The Dark Knight TDK Casting Sides

[Excel]

they seem to be pulling a batman returns and framing da bat!

 

[Miranda Fox]

I don't think that'll work with this Batman, considering how he let Ra's die in BB (seemingly) because it was for the better good. Saving others is one thing, but saving a boat-load of convicted killers? Way different.

Now of course, this could be made an exception if somewhere in TDK it's referenced that Bruce has either "changed his ways", or he regrets letting Ra's die. Then and only then, if your situation were to come to pass, would it not seem like Bats is being a huge hypocrite.

I've long stood by the theory that Joker may well call him on that - heck, can you imagine if that is the point of the ferry boats? To prove that Batman is full of it?

 

[Crooklyn]

I've long stood by the theory that Joker may well call him on that - heck, can you imagine if that is the point of the ferry boats? To prove that Batman is full of it?

About the Ra's thing? That was just between him and Bats, no one else would know.

 

[Miranda Fox]

About the Ra's thing? That was just between him and Bats, no one else would know.

Unless he keeps doing similar things? But yes, that's true. I doubt there was any body found. :/

 

[Crooklyn]

That's cuz the ninja snatched his ass, yo!

EDIT: Wow, I wasted my 4k on that.

 

[Fenrir]

I don't think that'll work with this Batman, considering how he let Ra's die in BB (seemingly) because it was for the better good. Saving others is one thing, but saving a boat-load of convicted killers? Way different.

Now of course, this could be made an exception if somewhere in TDK it's referenced that Bruce has either "changed his ways", or he regrets letting Ra's die. Then and only then, if your situation were to come to pass, would it not seem like Bats is being a huge hypocrite.

I don't see how Batman would be a hypocrite in this case. It's obvious from Begins that he's against the killings of criminals without a fair trial when he saved the prisoner from execution. How will saving the ferry of convicts be any different?

Secondly, and most importantly, everywhere people seem to forget that Bruce gave Ra's a second chance for reform when he risked his own life to save his mentor in spite of knowing that his mentor was very deeply involved with the radical organization and shared their beliefs. I'm pretty damn sure Bruce saved Ra's out of empathy when he knew that Ra's too had lost a loved one to crime and Bruce saving him would probably help him understand Bruce's cause. As regards Batman leaving him to die on the train, I see the reasons for this are three-fold:

1. Ra's was the one who doomed himself to a suicide mission when he jammed the controls. Obviously, the repercussions of the monorail reaching Wayne Tower would have been fatal, exactly why the building was ordered to evacuate.

2. Bruce gave Ra's a second-chance and it brought hell upon his city. The fact that Bruce feels partly responsible for putting Gotham in danger was why he didn't save Ra's from his own doomed fate - "I don't have to save you."

3. Ra's is someone who is obviously way 'above the law' when he spoke that "we have infiltrated every level of its infrastructure". There's no way he would get a 'fair' trial, or even one at all.

 

[Excel]

ending was clever. worked great.

1. nolan knew fans would hate idea fo batman letting ra's die, thus killing him, so we have the lgoical explanation batman didnt have to save him because ras is immortal.

2. the public would agree with batman letting him "die" and it made for a climactic ending scene.

 

[Nightwing 52]

These scenes are absolutely amazing. Miranda, excellent find.

From reading these pages, it really seems that TDK is going to be even grittier...The inspired vigilantes take reminded me of the Sons of Batman, who become Batman followers from DKR.

Joker's portrayal is everything I thought he would be: intelligent, disturbed, creepy, and without a doubt, mysterious.

 

[Miranda Fox]

These scenes are absolutely amazing. Miranda, excellent find.

From reading these pages, it really seems that TDK is going to be even grittier...The inspired vigilantes take reminded me of the Sons of Batman, who become Batman followers from DKR.

Joker's portrayal is everything I thought he would be: intelligent, disturbed, creepy, and without a doubt, mysterious.

Thanks! And totally agree.

 

[The Guard]

I'm sure someone has mentioned this before...but I'm pretty sure that the bank robbery is going to be one of those flashback-out-of-linear-time sequences Nolan loves so much. I think this may even be what happens that makes Gordon reference an "armed robbery, double homicide" in BATMAN BEGINS (we just see it in THE DARK KNIGHT). That might well mean there will be a lot of that back and forth storytelling to flesh out The Joker and his past, which is definitely Chris Nolan's style.

