The Dark Knight Nolan Describes TDK Plot as 'Grim.'

[Crooklyn]

I don't know, I mean who knows if they'll even bring up Ra's as a subplot. There's certainly many different ways you can bring it up again. If they decide to make Batman a fugitive because of it, then so be it. It'll just be another obstacle Bruce will have to overcome as he's also out to get Joker.

Whatever the case may be, I'm hoping they actually make it harder for Bruce to get things "right". In BB, all too often it seemed as if the solution was presented to him in a gift-wrapped box. I really wanna see Bats struggle in this one, both physically and mentally.

 

[El Payaso]

It will be extremely good if they continue with that either as Miranda or COMPO suggest. Not just because of continuity or originality but for taking advantage of Batman's nature. He wants to fight crime not taking lives, that's a very difficult thing to do (even regular cops have to kill someone now and then).

So, if that's the premise - very close to the comics and very interesting - let's deal with that.

I love Miranda's idea of Joker sticking this to Bat's face.

 

[ultimatefan]

I actually think that would be a good idea - as Alfred said, you can't make it personal and it WAS personal, whether you think it was justified or not.

Also, I wouldn't mind seeing the Joker use that as something to throw in Batman's face. Something to prove he's no different than the people he fights. There really should be some sort of repercussion, even if it's relatively minor.

I wouldn´t mind it having some sort of consequence... Like Thalia showing up looking for revenge, for instance.

 

[ultimatefan]

Uh.. nope, I'm still buying the dvd and the ticket. Flaws don't scare me that much.

Flaws for some, qualities for others. Eye of the beholder.

 

[El Payaso]

Who hated Nolan´s decision, don´t buy the DVD or don´t pay the ticket to see TDK - yeah, right...

Tip for some, arrogance for others.

Important thing is I'll still be buying both items and finding BB incoherences a flaw and surely discussing about them.

 

[Miranda Fox]

Thanks for commenting on my post. Realling appreciated. What did you think of my other idea?

I think the idea is brilliant and really fits what Nolan has been suggesting - that Bats will have to deal with an enormous backlash from the public and this sounds like the kind of catalyst that would cause it. In Bruce's eyes, he didn't kill Ra's, Ra's pretty much killed himself but of course, the public won't see it that way. To them, he killed someone. He's a murderer.

I don't know, I mean who knows if they'll even bring up Ra's as a subplot.

Perhaps not as a subplot, but I can't see Bruce just being completely okay with his decision - Ra's was still his mentor after all and something about it feels unfinished to me. I never saw what he did as a direct violation of his ethics (he didn't execute Ra's in the strictest sense) but after watching BB the other day, the way he balked so visibly at the idea of killing someone, I find it hard to believe he'd just forget about Ra's and be all hunky dory.

There's certainly many different ways you can bring it up again. If they decide to make Batman a fugitive because of it, then so be it. It'll just be another obstacle Bruce will have to overcome as he's also out to get Joker.

Fits the 'things getting worse before they get better' idea to a T. I think it's very possible.

Whatever the case may be, I'm hoping they actually make it harder for Bruce to get things "right". In BB, all too often it seemed as if the solution was presented to him in a gift-wrapped box. I really wanna see Bats struggle in this one, both physically and mentally.

I wouldn't say things were easy - he did get gassed and almost killed by the Scarecrow. Having said that, I'd love to see Batman really develop those detective skills through trial and error.

It will be extremely good if they continue with that either as Miranda or COMPO suggest. Not just because of continuity or originality but for taking advantage of Batman's nature. He wants to fight crime not taking lives, that's a very difficult thing to do (even regular cops have to kill someone now and then).

So, if that's the premise - very close to the comics and very interesting - let's deal with that.

Word.

I love Miranda's idea of Joker sticking this to Bat's face.

Given Joker's record, it makes perfect sense to me that he would do that - in TKJ, he notes their similarities, correctly guessing something bad happened to Bats to make him that way. Bruce also seemed to really pride himself on his ethics so to have someone point out that he may not be as righteous as he thinks is going to shake him up a lot.

