The Dark Knight The Official Plot holes thread.

[LadyVader]

nope but x + y =

He's still standing there awfully still, even if he's gagged.

 

[Ace of Knaves]

well he would be still.........its a picture!! lol

 

[LadyVader]

I mean he's in the exact same position Joker left him. Crouched down, head hung low, shouldn't he be panicking? I don't care how well you're tied. You should still be able to roll over and get away from the fire.

 

[Ace of Knaves]

ye i think he must of been tie down to something, i understand what you mean that if i was on fire i wouldn't just be sitting there! or maybe he was unconcious anyway?? who knows?

 

["V"]

That still of Lau is just a production shot; as I recall, we don't actually see him burning on top of the pile on film - it's just heavily suggested - and obviously confirmed by the production picture...

 

[Ace of Knaves]

i think it would of been cool if while the joker and the chechan were talking we could just hear LAUs bloodcurdling screams of agony or summin.

 

[LadyVader]

I still think it's a pretty big oversight. Why did he have to stand right smack in the middle of the pile anyway. Just seems a little to on the nose.

 

[Soundwave3k]

Actually, he didn't keep away from it, considering Batman auto-grappled the monorail and Gordon in Batman Begins too. And then there's that scene at the docks where he just goes zooming upward and we never see what he's attached to. I think it just stands out in TDK more because he didn't use the grapple as much (I think he only used it twice). But yeah, grappling Joker and automatically snagging him was unrealistic, but didn't bother me at all since it's pretty much a staple of the character that he's able to do that.

Yes but in Batman Begins they went to the trouble of explaining that the grappling gun was magnetic. So either of the other two scenes could be explained that way (especially the monorail). Given that explanation it seem unlikely that Nolan would ignore that detail in that scene.

 

[JL Unlimited]

Yes but in Batman Begins they went to the trouble of explaining that the grappling gun was magnetic. So either of the other two scenes could be explained that way (especially the monorail). Given that explanation it seem unlikely that Nolan would ignore that detail in that scene.

It fits in this universe. How did Batman grab Flass' leg from at least 10 stories up? Batman/Bruce is so disciplined that I wouldn't be surprised if he practices shooting that thing.

 

[Anita18]

ye i think he must of been tie down to something, i understand what you mean that if i was on fire i wouldn't just be sitting there! or maybe he was unconcious anyway?? who knows?

At the beginning of the scene, you can see Joker behind Lau, bent down and doing something with his hands. He then raises both arms up in mock victory as the Chechen is talking to him.

Joker probably tied Lau down to something.

 

[deathfromabove]

The biggest plot hole.

The death and ressurrection of Tom Gordon.

That was a ****ing slap to the face.

tom gordon?

go away already,

 

[JL Unlimited]

I still think it's a pretty big oversight. Why did he have to stand right smack in the middle of the pile anyway. Just seems a little to on the nose.

I'm fairly sure that showing someone burning to death or even just having Lau's screams of agony would push this movie to an R rating, seeing as how it was pretty close to getting an R rating.

Lau was sitting on the pile of money and not standing and I assume he was tied down good anyway. On top of that, he could be drugged for all we know. Either way, he's a dead man. If he somehow rolled down the pile of money, Joker would have shot him or maybe even torture him.

 

[The_Raganork]

I'm fairly sure that showing someone burning to death or even just having Lau's screams of agony would push this movie to an R rating, seeing as how it was pretty close to getting an R rating.

Lau was sitting on the pile of money and not standing and I assume he was tied down good anyway. On top of that, he could be drugged for all we know. Either way, he's a dead man. If he somehow rolled down the pile of money, Joker would have shot him or maybe even torture him.

See: Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith

 

[bobguy64]

I finally noticed something about Batman and Rachel's fall that makes it make sense (excuse me if this has been posted).

Batman is holding on to Rachel with one arm, so he can only deploy his cape to 'glider mode' with one hand. It's just enough to slow their descent to allow them to survive.

The same thing happened on the comic navigation on the BB dvd. "Only one glider wing" opens.

I love what Nolan is doing with the franchise, but sometimes his 'gritty style' doesn't always establish things very well.










.

 

[Anita18]

See: Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith

They already had Harvey burning and yelling. Maybe one was enough. Who knows how these ratings work...

 

[DaRkVeNgeanCe]

tom gordon?

go away already,

Ya I know right?

 

[bobguy64]

which leads to the next plothole...: The missing screams of terror when the flames start to catch him or as well his dropping down from the pile which would seem plausible regarding the position he's in. but now that's nitpicking, right?

Not seeing every little detail is not a plot hole.

Besides, I think it makes Lau's death even more chilling to think he was up there the whole time burning to death and the Joker didn't even care enough to look up.

THAT'S cold, man.









.

 

[LadyVader]

I'm fairly sure that showing someone burning to death or even just having Lau's screams of agony would push this movie to an R rating, seeing as how it was pretty close to getting an R rating.

Lau was sitting on the pile of money and not standing and I assume he was tied down good anyway. On top of that, he could be drugged for all we know. Either way, he's a dead man. If he somehow rolled down the pile of money, Joker would have shot him or maybe even torture him.

That's what I'm saying? Why put him in the middle of the goddamn pile? Have him be on the ground somewhere and Joker just casually shoots him. But showing him once on the pile and then having Joker just start the fire without seeing him ever again is stupid, especially when you could've handled it a lot easier, simpler and cleaner.

 

[Ace of Knaves]

Ya I know right?

what blithering idiot thought gordon was called tom? lol what a peen-arse!

 

[jtfaria]

Actually, he didn't keep away from it, considering Batman auto-grappled the monorail and Gordon in Batman Begins too.

Remember, that was a MAGNETIC grappling gun. (Fox said so.) Useful for catching trains, or Iron Man. And obviously, TDK caught Iron Man and then some. For catching Joker I have no explanation. My guess is it's more or less the same way he hoisted Flass into the air in Begins - some sort of lasso. But that's just a guess.

 

[[A]]

I finally noticed something about Batman and Rachel's fall that makes it make sense (excuse me if this has been posted).

Batman is holding on to Rachel with one arm, so he can only deploy his cape to 'glider mode' with one hand. It's just enough to slow their descent to allow them to survive.

The same thing happened on the comic navigation on the BB dvd. "Only one glider wing" opens.

I like this! Will check it out next time

 

[Anita18]

That's what I'm saying? Why put him in the middle of the goddamn pile? Have him be on the ground somewhere and Joker just casually shoots him. But showing him once on the pile and then having Joker just start the fire without seeing him ever again is stupid, especially when you could've handled it a lot easier, simpler and cleaner.

Cause Joker thinks it's funny if Lau casually burns on top of the stuff he'd been trying to protect from him the entire time?

At least, I think it's funny.

And by the time the money is burning, the focus isn't on Lau anymore - it's on the Joker and the Chechen.

 

["_____"]

one problem i had, and im sure it has been brought up but. Where the hell does the joker go after he throws rachael out the window. I would like to think batman would get up and go after him....

 

[bobguy64]

That's what I'm saying? Why put him in the middle of the goddamn pile? Have him be on the ground somewhere and Joker just casually shoots him. But showing him once on the pile and then having Joker just start the fire without seeing him ever again is stupid, especially when you could've handled it a lot easier, simpler and cleaner.

It's not about killing, it's about sending a message.













.

 

[bobguy64]

[QUOTE="_____";15392981]one problem i had, and im sure it has been brought up but. Where the hell does the joker go after he throws rachael out the window. I would like to think batman would get up and go after him....[/QUOTE]

He left. Why wait around for the cops?







.