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

[Heretic]

Id actually prefer that Ra's have very little to do with this film, if anything. To me, this was a showing of Batmans morality being molded, and i expect that he will be even more vitruous in the sequel, eventually coming to do everything in his power to avoid death, by the time a few more movies pass. I actually loved the part in the comic where he broke down and was ready to murder the joker but was stopped by gordon. I think itd be cool to see bats morality evolve, and then be tested.

 

[Beelze]

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

Batman was trying to stop the train, but had Gordon go and blow-up the track in case he wouldn't succeed. Thanks to Ra's ruining the control panel, Batman couldn't succeed, and had to let Plan C* do the job, regretfully leading to a lot of collateral damage.

*Plan A was to stop them from loading the train with the Microwave Emitter ("I'm going to stop them from loading that train...), Plan B was to stop the train, and Plan C was to have Gordon destroy part of the track (... but I may need your help.")

He obviously wanted to rebuild Wayne Manor exactly the way it was, it being his father's house, so I wonder if he'll have the train and the track rebuilt as well.

I'm fine with the Batman they chose to put on-screen, and I generally favor realism. I think I belong to the group of people who consider Batman always saving the villains to be a money-making device, because it allows the writers to keep using the same, popular villains over and over, without having to break new, uncertain ground.

For the sake of discussion, let's say Batman did save Ra's, rendered him unconscious, and was standing on the streets of Gotham, carrying the villain in his arms. What would your Batman do next?

 

[ultimatefan]

Batman was trying to stop the train, but had Gordon go and blow-up the track in case he wouldn't succeed. Thanks to Ra's ruining the control panel, Batman couldn't succeed, and had to let Plan C* do the job, regretfully leading to a lot of collateral damage.

*Plan A was to stop them from loading the train with the Microwave Emitter ("I'm going to stop them from loading that train...), Plan B was to stop the train, and Plan C was to have Gordon destroy part of the track (... but I may need your help.")

He obviously wanted to rebuild Wayne Manor exactly the way it was, it being his father's house, so I wonder if he'll have the train and the track rebuilt as well.

I'm fine with the Batman they chose to put on-screen, and I generally favor realism. I think I belong to the group of people who consider Batman always saving the villains to be a money-making device, because it allows the writers to keep using the same, popular villains over and over, without having to break new, uncertain ground.

For the sake of discussion, let's say Batman did save Ra's, rendered him unconscious, and was standing on the streets of Gotham, carrying the villain in his arms. What would your Batman do next?

Yeah, if he succeeded, all he needed to do was to tell Gordon to stop. Ronny, we had all these arguments a buncha times, and whether you like the choices made or not, they work for the intents and purposes of the movie, and the vast majority of bat-fans are happy with it. Let´s leave that alone and move on for TDK.

 

[El Payaso]

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.

You got that straight. Schumacher got that right. In fact I felt it was the same Bruce of B89 and BR saying this after all of his previous experiences killing and such.

Why thank you


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

Welcome you are.

Of course, man. I've never been there to insult Nolan. The guy just needs to do a better editing, but he's one of the great directors out there. Batman should feel really lucky to have him. BB could have easily been a didactic moralistic movie and it wasn't because of Nolan subtleties.

Now, Goyer. Say whatever about him and his relatives.

 

[The Sage]

Batman was trying to stop the train, but had Gordon go and blow-up the track in case he wouldn't succeed. Thanks to Ra's ruining the control panel, Batman couldn't succeed, and had to let Plan C* do the job, regretfully leading to a lot of collateral damage.

*Plan A was to stop them from loading the train with the Microwave Emitter ("I'm going to stop them from loading that train...), Plan B was to stop the train, and Plan C was to have Gordon destroy part of the track (... but I may need your help.")

He obviously wanted to rebuild Wayne Manor exactly the way it was, it being his father's house, so I wonder if he'll have the train and the track rebuilt as well.

I'm fine with the Batman they chose to put on-screen, and I generally favor realism. I think I belong to the group of people who consider Batman always saving the villains to be a money-making device, because it allows the writers to keep using the same, popular villains over and over, without having to break new, uncertain ground.

Batman not saving criminals isn't new, uncertain ground. That's the same thing Burton was doing. I thought one of the reasons fans wanted a reboot was to see Batman not killing his enemies but jail them like he does in the books.

Guess I was wrong.

 

[Secret_Riddle]

I like grim.

it better not revolve around a stupid black dog though

 

[Cosmic]

Batman not saving criminals isn't new, uncertain ground. That's the same thing Burton was doing. I thought one of the reasons fans wanted a reboot was to see Batman not killing his enemies but jail them like he does in the books.

Guess I was wrong.

Batman didn't kill Ra's al Ghul.

 

[zer00]

I think Nolan's following the Batman movie tradition of basing the atmosphere of the story to fit a specific of Batman's career in the comics. It's what every major Batman film has done thus far. I mean, think about it:

Batman - 1930's era Batman (He used machine guns, killed criminals, and was more of a grim creature of the night)

Batman Returns - 40's era Batman (This Batman was pretty much the same, except for that it began to go 'out there' in some respects.)