 

[El Payaso]

Given Joker's record, it makes perfect sense to me that he would do that - in TKJ, he notes their similarities, correctly guessing something bad happened to Bats to make him that way. Bruce also seemed to really pride himself on his ethics so to have someone point out that he may not be as righteous as he thinks is going to shake him up a lot.

Exactly. It was Gordon who forced Batman to act according to the law.

 

[Miranda Fox]

Exactly. It was Gordon who forced Batman to act according to the law.

It would be beyond awesome if that was in TDK.

 

[Eros]

I always it found it funny about Batmans chracterazation compared to superman, Batman has always worked with the Gotham police, while superman works above them and buy himself. Its interesting most people think it the other way around, even though Batman has his own signal on the top of the police station.

 

[Beelze]

And the 'original character of Batman' crap just dosn't cut it.

It's not crap, and it sure cuts. You might not like it, but Batman wasn't always capable of redeeming the insane or imprisoning the elusive, nor did he always choose to, so in more extreme situations, some villains did/"had" to die for "the greater good". Ra's was beyond redemption and was too elusive to truly get caught. Also, the filmmakers may decide which version of Batman they want to adapt, or which aspects of the different versions of Batman they want to merge, and you have no authority to decide which incarnation of Batman is the correct one for the rest of us. BTW, the story in the sequel will borrow from the Joker's first - his original - comic book appearances. Is that crap too?

Also if you'd properly read the past few pages Beezle (^ I'm guessing you havn't) then you'd know it isn't actually about saving Ra's but *trying* to save him. He still has to die because otherwise 'Batman would have to give testimony.'

Trying to save Ra's, succeeding or not, is still about saving Ra's, because the intention is the same. And when you intend to do something, it's wise to think of what consequences your actions could have. Batman had to choose between protecting the innocent and letting a villain go. Had Batman tried to save Ra's I would've felt WTF:ed. It would've contradicted his intention to protect the innocent. With a realistic Batman, there must be compromises: he can’t have his cake and eat it too, he can't please everyone. Thus, Batman trying to save Ra's could easily have felt like a cheap gimmick. You yourself basically admitted that it really would've been useless for Batman to save Ra's because it wouldn't have worked out, yet you wanted Batman to try for the sake of trying, not because the overall outcome would actually have been better if he had succeeded.

There's a difference between the circumstances in Begins and, say, the Joker escaping from Arkham. Since the Joker is already supposed to be in Arkham, it's easy for Batman to get him back there - all he has to do is catch him and deliver him to their doorstep. Now, if a man dressed as a bat (who broke the law several times the very same day, and clearly has issues) had delivered an unknown man with a goatee to the police, explaining that this man was responsible for the occurence in the narrows (the nature of which the police hardly knew anything about at the time), the police would just throw the man in jail whereafter the court would schedule him for execution? And the League of Shadows would do nothing to prevent such an unlikely outcome?

Hopefully, his desire to do well to all (even the villains), and the complications involved in doing so, will be touched upon more in the sequel, with the Joker, and even moreso in the third film, with Two-Face joining the rogue gallery. I would like some of that which Miranda and Compo are suggesting to be present in future installments for sure.

I'm not sure about Compo's idea of Ra's body being found and the authorities going out to get Batman because of that, though. A manhunt with Batman as its target was already present in Begins. If the filmmakers wanted to, they could easily keep it going through the second film (and perhaps even into the third). With Gordon getting further promotions, however, the pursuit of Batman would probably stop, since Gordon trusts in his mysterious ally.

Myself, I would actually like it if Ra's body was gone, stolen from the crash site or the morgue (and that this was noted in the film). This could mean that he was brought to a Lazarus Pit by the League of Shadows, so that he could be resurrected. For those who crave more realism, it doesn't have to mean the inclusion of something as sci-fi/fantasy as a Lazarus Pit, though, because the League of Shadows might simply have collected his body/remains for more spiritual reasons. After all, he was their great leader - he deserves something grand. Ra's body disappearing/not being found could be what sparks Bruce/Batman into thinking more about the conclusion to the events on that day when he left Ra's in the train, wondering if something more is to come of it, or if the League, perhaps leaderless from now on, will slowly fade away. And of course, could he have done things differently? Preferably this will somehow bounce off on Gordon and/or Alfred.