Judging from the bank scene (and assuming that it is our first taste of Mr. J in the movie), I'd say he comes off as a guy who simply doesn't give a f**k...which is clearly why they have that little bit of dialogue in there with the bank manager -- to show the audience that it doesn't matter to this man whose money this is. I'm sure there is some point later on where we'll get to see the raving lunatic we've all come to know & love.

And Guard, I agree with you in that the dialogue IS a tad contrived, but for now, the thought of Ledger delivering the line "it's rude to stare" is giving me absolute chills.

It's the only line I really truly enjoyed out of all those sides. Because that's absolutely the Joker right there.

why would Bruce be hitting the town with homely Rachel Dawes? Rachel already squashed the reallife romance for them; and Bruce has no reason to be the playboy Bruce with Rachel as his arm candy.

Good point. The woman with the champagne is clearly not Rachel. And there's no real point in them pursuing a romantic angle with these two in THE DARK KNIGHT after the events of BATMAN BEGINS.

I don't think that'll work with this Batman, considering how he let Ra's die in BB (seemingly) because it was for the better good. Saving others is one thing, but saving a boat-load of convicted killers? Way different.

Just a thought. What if the fate of the ferries isn't the choice of the people on the ferry's at all? What if that's just a smokescreen, and it's Harvey Dent's choice to make? There are two ferries...quite an important decision with lives hanging in the balance...and a very clear schism between good and evil actions. For a man who might be teetering on the edge of sanity...that might put him over it.

 

[Katsuro]

I'm sure someone has mentioned this before...but I'm pretty sure that the bank robbery is going to be one of those flashback-out-of-linear-time sequences Nolan loves so much. I think this may even be what happens that makes Gordon reference an "armed robbery, double homicide" in BATMAN BEGINS (we just see it in THE DARK KNIGHT). That might well mean there will be a lot of that back and forth to flesh out The Joker and his past, which is definitely Chris Nolan's style.

It's very possible, but something about the scene makes me think Joker's been established by the time that scene takes place. The way he mentions "the guy who hired you" seems like he knows exactly who hired them, he just didn't know it was the same guy he was talking to. It would also explain the shock at his face, it's not so much "omg your face is white!!" but more "omg! it's him!!!!"

Just a thought. What if the fate of the ferries isn't the choice of the people on the ferry's at all? What if that's just a smokescreen, and it's Harvey Dent's choice to make? There are two ferries...quite an important decision with lives hanging in the balance...and a very clear schism between good and evil actions. For a man who might be teetering on the edge of sanity...that might put him over it.

See, i'd rather that scene not having anything to do with Two=Face for the simple reason that there is no "good" choice. Two-Face is about good vs. evil, not evil vs. slightly less evil. Not many people would call killing a boat-load of prisoners, with wardens and a crew aboard, a good act. Sure, it's not as bad as killing a boat of average passengers, but it's still pretty bad.

 

[The Guard]

That's the point. Harvey Dent is (or at least, wants to be) about due process. About doing things the right way, about law and order. The weight of making that decision could be what makes him snap, so to speak.

 

[Agentsands77]

There are two ferries...quite an important decision with lives hanging in the balance...and a very clear schism between good and evil actions. For a man who might be teetering on the edge of sanity...that might put him over it.

I only disagree because I don't think that's the Dent they're drawing upon. The Dent of THE LONG HALLOWEEN or "The Eye of the Beholder" (or really the last 15 years, honestly) isn't about the good/evil dichotomy, but more focused on justice. And looking at the dialogue they go with for Dent, it definitely seems like they're going with the "I did what needed to be done" angle for Two-Face.

It's very possible, but something about the scene makes me think Joker's been established by the time that scene takes place. The way he mentions "the guy who hired you" seems like he knows exactly who hired them, he just didn't know it was the same guy he was talking to. It would also explain the shock at his face, it's not so much "omg your face is white!!" but more "omg! it's him!!!!"

It feels that way to me, too. It may be the opening of the film, for all we know, but it definitely feels like it takes place a good bit after the end of BATMAN BEGINS.

