The Dark Knight Likes And Dislikes

[The Guard]

I don't mind the kids so much. But who in the hell leaves their children alone in the middle of Gotham City at night?

 

[Bat-Mite]

Maybe they're orphans or runaways?

 

[Ryudoz]

I don't like seeing kids in the trailer as much as I don't like seeing kids in the movie, for the record.

I figured as much that you didn't care for children in film because of the point you were taking with this TV Spot. Children have a tendency to come off as 1) Annoying, 2) Know-it-alls with their vast amount of age and experience (/sarcasm) or 3) spoiled. I'm not a fan of children in film either, but I don't think they change the overall tone of the film.

I know someone mentioned that Gotham can't be populated only by adult white males who commit crimes, it has families and children,

Indeed. We live in a world with children, and in portraying a city as a living breathing entity, we should see all walks of life. Young, old, and of mixed ethnicities.

but this is a FILM... all we should see is what's relevant to the story, and kids are not relevant to the story. When you have a dark crime movie, you don't throw in kids playing into it at random. It can mess up the tone. I mean, did you see any kids in The Departed? Any 5 year olds goofing off in Silence of the Lambs? NO. Dark film = no playful children.

Do children not live in Gotham? Would their lives not be potentially affected by the crime infesting the city? Or the Joker? I'm not trying to play a "Think of the Children" card, but you have to believe that children may in fact have an impact on the story.

Now, taking your Departed reference. In the beginning, Matt Damon's character was able to, at a young age no less, enter into Jack's criminal circle. No he wasn't 5. But he was still a kid. So yes, there is a kid in The Departed and yes it did have an impact and no it did not change the tone of the film. Another example: Sin City. Dark, violent movie. We see 9 yr. old Nancy. Does she have any relevance to the film? Of course. She is the innocence that Hartigan sacrifices himself to protect. Does it alter the tone of the film? No way. Still as much blood, guts, and violence as before.
I do not believe this small snippet of film with the children in TDK will change the tone whatsoever.

 

[Ryudoz]

I don't mind the kids so much. But who in the hell leaves their children alone in the middle of Gotham City at night?

Maybe they're the kids the Falafel guy needs to feed.

 

[Mandalore464]

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.

That's what I meant by "lost". He leaves because Falcone just rubbed salt in the wound by telling him he would always fear criminals because he didn't know who they were. He is lost because in spite of his grief over the loss of his parentsm he doesn't know what to do at all. Kill Chill in retribution? Face Falcone in a desperate attempt? Join criminals to understand how they live and work, what drives them, what their weaknesses are?

He just doesn't know, he's lost in his grief and finds no way to channel it. That's the difference I was talking about. In the comics, from what is said, Bruce never loses sight of what he wants to do. From the start he chooses to study criminal sciences, train with the best fighters in the world, hone his body and mind to the point that his only limits are his humanity. It's like the only thing he needs is the symbol he will dress as, but from the start, he knows that he will be someone who goes out at night and protects the innocent.

I think this is not the case at all in Batman Begins. The movie showed a different Bruce, who first chose self-destruction as a response to the grief and unfairness he felt. He doesn't travel abroad to learn from the best fighters, he travels abroad to join criminals (yes, he's trying to understand them, but the fact is you don't have to live like a criminal to understand them), he doesn't study criminal sciences, he even gives up on his studies...

This is not the same at all. Comics Bruce is always focused on one clear objective, he's driven by this objective. Batman Begins Bruce is lost, cause he doesn't know how he can fight this grief. It is only through his training with the League of Shadows that he gets the idea of Batman (He clearly didn't know he would use "theatricality and deception" before Ducard taught him that they were "powerful agents", he was a skilled brawler but he was far from a good fighter until Ducard taught him to fight properly, etc...)

That's why ultimately I think that the main focus of Nolan's Batman is waking people up, or as he explains himself, "shake people out of their apathy, show them their city doesn't belong to the criminals and the corrupt"...

Nolan's Bruce doesn't NEED Batman or, in any case, he doesn't need him YET. Batman is just a means to achieve his goal in the films, while in the comics, from the very day his parents are murdered, he channels all his grief into this persona he's training to become.

And that's why I'd really like Rachel to die in TDK, so that Bruce can lose all the things that could convince him to give up the mantle, and to add a little grief to the character who now already has his crime-fighting persona to channel it.

In other words, I wish TDK will show us why Bruce totally gives up on his Bruce Wayne persona as his real "himself", and why Batman becomes who he really is instead of being just the way he found to fight crime.

 

[The Guard]

Maybe they're the kids the Falafel guy needs to feed.

That may be the post of the day.

 

[The Guard]

Well said, Mandalore.

 

[Darknightnomis]

Maybe they're the kids the Falafel guy needs to feed.

Greatest. Post. Evah!

 

[Ibn]

Yes, seriously. What makes you think reality has anything to do with an individual's personal values and moral code? No matter what it is, you can't deem it as unrealistic. It is just a viewpoint, after all.