 

[Miranda Fox]

There's a difference between the circumstances in Begins and, say, the Joker escaping from Arkham. Since the Joker is already supposed to be in Arkham, it's easy for Batman to get him back there - all he has to do is catch him and deliver him to their doorstep. Now, if a man dressed as a bat (who broke the law several times the very same day, and clearly has issues) had delivered an unknown man with a goatee to the police, explaining that this man was responsible for the occurence in the narrows (the nature of which the police hardly knew anything about at the time), the police would just throw the man in jail whereafter the court would schedule him for execution? And the League of Shadows would do nothing to prevent such an unlikely outcome?

Word. I honestly do not understand why some people think it's so massively out of character - after all, he once said he wouldn't stop Gordon shooting the Joker after he murdered Sarah Essen. Batman does let his personal feelings get the better of him and that's a good thing - because he's human. He's always close to that line. Leaving Ra's on the train did not cross it, although it comes close.

And of course, there's the fact that Ra's would have been nigh on impossible to bring to trial, as well as trying to kill his saviour the minute they hit the ground. Was it the only course of action? No. Morally, it is a grey area, but life and people are all about grey areas. Frankly, I'd have felt a little insulted if BB had chosen so black and white an ending with Batman saving Ra's.

Having said that - I do hope it's not ignored. Actions have consequences. Revenge vs Justice doesn't feel like a resolved theme to me and it would serve TDK well if Batman were to realise that he did act out of personal hatred and it could easily lead to a slippery slope. Showing leniency to the Joker, someone the audience is bound to hate, would be a great of showing how determined he is to stay on the right side of the line.

 

[Crooklyn]

Batman does let his personal feelings get the better of him and that's a good thing - because he's human.

It's good....when there's consequence. Otherwise, if he had done this type of thing once in a while, really, what's the difference between him and the Punisher? You can't just act off your own feelings, that not what justice is about. Hell, even Alfred tells him this.

 

[Miranda Fox]

It's good....when there's consequence. Otherwise, if he had done this type of thing once in a while, really, what's the difference between him and the Punisher? You can't just act off your own feelings, that not what justice is about. Hell, even Alfred tells him this.

I agree but at this point, I think it's pointless to say for certain whether or not his actions on the train will have consequences because...we really don't know yet.

 

[Crooklyn]

Very true.

But even if it isn't expanded upon in the future, I still wouldn't want that type of characteristic applied to Batman. Like I said, it makes him nothing more than Punisher in a bat-costume. I'll give BB a pass, since the point was to show Bruce in his early stages.

 

[Miranda Fox]

Very true.

But even if it isn't expanded upon in the future, I still wouldn't want that type of characteristic applied to Batman. Like I said, it makes him nothing more than Punisher in a bat-costume. I'll give BB a pass, since the point was to show Bruce in his early stages.

Fair enough.

 

[The Sage]

Dubious in the sense that, could he have saved Ra´s if he wanted to? Did he leave him to die just not to take an extra risk or there was a bit of revenge in that act? It´s a bit open to interpretation, yes.

Sorry but I'm not understanding where you're coming from with this. Especially since he said "I don't have to save you." It's not as if he said "Sorry, but I've only room for one" and took off.

So far Batman has remained not giving **** for his enemies' deaths in both franchises. One reference to Ra's death at the end of BB and I could have dug it.

Unless you count Bruce's speech to Dick in BF about revenge: Then it will happen this way: You make the kill, but your pain doesn't die with Harvey, it grows. So you run out into the night to find another face, and another, and another, until one terrible morning you wake up and realize that revenge has become your whole life. And you won't know why.

 

[L0ngsh0t]

I agree but at this point, I think it's pointless to say for certain whether or not his actions on the train will have consequences because...we really don't know yet.

do you guys honestly think they will rehash the train scene in TDK? cause I sure don't, when the writers where writting it, I don't think they where writting the train sequence with the thought "How can we make this have any consequences in future Batman films" They just needed to find away to make the movie end, in a very Batman way

 

[COMPO]

I'm not sure about Compo's idea of Ra's body being found and the authorities going out to get Batman because of that, though. A manhunt with Batman as its target was already present in Begins. If the filmmakers wanted to, they could easily keep it going through the second film (and perhaps even into the third). With Gordon getting further promotions, however, the pursuit of Batman would probably stop, since Gordon trusts in his mysterious ally.