See, i'd rather that scene not having anything to do with Two=Face for the simple reason that there is no "good" choice. Two-Face is about good vs. evil, not evil vs. slightly less evil. Not many people would call killing a boat-load of prisoners, with wardens and a crew aboard, a good act. Sure, it's not as bad as killing a boat of average passengers, but it's still pretty bad.

Excellent point. Even for the good/evil dichotomy, it doesn't pan out. It's a scene that I'm convinced has to do with a sick joke of the Joker's (and it's entirely possible that even if the button is pressed, both boats blow up anyway - seems like a Joker-like gag).

 

[Agentsands77]

That's the point. Harvey Dent is (or at least, wants to be) about due process. About doing things the right way, about law and order. The weight of making that decision could be what makes him snap, so to speak.

Oh, I see what you mean. Interesting suggestion. But I don't see how Harvey Dent would be put in the decision of making that choice. You'd think it would be a policeman or just the people on the boats themselves.

I still don't think it quite gets to the core of Dent's conflict. His conflict is between upholding law and sacrificing it (in the dialogue he's given, he displays a lot of admiration for Batman's rising above the law in his duties). His conflict is about at what point do you have to go above the law to get the job done. It's about him losing all faith in the law to provide justice. The conflict of Harvey Dent is whether he should go out and simply murder those responsible for crimes or not.

This act doesn't really provide a scenario for that conflict. The ferry situation doesn't really speak to the law at all, it's simply a moral dilemma of who to save.

 

[regwec]

The Dent of THE LONG HALLOWEEN or "The Eye of the Beholder" (or really the last 15 years, honestly) isn't about the good/evil dichotomy, but more focused on justice.

Don't really agree; it's only between Hush and Batman's first adventure One Year Later that the flipping coin has been of little relevance.

 

[Agentsands77]

Well, THE LONG HALLOWEEN and DARK VICTORY take that road (where the coin is more about random justice/injustice than good/evil). And considering that's one of their leading sources, I imagine they'll be taking that interpretation.

 

[regwec]

I wouldn't like to see a Two Face with a firm deductive process. I think the reduction of his moral faculties to a 50-50 chance on a spinning coin is one of the most iconic and visually arresting things about the character. Of course, I don't want him to be obsessed by the number two in the same sense as his Silver Age incarnation, but I do think its an important element.

 

[itsthebatman]

I wouldn't like to see a Two Face with a firm deductive process. I think the reduction of his moral faculties to a 50-50 chance on a spinning coin is one of the most iconic and visually arresting things about the character. Of course, I don't want him to be obsessed by the number two in the same sense as his Silver Age incarnation, but I do think its an important element.

Agree. One of the few things I liked about Arkham Asylum was the dissection of Two-Face's psychology, and how by making him have more choices, via the deck of cards, his doctors actually made him less able to make decisions. Definitely, the spinning coin and the 50-50 decisions are a fundamental aspect of his character.

 

[Crooklyn]

I don't see how Batman would be a hypocrite in this case. It's obvious from Begins that he's against the killings of criminals without a fair trial when he saved the prisoner from execution. How will saving the ferry of convicts be any different?

Because it treats the situation as "well, there's no where else to go, minds as well kill them".

Secondly, and most importantly, everywhere people seem to forget that Bruce gave Ra's a second chance for reform when he risked his own life to save his mentor in spite of knowing that his mentor was very deeply involved with the radical organization and shared their beliefs. I'm pretty damn sure Bruce saved Ra's out of empathy when he knew that Ra's too had lost a loved one to crime and Bruce saving him would probably help him understand Bruce's cause. As regards Batman leaving him to die on the train, I see the reasons for this are three-fold:

1. Ra's was the one who doomed himself to a suicide mission when he jammed the controls. Obviously, the repercussions of the monorail reaching Wayne Tower would have been fatal, exactly why the building was ordered to evacuate.

And Joker dooms himself by continuously murdering people left and right, while also confronting Batman. Would you advocate Bats killing Joker in TDK?

2. Bruce gave Ra's a second-chance and it brought hell upon his city. The fact that Bruce feels partly responsible for putting Gotham in danger was why he didn't save Ra's from his own doomed fate - "I don't have to save you."

Well then Bats is playing Judge & Executioner here, is he not?

3. Ra's is someone who is obviously way 'above the law' when he spoke that "we have infiltrated every level of its infrastructure". There's no way he would get a 'fair' trial, or even one at all.

