don't think Nolan's Batman really needs to be Batman yet. For now, Batman is just a tool to him, he hasn't realized that he needs it because that's who he really is. And I think we will see that development in TDK, if Rachel dies. If she dies, Bruce will probably realize he has no reason left to give up the cowl. And then, we might see how he starts to consider the cowl as his only way to maintain a certain level of sanity, how he feels like he has to put the armor on and fight to give a meaning to his life.

 

[Psoliagos]

I have edited my last post. I edited the blue paragraph and added a new one right after it. Just saying, for anyone that's interested and missed it.

 

[Psoliagos]

Just one more thing about Batman's origin. This is how i assume it all went down.

-Kane said that his parents died so he became batman.
-He had a gun.
-Then he lost the gun....blah blah blah....changes and evolutions....
-So someone added the huge journey he took in order to train in the various martial arts.
-Maybe someone else added the fact that he lived among the criminals to understand them.
-Someone else added Zatanna's father (and consequently her into his life) as his escape arts mentor.
-Someone then said: "Well you know, batman learned every martial art there is. He is kickass!"

Now dont go screaming at me because the above list of evolutions isnt correct. I know it isnt. I am merely trying to show you that it was a gradual process that led to the current Batman. So he can still change. He can get a freaking shotgun if he wants to. Yeah its not like teh comics. But one time he had a gun. Well Loeb wants to give him a shotgun. You have a problem with that? In 2020 he will go back to batarangs.

You see my point. And my point is this: Why cant Nolan add character development into this whole "journey to becoming batman"?
As i said before, maybe it needs some tweeking for the nitpickers. Maybe it needs an injection of "dedication serum". Maybe it needs this or that. But it is deeper, isnt it?

 

[sasquatchs]

Where did you get the feeling that this version of Bruce was ever obsessed? That never came across to me in the last film

 

[Psoliagos]

I think in Batman Begins, Bruce Wayne decides to leave Gotham only because he's lost. I don't think the Bruce from the comics has ever felt lost. On the contrary, from the very start he knows what he wants to become and trains for it. He's driven and focused all along. In BB, he has this long period in which he just wanders in different countries, stealing, joining criminals, certainly to try and understand them, but not necessarily with the thought that he will someday go back to Gotham and kick some butts.

He didnt leave because he was lost. He left for the sole purpose of understanding the criminal mind. On the other hand, yes, he didnt know how exactly to use this knowledge for his cause. He was driven and determined but he hadnt figured out the way to achieve this. It's not bad that Ra's came and gave him that path.
As i have said in a previous post, when Bruce discards the League as vigilantes, it seems to me that he knows what a vigilante is. It has occured to him to become one but discarded the path.
But, a vigilante is merely someone lost in the scrumble for his own gratification. But, if you make yourself more than just a man. If you devote yourself to an ideal, and if they cant stop you, then you become something else entirely. A legend.

And yeah, i didnt watch BB to write that down. I am that kickass!

That hadnt occured to him. And it shows in the jet when he declares his intentions to Alfred. "But as a symbol, i can be incorruptible, i can be everlasting". The concept of justice and the concept of....this symbol of revolution and justice, isnt something easy to grasp. Especially when you re a secluded teenager in a big manor.

But goddamn it, its not like the comics. He didnt beat Superman with a Krypt ring while having decided what do with his life and how from the start.

I also think that the Nolan Batman's main objective is to "shake people out of their apathy" and make them join the fight against crime. Yes, he wants the city ridden of the criminals, but firstly, he wants people to wake up. And when in TDK he sees Harvey Dent ready to lead the fight, the thought that his mission may already be complete might come to his mind.
What I'm saying is, "The White Knight" obeys the law, fights corruption and crime with legal tools. He is a "legal Batman", and as such, Bruce may think that people are more likely to join Dent in the fight than the mysterious vigilante that Batman is to most Gothamites. So yes, he might think about putting an end to his Batman carreer.

Exactly.

I don't think Nolan's Batman really needs to be Batman yet. For now, Batman is just a tool to him, he hasn't realized that he needs it because that's who he really is. And I think we will see that development in TDK, if Rachel dies. If she dies, Bruce will probably realize he has no reason left to give up the cowl. And then, we might see how he starts to consider the cowl as his only way to maintain a certain level of sanity, how he feels like he has to put the armor on and fight to give a meaning to his life.

This is where I go "ITS NOT LIKE TEH COMICS".
Because bruce doesnt sink into misery and seclusion and the goddamn batman because of rachel's death or because gotham needs him (since Dent got scarred and nuts). He is batman because he is obsessed with his parent's murder.

AND GODDAMNIT NOLAN, WILL YOU GIVE US A SCENE WITH BATMAN IN FRONT OF THE GRAVES? THANK YOU!

 

[Psoliagos]

Where did you get the feeling that this version of Bruce was ever obsessed? That never came across to me in the last film

I know that from your previous posts. You probably prefer B&R to BB from what i can assume.

On another note, i would like to add that i loved the way Nolan handled his flashbacks. Seeing Bruce in chinese prison, covered in mud was awesome. Then ra's came and offered him a path. Blue flowers, etc. It was beautiful!

 

[sasquatchs]

Clearly you didn't understand the last film if you think Bruce's doing a 180 now. For better or worse it's a continuation of what came before

 

[Psoliagos]

Clearly you didn't understand the last film if you think Bruce's doing a 180 now. For better or worse it's a continuation of what came before

Well maybe you didnt see him determined. I did. The only difference for me was the way he became batman and of course Ra's role.

But if you are correct, then we saw a 2.30 hour movie in which Bruce destroys his childhood and teenage years, only to become Batman for a year. Which doesnt make sense.
Maybe in TDK he is jealous of other people leading normal lives. Maybe he wants Rachel that bad. As i said before, even in comics it has occurred to him to abandon Batman for a woman.

 

[Nixon]

Dismissing any sort of criticism of Nolan's take on the character with "ITS NOT LIKE TEH COMICS" is glib and intellectually lazy. It's possible to find fault in Nolan's take on the character's origins in the fact that they diminish the character not that they distance him from his comic book counterpart.

 

[sasquatchs]

He was determined in Batman Begins, starting in the year before returning. Clearly Bruce sees Batman as an inspiration to Gotham that'll lead to others taking on the mantel, rather than an unending war on crime. Then once TDK is done, then it'll probably turn into the neverending pursuit

 

[J.Howlett]

Clearly, for Bruce to make this kind of decision in the context of the story arc of this film, dramatic, positive things have happened since his appearance as Batman.

But, that doesn't mean it hasn't taken it toll with him either. And with the coming of Dent and the criminal element almost squashed before the arrival of the Joker, I think it's absolutely within character for Bruce to try and find a way out.

A way out has presented itself in the form of Dent, especially after he gets to know the guy....

 

[Nixon]

Well maybe you didnt see him determined. I did. The only difference for me was the way he became batman and of course Ra's role.

But if you are correct, then we saw a 2.30 hour movie in which Bruce destroys his childhood and teenage years, only to become Batman for a year. Which doesnt make sense.
Maybe in TDK he is jealous of other people leading normal lives. Maybe he wants Rachel that bad. As i said before, even in comics it has occurred to him to abandon Batman for a woman.

It's possible he could look at things improving and guys like Dent and Gordon rising up and think, in a moment of optimism and over confidence, that he's work is nearly done and he can leave things to the regular people soon.

Until the Joker shows up and shows him how wrong he was about Gotham no longer needing an "out clause".

That or it could be the whole "I've done enough I want a normal life now" Rachel thing which would be kind of disappointing because, coming after a year it seems selfish and we've already seen the same sort of thing back in Superman II.

 

[sasquatchs]

That or it could be the whole "I've done enough I want a normal life now" Rachel thing which would be kind of disappointing because, coming after a year it seems selfish and we've already seen the same sort of thing back in Superman II.

It was done in Spiderman2 as well, it would be pretty boring. TDK seems to have the slightly more interesting forced to give up for the public good. Quite a nice twist on convention

 

[J.Howlett]

I think certain things have happened to Gotham within the year between the last film and this film for Bruce to make this decision. He sees the light at the end of the tunnel with his contributions to the city as Batman. That gets escalated with the arrival Dent and the friendship he forms with Dent and the partnership between The Bat, Dent, and Gordon.

He sees the finish line when Dent comes in a forms this trinity of justice. Everything gets thrown out of whack with the arrival of the Joker and nobody is prepared for it because no one understands and entity like him.

 

[Bat-Mite]

He was determined in Batman Begins, starting in the year before returning.

Considering that he'd had plenty of training before then (he wasn't born knowing the techniques Ra's named off when he tried to fight him), I hardly think it's fair to say that he wasn't determined until that year.

 

[sasquatchs]

Not as it relates to helping Gotham though, seems pretty clear he turned his attention back home once he was inspired by Ra's

 

[DiFabio]

And from the fact that he's blowing up cars on his way to something, we can deduce that he's on his way to something very important in a hurry.

He's not just blowing up cars for the **** of it.

Clearly.


No, I'm comparing it with the absurd convenience of cars blowing up in front of children that were just pretending to do so, followed by the typical "OMG DID U SEE DAT?!" reactionary shot.

Is this troubling to some of you, that people might not like it? Did any of us say the movie sucked? No? Then I guess there shouldn't be a problem.


Mhm. Please come back and point out where I stated in having a problem with children being present in this film, and I'll be sure to wait here precisely forever.

I fail to see why it's an absurd convenience for children to be playing - especially something as crazy as pretending to be cowboys, marines, GI Joes or whatever. Is it any more of an absurd convenience for Bruce falling down a hole and bats leaping into his face?

No, personally, I dont think so. As to the 'reaction'...well...the cars exploded. Unexpectantly. I suppose they could have sighed and just went home...




No problem good sir. t: Just an odd thing to nitpick with...what with so many other major complaints bouncing around.




This wasnt in reference to you, personally - but the general audience who feel anything but Batman kicking ass for 2 straight hours is 'campy' and 'kid friendly'.

I don't know how many times I have to repeat myself. My problem wasn't that individual act, but the scene in it's entirety, and how it plays itself out. The absurd convenience is cars blowing up when there are kids play-shooting it. Just like if I yell "BANG!" and the person next to me conveniently gets sniped in the head. Do you understand?


Or there could have been no kids in that scene in the first place since they serve no function than for a quick laugh.


It's not nitpicking. I said one simple statement about it and it seems to have dragged on for whatever reason.

Nitpicking would be pointing out a "Chicago" storefront sign in a millisecond's worth of footage.

It's actually kind of cool. Get to see Batman from the perspective of two random kids for a few seconds who hadn't been watching him for a couple of months condensed into two hours.

And...?


Who cares? It's a 2.5 second comedic relief scene in a 2.5 hour movie about a psychotic, murderous clown blowing up hospitals and killing all kinds of people.


It's a VERY small breather in the midst of all kinds of carnage and chaos.

And nothing. I just don't think the kids should've been there because it's stupid. And I don't think any one else here would choose them either, if they were presented with a decision of how to depict that scene.


Last I checked this was a "Likes and Dislikes" thread. The scene fits in the latter so I mentioned it. Why is this such a big deal to people? You are making it out like I'm protesting this film or that the scene ruins the integrity of the movie.

The scene sucks, period. So as of this moment, I think 2.5 seconds of a 2.5 hour film...sucks. Do you have a problem with it? Would you prefer I like every bit?

I can't believe I have to type this.

One TV spot includes children, so all of a sudden there's a massive "let's get the kids to see it" campaign. If anything, you should be blaming the toymakers making toys and dolls about the movie before you blame a single TV spot.

As for parents thinking it's okay to take their kids to see it, I don't care. There's a ratings system for a reason, so if the parents don't heed the ratings (or even understand them) that's their fault. All you have to do is go to the website and see it's rated PG-13. So families that take their 5-6 yr olds to PG-13 movies should blame themselves if they find it inappropriate for their kids. Should this movie be marketed to kids? Sure, if they want to make more money in action figures and ticket sales. Should they? Personally, I don't mind, because it seems anything will be marketed at kids these days, regardless. And I feel it's up to the parent to police what they feel should be inappropriate for their kids. Just my opinion.

However, you didn't like the TV spot. That's fine, but I hardly doubt that this is going to be a new trend in making "family friendly" TDK advertising. Especially seeing how the posters for the film involve blood and/or explosions.

i honestly dont think a couple of kids playing in their car is going to mess with the tone. if you ask me it seems to add the scope of what this movie seems to be trying to achieve: a fleshed out living and breathing city, that just so happens to have bats and clowns running loose. why not see it in its proper context?

and why would anyone expect a batman movie with even a modicum of faithfulness to its source to be as dark (or unflinchingly adult) as silence of the lambs or the departed?

and for the record my son is ten and will be with me opening night. and he will be just fine.

Hmm. How do we know these two kids won't suffer the same fate this poor little girl experienced?

http://youtube.com/watch?v=7lsxJE7gjQ4

We should see the movie before we make all these little critiques and assumptions ("dis don't follow teh comics", "teh legs are puzzled", "the joker sucks because he should kill pregnant women", "R rating lulz, lol, xD, XD").

For all we know that might be cut from the film entirely. So why get so worked up about a small "annoyance" that may not even be in the movie?

 

[Psoliagos]

Hmm. How do we know these two kids won't suffer the same fate this poor little girl experienced?

http://youtube.com/watch?v=7lsxJE7gjQ4

We should see the movie before we make all these little critiques and assumptions ("dis don't follow teh comics", "teh legs are puzzled", "the joker sucks because he should kill pregnant women", "R rating lulz, lol, xD, XD").

For all we know that might be cut from the film entirely. So why get so worked up about a small "annoyance" that may not even be in the movie?

You tell them man!

On the subject, well its a bit absurd and too much of a coincidence that the kids were "shooting" the cars that blew up. BUT ITS MEANT TO BE COMIC RELIEF.

Maybe this is a bit absurd but you guys nitpicked about the stunned cops who saw the batmobile for the first time. Batman is meant to be otherworldly and by showing other people's reactions to him makes him relevant to his city and surroundings.

But its also used as a comic relief. Like the car-park guard who looked at his coffee when the batmobile passed in front of him. I dont know Crook , some comic relief never hurt anyone. You can blot it out if you like. I will use it to lighten up and prepare for the hospital blowing up scene which will tear me and the rest of the audience apart. 2.30 hours of massacre and seriousness is too much dont you agree?

Finally, let me say that i love Bruce's "i certainly hope not" responce to Dent. Its like "you should see my other car" he said in BB. A joke to himself.