The Dark Knight Rises The Official "What Do YOU Want in the Sequel?" Thread

[Carmine Falcone]

Carmine long time no see and man oh man you seem like your screaming for the Riddler in your post there. Make him just a genius that is one cut bellow Batman and he has an obssesion with being smarter than him. It just follows this second entry perfectly a detective story where the main villian does everything but killing the guards, that is the goons handy work.

Yeah I kinda did, didn't I? I just didn't wanna mention the name. He seems such an obvious choice for the next one doesn't he?

I think bigger is better in this one. We already saw Bats toying with big solutions for big problems with the sonar device. He should be tempted to do things like that again when things get out of hand. I'd love to see Gotham devolve into a power struggle like it was during Noman's land and Batman will be debating over whether or not to rule gotham rather than protect it.

That sounds very good aswell. I'm torn between those two options. I'd like another shift in tone, as in a detecive mystery. But a huge epic would also be great to close of this three-parter.

I want the smoke capsules he uses to escape only with a slight twist. Have the smoke actually be a milder form of Cranes fear toxin gas developed by Lucious. He sits up on the rafters drops a couple in a room full of villainous sorts and then drops down. The criminals are even more frightened by him because they think Bats might kill them because of TDK and this is amplified by the mild dose of fear smoke or whatever you wanna call it. A lot of cool stuff could be done with this old gadget done in a slightly new way.

I'l have say that's not necessary at all. I was thinking about this a while ago, and I concluded that Batman is scary as ****.
Just imagine yourself calmy sitting in your house. You hear an ever so slight noise. Which you ignore. Then you hear another one. You become suspicious and check the doors. Nothing seems touched. You hear footsteps on your top floor. You pop on the lights and scream; ''who's there?''. No reply. You return to your living room, which has been darkened. You try to turn on the lights but your bulbs are broken. You step inside, very carefully and suddenly you get taken by something you do not see. In the dim light coming through your window you see this ****ing monstrous shape with horns that doesn't seem human. Then it ****ing GROWLS at you.

No, you don't need gas or drugs for that. Batman is a scary SOB.

 

[Copyright 2008]

I'm tempted to say it's just a comic book character. Guess I just did. (insert smiley face here).

 

[Man Who Laughed]

No he wouldn't--but you really think that with all that he does, he doesn't run into something like that every once in a while? I just want to see that happen, that's all.

Besides, previous incarnations have had him talking about stuff like "making the rounds." I could easily see that kind of thing coming into play. No, he can't be there for every mugging in the streets, and I don't see where it's ever been claimed that he does. But it does almost seem that Gordon's monologue was implying the emergence of that element (words like "guardian" and "protector"). It's a major element of the Batman mythos, and I don't think it should be rejected. Just one scene would be wonderful.

This is a major reason why I love Batman over any other heroes out there. He actually makes efforts to prevent crime, as opposed to just waiting for the day to need saving. I want to see this as well. Batman wouldn't just ignore a plea for help. Psychologically, I would guess he can't. His parents were victims, and in a sense, so was he.

That's part of what makes him a hero, and a tragic character. He's never going to stop all the crime in Gotham and he knows that. But the fact is, he's trying. He's doing what hes capable of to build a better city.

 

[Ronny Shade]

No he wouldn't--but you really think that with all that he does, he doesn't run into something like that every once in a while? I just want to see that happen, that's all.

Besides, previous incarnations have had him talking about stuff like "making the rounds." I could easily see that kind of thing coming into play. No, he can't be there for every mugging in the streets, and I don't see where it's ever been claimed that he does. But it does almost seem that Gordon's monologue was implying the emergence of that element (words like "guardian" and "protector"). It's a major element of the Batman mythos, and I don't think it should be rejected. Just one scene would be wonderful.

Big cities like New York have hundreds of police officers on their beats at any given time of day. Even they have a hard time catching criminals like muggers in the act. Batman is one man. Even if he did patrol the whole city every night, it's unlikely he'd ever find more than one rape or mugging to break up every 5 or 6 years.

 

[-Arya-]

I want to see Batman portrayed as just a regular guy who goes to your house and beats the **** out of you if you get acquited of something you obviously did.

But thats a different batman for a different franchise.

Sounds more like something Rorschach would do

I would just like to see how Batman deals with this situation now. He is a criminal, a fugitive, and its going to be interesting to see what Nolan can do in this scenario.

 

[Ronny Shade]

Sounds more like something Rorschach would do

I would just like to see how Batman deals with this situation now. He is a criminal, a fugitive, and its going to be interesting to see what Nolan can do in this scenario.

I have a grand vision for a Superman trilogy where batman is closer to that description than he ever has been before.

But he's still Billionaire Bruce Wayne and all that.