Batman Forever - 50's era Batman (The first real era where Batman did outrageous things, like visit Mars and turn into Giant Apes. While this Batman didn't do that, the sets and the situations speak for themselves)

Batman & Robin - 60's era Batman (Batman and Robin being public figures, over the top villains and situations, ect... Need I say more?)

Batman Begins - 70's era Batman (The era where Batman regained his darker roots, Began journeying outside of Gotham City, and acknowledging a real world outside of Gotham. Also where Ra's Al Ghul first appeared)

So... that said... it's possible TDK will be in line with the 80's era of Batman. Which is damned good, as far as I'm concerned, considering the 80's brought us Year One, The Dark Knight Returns, and The Killing Joke, aswell as the first journeying into Bruce's psychosis.

I honestly wouldn't be surprised if TDK was intentionally darker, and Batman was a little meaner in this one. That combined with the characterisations of The Joker by both Alan Moore and Frank Miller of that era is getting me pumped for this, provided my theory is true. (Which I think is in part of Micheal Ulsan producing these films. He's the one that first brought this to my attention in interviews on the B89 special featurettes.)

I've always loved how the bat movies follows the eras like this, completely unintentionally. It's so ****ing genius. I bet someone won the lottery

 

[Ronny Shade]

You got that straight. Schumacher got that right. In fact I felt it was the same Bruce of B89 and BR saying this after all of his previous experiences killing and such.



Welcome you are.

Of course, man. I've never been there to insult Nolan. The guy just needs to do a better editing, but he's one of the great directors out there. Batman should feel really lucky to have him. BB could have easily been a didactic moralistic movie and it wasn't because of Nolan subtleties.

Now, Goyer. Say whatever about him and his relatives.

I'm trying to figure out why I used to not like you

 

[Ronny Shade]

Batman was trying to stop the train, but had Gordon go and blow-up the track in case he wouldn't succeed. Thanks to Ra's ruining the control panel, Batman couldn't succeed, and had to let Plan C* do the job, regretfully leading to a lot of collateral damage.

*Plan A was to stop them from loading the train with the Microwave Emitter ("I'm going to stop them from loading that train...), Plan B was to stop the train, and Plan C was to have Gordon destroy part of the track (... but I may need your help.")

I know. But at the point when he made the decision we're all arguing about, he wasn't trying to stop the train. In fact he was adament about NOT stopping the train "who said anything about stopping it" anyone?

He obviously wanted to rebuild Wayne Manor exactly the way it was, it being his father's house, so I wonder if he'll have the train and the track rebuilt as well.

Joke. Joke. Joke.

I'm fine with the Batman they chose to put on-screen, and I generally favor realism. I think I belong to the group of people who consider Batman always saving the villains to be a money-making device, because it allows the writers to keep using the same, popular villains over and over, without having to break new, uncertain ground.

Regardless of what it started as, It's not about making money it's about the tragedy of perpetuation.

For the sake of discussion, let's say Batman did save Ra's, rendered him unconscious, and was standing on the streets of Gotham, carrying the villain in his arms. What would your Batman do next?

Turn him into the authorities. My batman hasn't yet fully learned that that will probably not do any good, but even if he has, his entire life is an exercise in futility, that doesn't stop him from doing what he does.

 

[Beelze]

I think he just said that line to distract Ra's.

I guess I could say that my Batman hasn't fully decided to live up to the almost unfaltering nobility present in many/most of the later comics. It's important to note though, that in the comics he usually always manages to land the villain in jail, unless the villain escapes him. It works in a comic-y way; catching the villain automatically leads to the villain being found guilty and put in jail (whereas in Begins he had to supply evidence, except for Crane and his thugs, where evidence of foul play was already all around the place).

I think it somewhat contradicts Batman's genius, because certainly he would realize the futility in working the way he does, and if he does, he chooses to limit his capability of protecting the innocent. And I kinda think that, "Batman protects the innocent", is a more important axiom for the character than "Batman does not kill/Batman does not let people die."

Still, I understand what you mean. What you say has merit, and I gotta say that I'm kind of beginning to see things your way. I mean, I'd love to see Batman risk a good deal to save The Joker from certain death at one point, knowing full well how dangerous The Joker is. It mustn't be tacked on though - I want what goes on in Bruce's head to be presented well, for us to be aware of why he, say, saves The Joker. I don't think "I will not be an executioner" covers everything.

I think Two-Face would be a good turning point in Batman's career, if they go with the Bruce-Harvey-friendship angle. It has good potential to put Batman more onto the path you want him to be on. First Batman could not save his parents, innocents. Then he couldn't save Harvey, an originally innocent person who later turned bad, and even though he turned bad Batman still wants to save him. That could be the starting point of him sympathizing with the villains, perhaps he even starting to draw parallells between Harvey and The Joker - and even himself/Batman.

 

[Dangerous]

I think TDK will be the most spectacular and greatest of the trilogy.
I can't wait for this film it's gonna be so great to see Bats Vs Joker, if Joker is made to be close to Batman’s physical equal.

 

[COMPO]

well, he was in ROTJ and his first to apperances.

 

[Ronny Shade]

I think he just said that line to distract Ra's.

I guess I could say that my Batman hasn't fully decided to live up to the almost unfaltering nobility present in many/most of the later comics. It's important to note though, that in the comics he usually always manages to land the villain in jail, unless the villain escapes him. It works in a comic-y way; catching the villain automatically leads to the villain being found guilty and put in jail (whereas in Begins he had to supply evidence, except for Crane and his thugs, where evidence of foul play was already all around the place).

I think it somewhat contradicts Batman's genius, because certainly he would realize the futility in working the way he does, and if he does, he chooses to limit his capability of protecting the innocent. And I kinda think that, "Batman protects the innocent", is a more important axiom for the character than "Batman does not kill/Batman does not let people die."

Still, I understand what you mean. What you say has merit, and I gotta say that I'm kind of beginning to see things your way. I mean, I'd love to see Batman risk a good deal to save The Joker from certain death at one point, knowing full well how dangerous The Joker is. It mustn't be tacked on though - I want what goes on in Bruce's head to be presented well, for us to be aware of why he, say, saves The Joker. I don't think "I will not be an executioner" covers everything.

I think Two-Face would be a good turning point in Batman's career, if they go with the Bruce-Harvey-friendship angle. It has good potential to put Batman more onto the path you want him to be on. First Batman could not save his parents, innocents. Then he couldn't save Harvey, an originally innocent person who later turned bad, and even though he turned bad Batman still wants to save him. That could be the starting point of him sympathizing with the villains, perhaps he even starting to draw parallells between Harvey and The Joker - and even himself/Batman.

Believe me, I see it your way too. I just think my way works better.

One thing that bugs me is that the role Ra's played in Begins was so much of the mentor/father figure to Bruce. Letting him die seems contrary to the character. If his angst is all a reult of his parents dying would he really so coldly let another psuedo-parental figure plummet to his death? He didn't in the beginning, what really changed by the end? Not all that much. Now Ra's wanted to kill Gotham instead of a murderer in Tibet. Difference? Scale, sure, but not really on principle. Well, nevermind, there are innocent people in Gotham. That's the big issue. I'd argue there's an innocent person in Ra's Al Ghul as well. He's just been hardened over his many (thousands?) years of fighting evil, he's lost the small picture.

Batman's a small picture guy in the comics. Sure he joins the Justice League, fights alien monsters, etc. but who doesn't in DC comics? As he says in JLU, "Those monsters you don't fight? They tend to step on 'little guys.' " Batman always wrestles with the big picture/greater good vs the small picture/saving lives. This is definitely the easiest debate to see both sides of. I just like Batman seeing the small side of it whereas other heroes with grander powers see the "big picture." (Of course this gets you into trouble, since you'll never see Supes letting a guy die so he doesn't live to strike another day)

As for "contradicting his genius," I can see that as a valid point, but to me it really isn't about genius, what Batman does. Sure, genius helps him do it, but it's about (as I've said before) drawing lines and sticking to them. One of those lines is not letting people die. Something really struck me when I read "Bruce Wayne: Murderer?" When Sasha said "It's a fools errand. He knows this better than anyone, but he still does it" (I'm paraphrasing). I mean think about it "ridding the city of the evil that took my parents' lives?" not exactly a realistic goal. Might as well pledge to go up into the atmosphere and remove all the CFCs one by one. The evil never dies. What better way to symbolize that then showing the villains literally never dying? The tragedy of recurrance and perpetuation. It's one of the reasons I love superheores.

I like your idea about Harvey really teaching him to see the good in everyone. That "innocent person inside Ra's" I mentioned would be almost literal in the case of Dent/Two-Face.

 

[L0ngsh0t]

I think TDK will be the most spectacular and greatest of the trilogy.
I can't wait for this film it's gonna be so great to see Bats Vs Joker, if Joker is made to be close to Batman’s physical equal.

I have been kicking this around in my head, and on one level I am thinking, man they are putting all their chips in TDK's basket, TDK is going to kick ass because its the joker, etc. etc. While thinking like that you obviously think this one is going to be the best in the series, but because I think this one is so good, I in turn am starting to be unbelievabley ready to start talking about what they will bring to top TDK, in 2

 

[WeaponXProject]

I am still hoping that this movie doesn't try to do too much in one. A la Spidey 3, which is obviously doing too much in one movie but I can't wait for it. But from what I've heard from you guys and other buzz Dent will only turn into Two-Face at the end instead of him being Two-Face half way through....but who knows?

 

[Ronny Shade]

This movie is Dent

part 3 is Two Face.


That's what Goyer said a while back.