Actually, my idea was that Batman, Dent and Gordon are getting closer to stopping the arms deal. And the league of shadows still has control of the mob and they have already stole Ra's Body. And plant it there so taht there is a man hunt, Maroni orders Flass and his buddies to presuade Gordon into putting a stop to the case and has one of his enforcers try to kill Dent. Though, like in eye of teh beholder Dent kills the enforcer.

 

[Mike_D202]

So...isnt pre-filming (or whatever they call it, pre-shoots) supposed to start in January? They better get on the ball with the two-face casting!

 

[Eros]

So...isnt pre-filming (or whatever they call it, pre-shoots) supposed to start in January? They better get on the ball with the two-face casting!

not really, Nolan said Dent would appear or be introduced in TDK, so it might mean he will have the same amount of screen time that the old D.A. [Racheals dead boss] had in Begins. so they probbaly would not have to offically cast the roll until maybe a month before filming[since the role might not be a big one in the flick].

 

[Aethea]

I know The Dark Knight will be PG 13, but it'd be great to get two theatrical versions--one PG 13 and one rated R in order to get more of the GRIM side that makes the Batman Comic Books so Rich and Dark. I mean I want to see the joker get nasty as well as Two Face get scarred...

 

[L0ngsh0t]

I know The Dark Knight will be PG 13, but it'd be great to get two theatrical versions--one PG 13 and one rated R in order to get more of the GRIM side that makes the Batman Comic Books so Rich and Dark. I mean I want to see the joker get nasty as well as Two Face get scarred...

This is the dream, that may, just may happen. You know it isn't going to be theatrically an R cause they can make way to much money off of U-17ers to do that. But Hellboy, and Punisher had unrated relreleasings, again maybe we get lucky. Or maybe its just a bad ass enough PG-13 that it won't need an R

 

[Ronny Shade]

Nice to see the debate raging on in my absence.

LOL.

Does your girlfriend live in the corner penthouse of Spook Central?

I don't have a girlfriend.

It was crystal clear. "Are you finally gonna do what´s necessary?" The man was going to cause a wave of massic panic that was going to destroy the whole city. He had the trouble of going to Wayne Manor and burning it to the ground before executing his plan to settle the score. It´s as clear as it needs to get.

You could be standing there with a taser and I could be 2 feet away from you with a teddy bear, and I could be yelling "You'll have to kill me to take away this teddy bear!" but that doesn't make it true.

I... I don't know how to say this but... Ronny is right about everything.

Why thank you

Except Ra's coming back. That's insulting Nolan.

You got a problem with insulting Nolan all of a sudden?

I think the idea could/should have been that Batman tries to save Ra's, and fails. Ra's obviously doesn't want to be saved (Not just physically, but from his ideology). Is that cliche? Yes, but it's a powerful thematic, and something that is found in real life. Which is more powerful? Batman refusing to save Ra's Al Ghul with his badass moment, while Ra's appears to die, or Batman, after going through all Ra's put him through, still wanting to save Ra's Al Ghul's life, and making an emotional appeal to his humanity, but Ra's being so far gone that he won't let Batman save him. That's what Batman is. He fights for the lost causes. His approach to Ra's and other criminals should be symbolic of his approach to Gotham City. Or he wouldn't take them in Arkham. He'd just kill them, or let them die.

As usual, The Guard knows what he's talking about

 

[Ronny Shade]

Seems a lot of people here are for the idea that Batman should've saved Ra's, but no one seems to care for what would happen afterwards, if he did save Ra's. Once again, how would they prove that Ra's was guilty? When it came to Falcone and his thugs Batman had done his homework and was able to provide ample evidence. When it came to Ra's, however, Batman had less than 20 minutes to realize the details of Ra's plan and stop it from coming to fruition. How seriously could they take a single testimony from Batman? And how likely would it be for Batman to testify? Even if the "corrupt bureaucrats" somehow found Ra's to be guilty and declared him as such, what to do about the League of Shadows which, having infiltrated every level of Gotham's infrastructure, will have a relatively easy time saving their leader? A smart Batman would not let someone like Ra's go, because it would endanger innocents, and he prioritizes their protection more than the protection of criminals.