It's still an incredible assumption that they'd find absolutely nothing on Ra's. Even if they didn't, Bats doesn't have that sort of mentality, he leaves the law up to the right people. It's not his place.

 

[Agentsands77]

Definitely, the spinning coin and the 50-50 decisions are a fundamental aspect of his character.

Well, considering what are arguably the two definitive Two-Face stories of all time, "The Eye of the Beholder" (Batman Annual #14) and The Long Halloween/Dark Victory take different routes than that, I don't know that such a take is "fundamental."

 

[Fenrir]

Because it treats the situation as "well, there's no where else to go, minds as well kill them".

And where exactly in Begins was a "well, there's no where else to go, minds as well kill them" mindset implied?

And Joker dooms himself by continuously murdering people left and right, while also confronting Batman. Would you advocate Bats killing Joker in TDK?

Where does it state as such? Unless Joker is on a suicide mission like Ra's while on his killing spree, I don't see how it is even a remotely similar situation.

Well then Bats is playing Judge & Executioner here, is he not?

Judge, probably. Executioner, no. Because even if take out Batman destroying the train tracks, Ra's was still on a one-way ticket on a doomsday train to Wayne Tower when he busted the monorail's controls. And at that speed and height, there was no way he could have bailed out without getting killed anyway. Letting someone die through a fate they orchestrated themselves is not the same as pulling the trigger yourself, ESPECIALLY when you had already saved their life once before and given them a second chance which they did not take.

It's still an incredible assumption that they'd find absolutely nothing on Ra's. Even if they didn't, Bats doesn't have that sort of mentality, he leaves the law up to the right people. It's not his place.

Frankly speaking, I find the notion of the comic book Batman risking himself to save homocidal and even genocidal repeated-offense sociopaths after the law failing to sentence them to the electric chair incredibly naive. There is no justice nor common sense in giving a megalomaniac a chance at redemption when all it ends up in is just more people getting killed. That is why I shall always appreciate a Batman who can be cold and apathetic to killers and criminals who've had their chances - certainly not to the extent of actually executing them himself but not foolish enough to risk his own life to save theirs.

 

[Crooklyn]

And where exactly in Begins was a "well, there's no where else to go, minds as well kill them" mindset implied?

You mentioned how Ra's not having a fair trial would be a problem, therefore it was alright to kill him since there was no other alternative. This is what you were saying, yes?

Where does it state as such? Unless Joker is on a suicide mission like Ra's while on his killing spree, I don't see how it is even a remotely similar situation.

I was implying that if Joker caused enough mayhem, obviously Batman would do whatever he can to prevent it. The question is, how far would he go.

But to ask it in a different way, if Joker was in a life/death situation in which Batman had the chance to save him, would you be fine if Bats just stood there and did nothing?

Judge, probably. Executioner, no. Because even if take out Batman destroying the train tracks, Ra's was still on a one-way ticket on a doomsday train to Wayne Tower when he busted the monorail's controls. And at that speed and height, there was no way he could have bailed out without getting killed anyway.

You can not possibly think Ra's set up this whole plan knowing in the end it would kill him. His whole purpose is to "balance" the equation, killing himself would do nothing for this movement. I'd say he's trying to stay alive as long as possible so he can have the chance to fix the corrupt cities.

Letting someone die through a fate they orchestrated themselves is not the same as pulling the trigger yourself, ESPECIALLY when you had already saved their life once before and given them a second chance which they did not take.

I don't recall saying it was the same. Just the notion that as far as we know Batman to be, he sure as hell wouldn't just bail out if he had a chance to save a life, no matter who.

Frankly speaking, I find the notion of the comic book Batman risking himself to save homocidal and even genocidal repeated-offense sociopaths after the law failing to sentence them to the electric chair incredibly naive. There is no justice nor common sense in giving a megalomaniac a chance at redemption when all it ends up in is just more people getting killed.

I guess you'd be better off liking someone else other than Batman. That's basically what makes him up, lol.

That is why I shall always appreciate a Batman who can be cold and apathetic to killers and criminals who've had their chances - certainly not to the extent of actually executing them himself but not foolish enough to risk his own life to save theirs.

I've got no problem with Bats roughing 'em up a bit, but there definitely should be a line that can not be crossed in regards to another's life.