Because it's human nature to want to **** **** up, and if some dude blows up a hospital, kills my love interest (hopefully), and all sorts of other twisted, psychotic ****, on MY behalf, I'm GOING TO KILL HIM, or at the very least, beat him within an inch of his life. Especially if I've been exposed to death since I was nine. That's my reality, and I'm damn sure not the only one. If we're stressing realism, lets take it all the way and show that no man, not even Batman, is morally perfect.

You don't see the convenience of the kids pretending to shoot up cars, only for the cars to actually a blow up a moment later? Then the obligatory shot of the kids' faces going "whoooaaa"...

Okay look, **** the kids then. I said it, **** the kids................

 

[J.Howlett]

"And that's why I'd really like Rachel to die in TDK, so that Bruce can lose all the things that could convince him to give up the mantle, and to add a little grief to the character who now already has his crime-fighting persona to channel it.

In other words, I wish TDK will show us why Bruce totally gives up on his Bruce Wayne persona as his real "himself", and why Batman becomes who he really is instead of being just the way he found to fight crime."

Absolutely on the money....

 

[nickyg641]

Taking into account the Gotham Tonight piece, where he says that Bats shows up and kicks the ass of the Dent bashers, I get the impression that he did this...in broad daylight. What is this? 1966? Also, I am again concerned that Gotham is basically "getting to know" Batman, getting a little too friendly with him, as opposed to still being unsure if he even exists.

 

[BatmanFanatic]

Maybe they're the kids the Falafel guy needs to feed.

AWESOME. t:

 

[BatmanFanatic]

Taking into account the Gotham Tonight piece, where he says that Bats shows up and kicks the ass of the Dent bashers, I get the impression that he did this...in broad daylight. What is this? 1966? Also, I am again concerned that Gotham is basically "getting to know" Batman, getting a little too friendly with him, as opposed to still be unsure if he even exists.

 

[BatmanFanatic]

You don't see the convenience of the kids pretending to shoot up cars, only for the cars to actually a blow up a moment later? Then the obligatory shot of the kids' faces going "whoooaaa"...

Doesn't this oddly remind you guys of American Psycho? When the car blows up and he stares at his gun, with a WTF expression on his face?

 

[sasquatchs]

The urban legend bit came and went within Batman Begins, it's a pity Engel wasn't there from the start. Although the legend thing is kind of at odds with the inspirational symbol angle anyway, I'll be glad if there's a debate about him being a hero or vigilante or something instead

 

[BatmanFanatic]

The urban legend bit came and went within Batman Begins, it's a pity Engel wasn't there from the start. Although the legend thing is kind of at odds with the inspirational symbol angle anyway, I'll be glad if there's a debate about him being a hero or vigilante or something instead

Do you think the bat-myth works better as an urban legend or as a symbol of hope?

I personally can't buy it as a symbol of hope, at least not 100%. His whole persona is created to scare the crap out of bad guys. For a symbol of hope look at Supermans chest. It's all... "American" and "heroic" and stuff

 

[deathfromabove]

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.

i dont know when he saw it. maybe three or four years ago on tv? i think returns is pretty fantastical and the violence is very cartoony. the only real questionable moments were between catwoman and bats (licks face) but my son was reading jules vern and tolkien at age eight so i'm not too worried about his abilty to discern fantasy from reality. and last i checked pg 13 recommends that children should be accompanied by an adult, not barred from the theater.

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.

five? they looked between around 10 or eleven to me. five year olds are little. like car seat little.

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.

if a parent is going to take a young child to a pg 13 movie based on a shot of some kids playing guns they are idiots. i mean the joker is also weiding a knife, a bazooka, and a sub mochine in those same tv ads soits not lke they are making it out to be wal-e. and just watching the trailers would give you a better understanding of the films tone. so if parents aren't willing to properly research a film's appropriateness that's on them, not the wb. personal responsibilty has gone completely out the window hasn't it?

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.

there were very young kids at the descent, the departed, and even no country for old men and i was pretty horrified. and legions of self rightous parents took their youngsters to see "passion of the christ" which i think borders on child abuse.

but then again i saw the road warrior at seven and i'm ok. i think.

but my point is this. batman isnt just for us old farts. batman belongs to everyone. if you think the target demographic for this film doesnt include (some) 10-13 year olds you are mistaken.

 

[The Guard]

Taking into account the Gotham Tonight piece, where he says that Bats shows up and kicks the ass of the Dent bashers, I get the impression that he did this...in broad daylight. What is this? 1966? Also, I am again concerned that Gotham is basically "getting to know" Batman, getting a little too friendly with him, as opposed to still being unsure if he even exists.

I like "Proposition B"

 

[sasquatchs]

Do you think the bat-myth works better as an urban legend or as a symbol of hope?

I personally can't buy it as a symbol of hope, at least not 100%. His whole persona is created to scare the crap out of bad guys. For a symbol of hope look at Supermans chest. It's all... "American" and "heroic" and stuff

Well yea, it's a huge contradiction that I hope they'll address in some way, maybe Joker could poke fun at that. They kind of tried to squeeze Batman into the Spiderman/Superman mold, Alfred's whole thing implying Batman's only a vigilante if it's personal was very odd, hopefully they make it more complicated.

I prefer the bat-myth but this way still has some potential, they just didn't really focus on it much in Begins. That's why I've wanted the press and politicians to play a large part in TDK since first watching Begins.

 

[nickyg641]

I think some of the people complaining about the children are getting the wrong idea of just how dark the movie will be. Batman Begins was "dark", but nowhere near dark enough that it would be inappropriate for a child. I mean, what specific scene in the movie would really make a parent go "Uh uh, turning this off now."

While I think TDK will certainly be darker, how much darker do you really think they'll go? Sure, the Joker is a violent villain, but I think there are misconceptions about just how far they'll let that go, too. I seriously doubt he's going to be the stab-happy Patrick Bateman type that he was initially thought to be, and people still haven't shaken that preconception.

One can guess that we won't be seeing this
http://youtube.com/watch?v=POl3eD6IJ7A
in TDK.

Not saying TDK won't be dark, or the Joker won't be scary. But if they can handle a noseless Ralph Feinnes slaughtering little British children, I think they can handle the Joker. And, as for the reasoning behind BB's humorless trailers and TDK's somewhat lighter ones, I would suppose that it's because BB had something to prove, having come after this
http://youtube.com/watch?v=ZU7tzVu2h6k
and showcasing it's sense of humor wasn't exactly the best way to win audiences over.

 

[deathfromabove]

I think some of the people complaining about the children are getting the wrong idea of just how dark the movie will be. Batman Begins was "dark", but nowhere near dark enough that it would be inappropriate for a child. I mean, what specific scene in the movie would really make a parent go "Uh uh, turning this off now."

While I think TDK will certainly be darker, how much darker do you really think they'll go? Sure, the Joker is a violent villain, but I think there are misconceptions about just how far they'll let that go, too. I seriously doubt he's going to be the stab-happy Patrick Bateman type that he was initially thought to be, and people still haven't shaken that preconception.

One can guess that we won't be seeing this
http://youtube.com/watch?v=POl3eD6IJ7A
in TDK.

Not saying TDK won't be dark, or the Joker won't be scary. But if they can handle a noseless Ralph Feinnes slaughtering little British children, I think they can handle the Joker. And, as for the reasoning behind BB's humorless trailers and TDK's somewhat lighter ones, I would suppose that it's because BB had something to prove, having come after this
http://youtube.com/watch?v=ZU7tzVu2h6k
and showcasing it's sense of humor wasn't exactly the best way to win audiences over.

very well said nicky.

 

[BatmanFanatic]

there were very young kids at the descent, the departed, and even no country for old men and i was pretty horrified. and legions of self rightous parents took their youngsters to see "passion of the christ" which i think borders on child abuse.

Agreed.

but my point is this. batman isnt just for us old farts. batman belongs to everyone. if you think the target demographic for this film doesnt include (some) 10-13 year olds you are mistaken.

No, of course Batman is for everyone. Thats why it's tricky when you get really adult versions of Batman in some of the comics for instance. But thats why I think for the big blockbuster films they should stop at the PG-13 rating. On the one hand I think it would be interesting to see an R Batman movie if they did it for the right reasons...not just senseless gore ... but on the other hand I would hope it was an indy film or something because you know even tiny kids are going to beg to see anything Batman, and I wouldn't want them to have nightmares after watching some horrific autopsy scene or something.

 

[Nepenthes]

what are these kids everyones talking about?


I don't see why Batman can't be a myth, a symbol and a secret ally of the police all at once. Not everyone will believe that he exists and his power has a symbol of hope is derived from his mythic qualities anyway. Some people know the maniac in the suit with the fancy weapons, others know a demon, others know a dark shape that swooped and saved their lives in the murk of a back alley, something they can't explain but that all the newspapers tell them is a batman. That he works with the police would also be a part of the myth.

Me I've always wondered why he's never portrayed as a marketing stunt.

There's a scene in the casting sides that's interesting. With a junkie telling another junkie he doesn't exist. I wonder how Engel will present the fact of it maybe he's wants to connect him to Bruce Wayne to prove that he IS real.

 

[Gianakin_]

The placement of kids in TDK (if it's just those 2) looks much better than that random kid in BB.

 

[craigaat]

The placement of kids in TDK (if it's just those 2) looks much better than that random kid in BB.

Who is this wipper-snapper you speak of? I can't remember.

As for likes/dislikes...

Main likes:
The Joker ('cause he looks funking mental)
Harvey Dent (hopefully done a lot better than Forever)

Main dislikes:
Rachel Dawes (MG is a better actress than KH but it just annoys me when characters are recast)
The new Bat suit (there was nowt wrong with the BB suit IMO)