You seem to be failing to understand that Batman is about futility, tragedy and perpetuation. The narrative of Batman is not one of quashing evil. If Batman quashed evil. He'd get finished and go retire. Being Batman is a fools errand. His stubbornness about letting people die improves both the strength of his character and the narrative.

Batman is not stupid.

Batman doesn't want innocents to die or suffer tragedy, which is what happened when his parents got killed. So there's the protector aspect. Again, handing Ra's over to the authorities, after a dangerous attempt at rescuing him from the train (dangerous since Ra's would've fought back at some point), would only result in Ra's getting away with it all, whereafter innocents would be at risk once again. That wouldn't have been a very protective move. Also, is punishing the same as killing to you? I'd say beating up criminals and landing them in jail is a form of punishment.

Also, I'm going by Begins here, not the strict ideal Batman sometimes is very able of upholding in the comics (and again, this wasn't originally part of the character... so, "THE WHOLE POINT"!?).

The conception of a character like Batman is far less important than the 60 some years of continuity that have gone into developing him.

In Begins, Bruce says that he will not become an executioner. There's a difference between killing someone in the heat of battle and executing someone. Execution takes place after you have captured your enemy. Ra's had not been captured at the end of Begins (for example, Crane was rendered harmless by Batman, who did not kill him, choosing instead to leave him to the police, and evidence was all around the place). It's also worth noting the context in which Bruce said he would not become an executioner. He was told to kill a man of whom he knew nothing, and all he had was the League's word that the man had murdered his neighbour. Remember, Bruce wished for a trial for the man, whereafter Ra's asks "By whom? corrupt bureaucrats?". This elaborates on Bruce's stance. He wants to know the details, and he wants to give people a chance. Knowing this would not be given here, he chose to cause a distraction, hoping this would help the man flee. As a final and important not on this scene, Bruce did not say that he would never kill someone, or never let someone die.

All of your arguments make sense logistically in the context of the film. I'm not disputing that. What I am arguing is that that makes both the character and narrative have far less impact.

Even though Bruce now viewed "Ducard" as a disillusioned member of a crazy warband, he gave him a chance by saving his life. Later, this turned out to be a bad idea. It was revealed the "Ducard" was actually Ra's al Ghul, and that he was just about to go through with a terrorist attack that would presumably lead to the death and destruction of Gotham and its citizens. Batman tried to talk him out of it, but Ra's was clearly beyond "redemption". So, Batman experienced first-hand how poorly Ra's handled his second chance - his "trial", given to him by Batman. "As a symbol, I can be incorruptible..."

The man draws lines and sticks to them. At least the Batman I know and love does. One of those lines is letting people die.

This goes with the more realistic approach to Batman. He gave the villain enough chances, and it did not work out. He did not go Punisher-style on Ra's and shoot him on sight.

"Realistic" isn't always better.

(BTW, Ra's was the one that destroyed the controls in the train. Batman was trying to stop the train, not set up a death trap for Ra's.)

He was not trying to stop the train, he was trying to make it explode. (What was that about his father's legacy?)

 

[Keyser Sushi]

He was not trying to stop the train, he was trying to make it explode. (What was that about his father's legacy?)

LOL.

Of course that's part of the poetry of the movie... Bruce is a prisoner, in some sense, of his father's legacy, and in order to become his own man, a boy must eventually step out of his father's shadow. The fact that Bruce, by the end of the movie, has made an ass of himself, seen Wayne Manor burned down, and then destroyed the monorail his father built, is symbolic of that.

And in fact, how does Bruce Wayne eventually take over Wayne Enterprises? He doesn't inherit it from his father -- rather he does, but gives it up... and he ends up BUYING the damn thing.

It's about Bruce establishing himself as his own man.

Of course this says nothing of the Ra's debate, which I am intentionally avoiding.