 

[Fenrir]

You mentioned how Ra's not having a fair trial would be a problem, therefore it was alright to kill him since there was no other alternative. This is what you were saying, yes?

I said it was only one of three reasons why Batman left him on the train.

I was implying that if Joker caused enough mayhem, obviously Batman would do whatever he can to prevent it. The question is, how far would he go.

I am a strong advocate of all criminals getting a fair trial and a second chance at life, even if it is for the Joker. But not more than that, because doing so would only serve to lessen the value of the first one and render it pretty much useless.

But to ask it in a different way, if Joker was in a life/death situation in which Batman had the chance to save him, would you be fine if Bats just stood there and did nothing?

The first time? No. The second time? Yes.

You can not possibly think Ra's set up this whole plan knowing in the end it would kill him. His whole purpose is to "balance" the equation, killing himself would do nothing for this movement. I'd say he's trying to stay alive as long as possible so he can have the chance to fix the corrupt cities.

I never said that Ra's was planning to kill himself from the very beginning. But rather, in his desperation to prevent Batman from foiling his plans he had become suicidal.

I don't recall saying it was the same. Just the notion that as far as we know Batman to be, he sure as hell wouldn't just bail out if he had a chance to save a life, no matter who.

But isn't that a logical and philosophical fallacy? Saving a repeat-offender knowing he might very well escape the clutches of the law and kill more innocents is against the very principle of the preservation of human life.

I guess you'd be better off liking someone else other than Batman. That's basically what makes him up, lol.

No, it's just ONE aspect of the COMIC BOOK Batman that I don't appreciate, and for good, logical reasons. Thankfully, as an icon the character has transcended his comic book boundaries to not be pigeonholed by a single medium as a 'definitive' interpretation.

I've got no problem with Bats roughing 'em up a bit, but there definitely should be a line that can not be crossed in regards to another's life.

Same here. But I'm a bit more, how shall I say it, flexible when it comes to preserving the hides of incorrigible scum.

 

[Crooklyn]

I said it was only one of three reasons why Batman left him on the train.

I realize that, and I answered your other points as well.

I am a strong advocate of all criminals getting a fair trial and a second chance at life, even if it is for the Joker. But not more than that, because doing so would only serve to lessen the value of the first one and render it pretty much useless.

Well idk what to say, that's the justice system for ya, lol.

The first time? No. The second time? Yes.

But how would all our good stories be told if all the interesting characters die?

I never said that Ra's was planning to kill himself from the very beginning. But rather, in his desperation to prevent Batman from foiling his plans he had become suicidal.

Perhaps, it did seem like a very in-the-moment type of thing at that point. But even so, Bats always saves 'em if he can.

No, it's just ONE aspect of the COMIC BOOK Batman that I don't appreciate, and for good, logical reasons. Thankfully, as an icon the character has transcended his comic book boundaries to not be pigeonholed by a single medium as a 'definitive' interpretation.

True, there are many interpretations, but what you're getting at is the core of the character. It's one of the few things that have stayed the same almost as long as the character was first created. If it's changed, well, you'd change a pretty significant part of the character.

Same here. But I'm a bit more, how shall I say it, flexible when it comes to preserving the hides of incorrigible scum.

Jack Bauer would like you.

 

[Fenrir]

Well idk what to say, that's the justice system for ya, lol.

Then there is no justice!

But how would all our good stories be told if all the interesting characters die?

LOL, "only in comic books".

Perhaps, it did seem like a very in-the-moment type of thing at that point. But even so, Bats always saves 'em if he can.

In Ra's case, he did once already. He's not obliged to do it again.

True, there are many interpretations, but what you're getting at is the core of the character. It's one of the few things that have stayed the same almost as long as the character was first created. If it's changed, well, you'd change a pretty significant part of the character.

I don't think so. I think Batman can not be so sympathetic to hopeless, persistent criminals and still be respectful towards human life. I really like how the Begins Batman took the middle ground approach there by clearly stating how he's "no executioner" but also that has no qualms about leaving irredeemables to their fates and at the same time, risking his own life if it means getting a criminal a fair trial and a second chance. That I believe is the primary essence of the character's devotion to human life, not consistently saving incurable butchers so that they can kill more innocents.

Jack Bauer would like you.

See? There's a reason why the guy kicks so much ass. up: