The Dark Knight Nolan talks more TDK

[ultimatefan]

No worries. It was for free.



But Batman wasn't pure dark. I understand you have to say it in order to hate the movie.



Even so, if we accept Batman and Bruce are not the same thing; the same Jack and Joker are not. The core point was that Napier being the Waynes' killer doesn't destroy a thing, but gives another background for the Batman-Joker hatred. Or gives it a background since they seem to hate each other for no reason in many comics.



When you're Batman you're able to save one single life. If you want to.



How funny since it's you ranting about changes.

I have always said that most of changes in both BB and B89 work just fine.

I´ll pass. When you say something of actual use, which has yet to happen, I´ll use it.

When did I say I hate the movie? Oh yeah, never. He wasn´t "pure" dark, but the movie didn´t emphasize other aspects enough for me.


Like I said before, it destroys something important to me, which is the killer being an ordinary thug, not a psycho criminal mastermind in the making.

It wasn´t likely that his cape would stand the weight. And it´s still not the same thing willingly attempting to murder someone first degree - as Bats does twice to Joker in 89 - as not risking your life to save someone you don´t think deserves it.

I´ve always tried to point out my reasons to agree or not with the changes, as opposite to your "just because".

 

[El Payaso]

I´ll pass. When you say something of actual use, which has yet to happen, I´ll use it.

Well, you've used my post quite a bit lately.

When did I say I hate the movie? Oh yeah, never. He wasn´t "pure" dark, but the movie didn´t emphasize other aspects enough for me.

You implied it was pure dark, hence my reply.

Like I said before, it destroys something important to me, which is the killer being an ordinary thug, not a psycho criminal mastermind in the making.

At that age, Napier wasn't Joker and wasn't involved in the mafia or he'd be in a club, not assaulting on streets. It was a common thug at the time.

It wasn´t likely that his cape would stand the weight.

Cripes, all that training years, suit and gadgets in order to save a city and he can't save one single life.

And it´s still not the same thing willingly attempting to murder someone first degree - as Bats does twice to Joker in 89

What 2 attemptings exactly?

as not risking your life to save someone you don´t think deserves it.

SO... Batman is also jury and judge in BB? Justice is not about what 'you think someone deserve.'

I´ve always tried to point out my reasons to agree or not with the changes, as opposite to your "just because".

Oh I have my reasons too. I remember for example to agreed with Wayne manor being destroyed, even when it's some significant change, but it was symbolizing something and I found it totally valid from that pov.

 

[ultimatefan]

Well, you've used my post quite a bit lately.



You implied it was pure dark, hence my reply.



At that age, Napier wasn't Joker and wasn't involved in the mafia or he'd be in a club, not assaulting on streets. It was a common thug at the time.



Cripes, all that training years, suit and gadgets in order to save a city and he can't save one single life.



What 2 attemptings exactly?



SO... Batman is also jury and judge in BB? Justice is not about what 'you think someone deserve.'



Oh I have my reasons too. I remember for example to agreed with Wayne manor being destroyed, even when it's some significant change, but it was symbolizing something and I found it totally valid from that pov.

When people quote me and try to question my ideas, I defend them, no matter how pointless I find the counterpoint to be. If you stop, I stop.

He was already a psycho, as his expressions and attitudes clearly expressed. You associate immediately his crime with his insanity, which is not most thug´s motivation.

It wasn´t just impossiblity, but also the fact he wouldn´t make the same mistake twice. He risked his life to save Ra´s once and Ra´s in return stabbed him in the back, which he was certain to do again.

He tried to shoot Joker with the bat-wing then punched him off the balcony. The fact that Joker managed to save himself don´t change his intentions and attitude.

He´s not because he didn´t willingly kill him. Again, murder and refusing to risk your life for someone aren´t the same thing.

 

[Mr. Socko]

I don't feel like reading all of this jibberish, whats going on?

 

[ultimatefan]

I don't feel like reading all of this jibberish, whats going on?

At this point, even I don´t care anymore. I explain myself and the guy throws the same argument back again and again... It´s a run in circles...

 

[El Payaso]

When people quote me and try to question my ideas, I defend them, no matter how pointless I find the counterpoint to be. If you stop, I stop.

What a coincidence. Same here.

He was already a psycho, as his expressions and attitudes clearly expressed. You associate immediately his crime with his insanity, which is not most thug´s motivation.

No. He wasn't clearly anything but just a killer. If Napier killing people in an alley with a gun is sign of insanity, then Chill doing the same should be the same too. What's the difference? Napier has a madman face? Please, people with odd faces are not necessarily odd. He clearly lost his mind after he fell in the toxic container.

It wasn´t just impossiblity, but also the fact he wouldn´t make the same mistake twice. He risked his life to save Ra´s once and Ra´s in return stabbed him in the back, which he was certain to do again.

Yes, so now he deserve to die, so let the guy die. And you come here talking about how too dark, coldblooded and unjust B89 Batman was.

He tried to shoot Joker with the bat-wing then punched him off the balcony. The fact that Joker managed to save himself don´t change his intentions and attitude.

I in fact congratulate Batman for riding of such a crazy killer.

He´s not because he didn´t willingly kill him. Again, murder and refusing to risk your life for someone aren´t the same thing.

No, but you take in your hands the desicion of the death of a man.

I don't feel like reading all of this jibberish, whats going on?

Believe me, you don't want to.

At this point, even I don´t care anymore. I explain myself and the guy throws the same argument back again and again... It´s a run in circles...

Oh please, reply and stop pretending you're not enjoying it.:meow:

 

[RedIsNotBlue]

Napier killed Bruce's parents just because he wanted to. Chill at least had somewhat of a valid reason he was in desperate need of money. Napier and his partner obviously had money going by the way they dressed and his partner seemed in shock after Napier gunned them down so it was obvious killing them wasn't in the cards (pardon the somewhat of a pun.)

 

[El Payaso]

^ Life is not fair or balanced. If you want money you can assault a person but not kill him necessarily.

 

[RedIsNotBlue]

^ Life is not fair or balanced. If you want money you can assault a person but not kill him necessarily.

Okay?? Didn't say it was. I said Napier didn't need to kill Bruce's parents so he was obviously insane and Chill had somewhat of a reason therefore he is not insane.

 

[Katsuro]

No. He wasn't clearly anything but just a killer. If Napier killing people in an alley with a gun is sign of insanity, then Chill doing the same should be the same too. What's the difference? Napier has a madman face? Please, people with odd faces are not necessarily odd. He clearly lost his mind after he fell in the toxic container.

Did you even watch Begins? Chill only shot because he was startled and got freaked out. He obviously wasn't some cold-blooded psycho like Jack Napier obviously was. "You ever dance wth the devil in the pale moonlight?". Who says that?

Also, El Payaso. Would you please describe a scene for me in which Batman manages to save Ra's al Ghul from a speeding train high up above the city with only seconds left before it crashes? Especially when it's Ra's al Ghul, who I highly doubt is gonna act like the damsel in distress and grab on tight to Batman while he swings them to safety.

 

[RedIsNotBlue]

Ra's Al Ghul killed himself. He put himself in that situation even when Bruce desperately asked him not to.

 

[Merkel]

Yeah, he was going to die anyway, wasn´t he? If the train had reached the building he would still be roasted.

 

[RedIsNotBlue]

Yeah, he was going to die anyway, wasn´t he? If the train had reached the building he would still be roasted.

Nope I am pretty sure he had an escape planned so he could go on "fighting evil". So Bruce letting Ra's die save a number of lives.

 

[ChrisBaleBatman]

I really don't see anyway that Batman could have saved Ra's. Just wasn't any way, short of Ra's wrapping his arms around him and hugging tightly as he glides away. B/c he needs both hands to glide.

And.....**** it....Ra's destroyed the controls himself, he made it impossible for the train to stop.

If anyone killed Ra's.....it was probably Gordon. He shot the train tracks. He saved alot of people doing that...and he's a cop, so he can kill people....so.....all's settled I guess.

 

[ultimatefan]

What a coincidence. Same here.



No. He wasn't clearly anything but just a killer. If Napier killing people in an alley with a gun is sign of insanity, then Chill doing the same should be the same too. What's the difference? Napier has a madman face? Please, people with odd faces are not necessarily odd. He clearly lost his mind after he fell in the toxic container.



Yes, so now he deserve to die, so let the guy die. And you come here talking about how too dark, coldblooded and unjust B89 Batman was.



I in fact congratulate Batman for riding of such a crazy killer.



No, but you take in your hands the desicion of the death of a man.



Believe me, you don't want to.



Oh please, reply and stop pretending you're not enjoying it.:meow:

Napier wanted to kill the defenseless kid, he even smiled at him, he just gave up cuz his partner called him, he even already used his catchphrase that he also uses as The Joker. It was clear that Napier was insane or at the very least mentally unstable prior to the accident, even Bruce mentions it as he read his file.

He didn´t deserve that someone risked his life for him, again why it´s so damn hard to understand the difference between murder and deciding not to risk yourself for someone. So if someone plans to kill someone, goes there and executes the person and another person is in a dangerous situation and decides to prioritize saving his own life instead of someone else and the person ends up dying, in your book they´re morally equivalent, I have to assume.

Doctors take decisions regarding the death of people all the time and they´re not murderers for that. Again, it seems to be the concept of premeditated murder that your brain appears to be incapable to process.

I gotta say, it´s becoming repetitive...

 

[Crooklyn]

I really don't see anyway that Batman could have saved Ra's. Just wasn't any way, short of Ra's wrapping his arms around him and hugging tightly as he glides away. B/c he needs both hands to glide.

It's a film, which means anything is malleable. If they wanted to, Nolan & Goyer could've had Bats save Ra's. But that's obviously not what they wanted.

If anyone killed Ra's.....it was probably Gordon. He shot the train tracks.

Which is exactly what Bats told him to do.

 

[El Payaso]

I really don't see anyway that Batman could have saved Ra's. Just wasn't any way, short of Ra's wrapping his arms around him and hugging tightly as he glides away. B/c he needs both hands to glide.

I don't see how a man can fight crime alone and fight against 600 men. But batman is upposed to be able. If he can't save one man then he's good for nothing about saving a city.

And.....**** it....Ra's destroyed the controls himself, he made it impossible for the train to stop.

You still can save him.

If anyone killed Ra's.....it was probably Gordon. He shot the train tracks. He saved alot of people doing that...and he's a cop, so he can kill people....so.....all's settled I guess.

That's the thing. Gordon as a cop is able to kill. Batman somehow is not. So being a cop would be more effective about sweeping crime away than being Batman.

Napier wanted to kill the defenseless kid, he even smiled at him, he just gave up cuz his partner called him, he even already used his catchphrase that he also uses as The Joker. It was clear that Napier was insane or at the very least mentally unstable prior to the accident, even Bruce mentions it as he read his file.

An insane man don't kill a kid because a dude tells him 'let's go'?

He didn´t deserve that someone risked his life for him, again why it´s so damn hard to understand the difference between murder and deciding not to risk yourself for someone. So if someone plans to kill someone, goes there and executes the person and another person is in a dangerous situation and decides to prioritize saving his own life instead of someone else and the person ends up dying, in your book they´re morally equivalent, I have to assume.

They're in the same wayabout deciding personally who's living worthy and who's not. The pioint is not that those things are the same but those things have things in common like not being Justice.

I gotta say, it´s becoming repetitive...

It screams Goyer.

 

[MechaOrga]

Hey guys and girls Looooooong time reader first time poster.Huge Batman Fan and film fanatic. Im based In NYC and am currently working in the TV business. Always watched the SHH forums with huge interest and decided to contribute after all these years LOL!
Just saw something interesting over at comics 2 film. In yet another interview, Nolan discloses that prep time is a bit easier this time around because things are already"made". He goes on to say tht he doesnt have to worry about the batmobile cuz its already designed. At least that's what i got out of it lol! So those wanting a New NolanMobile will seemingly be disappointed!
(To mods: Sorry if this is in the wrong spot...couldn't create another thread..cuz im new)

http://www.comics2film.com/FanFrame.php?f_id=22572

 

[ultimatefan]

An insane man don't kill a kid because a dude tells him 'let's go'?



They're in the same wayabout deciding personally who's living worthy and who's not. The pioint is not that those things are the same but those things have things in common like not being Justice.



It screams Goyer.

He pointed the gun to the kid and said the same line he says to his victims. Do I need to make a diagram?

Any person is entitled to put their own life in first place. It´s the principle behind legitimate defense. If his life was at risk, he didn´t have any moral obligation to save Ra´s. It was a dangerous situation, he himself could have been killed trying to get away from the train - his cape could have got stuck in some part of the train, the wind could have taken him the wrong direction , much worse if he had to carry someone else, and his cape most likely couldn´t bare the weight.

 

[ultimatefan]

Here´s another interview with Nolan, this time he says pre-production has been easier for the sequel.
http://www.comics2film.com/FanFrame.php?f_id=22572