 

[metalhead_dave]

"Applied sciences...a whole division of Wayne Enterprises just disappeared over night" - Mr. Reese

"It'll be nice when Wayne Manor's rebuilt" - Alfred

"With Carmine Falcone in Arkham somebody had to step in to take control of the so-called family" - Harvey Dent

And let's not forget the sequence with Scarecrow.

That should be plenty for throwbacks.

You forgot a big one.

"Don't tell me you didn't recognize your baby out there pancaking cop cars on the evening news." - Reese

 

[The Navigator]

I'd like to see a Batcave more like the comic books, with a small gymnasium, library, science lab, computer station, giant penny (yeah, I know)...

Originally Posted by Ronny Shade
I want to see Batman portrayed as just a regular guy who goes to your house and beats the **** out of you if you get acquited of something you obviously did.

But thats a different batman for a different franchise.

 

[Anita18]

Batman just came back from dealing with who knows how many swat teams, a bunch of Jokers men, then got a beating, bittin and stabed by the Joker and his dogs and finally when he goes to harvey what happens he gets shot.

Poor Batman, but the wording just made me .

I don't. One of the things I love about this franchise is that its actually believable that Batman does what he does. No way would he be able to be there for every mugging in the streets. He would however be able to track and break up drug deals and mob hits...things that are planned out. And that's what he does.

Yup. He might come across something random every once in a while, but small fry like muggings usually don't have any sort of explanation besides some punk wanting cash. They're not an institutional thing like the mob or drug dealing.

I think one thing has already become painfully obvious. Nolan and Goyer can't handle any kind of chemistry between male and female characters. There's zero excitement in that department. No sexual tension, no sparkling of any kind. The relationship between Rachel and Bruce in the first movie was "meh" at best. The love triangle between Harvey, Bruce and Rachel was even worse. I mean Eckhart and Gyllenhaal had nothing going on and I also wasn't feeling Bruce's emotions towards Rachel. The kiss they shared...nothing, I tell you! Absolutely nothing.

They didn't show any particularly sexual lovey-dovey scenes between Rachel and Harvey either, but you got the feeling that both men cared very much for her. And I dunno about you, but Bale's "Did you mean it?" broke my heart.

Batman was the one who crashed the train. If you crashed somebody's car knowing it would kill them, that's a pretty clear cut case.

Ra's broke the controls. I think someone always brings that up and it's been 3 years. Gordon blowing up the tracks was Plan B, if Batman couldn't stop the train.

After my first viewing of TDK I thought that the only way to top it was to go bigger, BIGGER, BIGGGGEERRRR! As in, a battle on the streets of Gotham between hordes of mobsters, vigilantes and cops.

For some reason Matrix Reloaded's Burly Brawl came to mind.

Gordon is not 'batman support'. He's doing a job, he always was doing that job, and batman just happens to be performing a similar job - which is why they're allies. Gordon doesn't set out to aid batman, they just happen to be fighting for similar goals.

Gordon does look to help Batman out when he can, but he's got his own work to do, as a police officer with lots of responsibilities.

It's telling that both Batman and Gordon only truly trust each other, out of everyone in the system working towards the same goals.

 

[Ronny Shade]

Ra's broke the controls. I think someone always brings that up and it's been 3 years. Gordon blowing up the tracks was Plan B, if Batman couldn't stop the train.

Batman broke the controls.

 

[Anita18]

Batman broke the controls.

Freeze frame the DVD. Ra's pushes Batman aside and uses the broken sword to stab the controls. When there's the closeup of the hand doing the jamming, it has black gloves on, but they're definitely not Batman's gauntlets.

That's why Batman says, "You never learned to mind your surroundings."

 

[protoctista]

^ That's what I seem to remember from the film, but I'm certainly not obsessive enough to freeze frame at that point to double check! lol

 

[Mach2Infinity]

Protoctista, I get your points. Your focus was turned on the storyline, though the batcave was also brought up. Expanding on this, I chose to focus on the technological part of the Batman myth, which I find to be intriguing and of substantial importance to the visualisation of the film. After all, a film does need to be impressive in its visualisation.

Therefore, I consider special effects to be a major and staple part of the specific film's success. To me "staple part" seems similar to essential. Nevertheless, if you regard storyline and theme to be the sole essentials, I must say I prefer a broader view that encompasses the secondary parts as well, such as costumes, gadgets, sets, etc.

On a more personal note, I felt slightly offended by your haste to dismiss my ability to judge correctly and prioritise. I may have a different approach to what I consider legitimate priorities, but these few lines I posted so far could not suffice for you to reach such strongly worded conclusion about my intellect. After all, you were the one that thought "essential" was a strong word to use and suggested I think twice before using strong words. Now, don't you think that your comments on my ability to see clearly what's important and what's not, namely discretion, were phrased in particularly strong words? And in a rash manner?

 

[Ronny Shade]

Freeze frame the DVD. Ra's pushes Batman aside and uses the broken sword to stab the controls. When there's the closeup of the hand doing the jamming, it has black gloves on, but they're definitely not Batman's gauntlets.

That's why Batman says, "You never learned to mind your surroundings."

Regardless of whether or not the first part of your post is true, that line was awful. One of the worst parts of the movie, IMO.

 

[IAmTheKnight]

It's irrelevant who set those events in motion. If the Joker had been on the train too, and he was the one who messed up the controls, would Batman still be right in leaving Ra's? If he's going to set the code for himself, then he needs to follow it; if he doesn't follow it, then that is an issue that should be addressed.

 

[protoctista]

Therefore, I consider special effects to be a major and staple part of the specific film's success. To me "staple part" seems similar to essential. Nevertheless, if you regard storyline and theme to be the sole essentials, I must say I prefer a broader view that encompasses the secondary parts as well, such as costumes, gadgets, sets, etc.

I'm not saying that the action doesnt need to be there; it absolutely does. It has to be superb. But the actual specifics of what that entails are largely immaterial, so long as it fulfills the above credentials (and suits the story)

On a more personal note, I felt slightly offended by your haste to dismiss my ability to judge correctly and prioritise. I may have a different approach to what I consider legitimate priorities, but these few lines I posted so far could not suffice for you to reach such strongly worded conclusion about my intellect.

I'm sorry to have offended you.

True my langauge was connotatively negative, but I was attempting to stress my perspective of your mistake rather than outright belittle your intelligence.

My actual comment was; "However, the points you actually raised confirmed my belief that you are misguided in your use of language, and if not lack the ability to prioritise the essential ingredients of narrative"

I was saying that my interpretation of the points you raised re-inforced my belief that your use of language was misguiding, rather than that your ability to prioritise the essential ingredients of narrative was faulty. The impression I took from everything you have said is that you would not come away from a batboat-less film feeling cheated and as though the film had been ruined, and therefore used the word 'essential' a little pre-maturely. However, if you did mean that you would come away from a bat-boat-less film dissapointed/cheated/angry/disheartened, then yes, regardless of whether or not it would insult you, I believe that your ability to dissect the ingredients of narrative would be poor.

After all, you were the one that thought "essential" was a strong word to use and suggested I think twice before using strong words. Now, don't you think that your comments on my ability to see clearly what's important and what's not, namely discretion, were phrased in particularly strong words? And in a rash manner

Yes I used strong words, and evidently in too heavy-handed a way as they were misconstrued and caused unecessary offence. But rash? No.

 

[Man Who Laughed]

It's irrelevant who set those events in motion. If the Joker had been on the train too, and he was the one who messed up the controls, would Batman still be right in leaving Ra's? If he's going to set the code for himself, then he needs to follow it; if he doesn't follow it, then that is an issue that should be addressed.

But it is relevant. Ra's set himself up to die. All Batman was doing was allowing the train to continue on the path that was set before it.

If I'm in my friends car and he decides to drive it into a wall and we both die,
he's responsible for both of our lives. If I grab the wheel and put the car into the wall, I'm responsible. Now if he were to drive it into a wall, and I rolled out of the car, the blood's on his hands. This applies even if I could have grabbed him and taken him with me. Hence, "I'm not gonna kill you, but I don't have to save you."

 

[Ronny Shade]

Not if you paid somebody to put the wall there.


but Ra's can totally come back to life any time, so its irrelevant.

 

[Johnny Drama]

1. More traditional and conventional suit
2. More traditional and conventional Batmobile
3. The return of Ra's Al Ghul and Two-Face.

 

[Ronny Shade]

screw you and your traditional and conventional batmobile!

 

[markstrange]

Overall, I love Nolan's Batfilms thus far, but there are a couple of issues that are picking at me:

1. Batman is not supposed to be in a contest with Superman for who can cause the most collateral damage. It was fine in Begins, when he was raw, emotional, and Alfred addressed it, but he goes on to blow up cars and crash into crap with no readily apparent necessity, and I'm thinking "Dude...wasn't this dealt with in the last movie?" I'm not sure why they went with all that in TDK, but hopefully that trend will not continue with 3.

2. Please, please, please...for crying out loud...NO CONTROVERSIAL DEATH IN PART 3! In Begins we had Ra's, in TDK we had Harvey. Why does it seem that Batman, for all the talk of his limits, ends up skirting the issue in the end of the film? Yes, there were true threats, but having the line is meaningless if you consistently find ways to blur it or cross it. The Joker/Batpod wipeout scene makes this all the more clear--Joker was an out-and-out psycho who does this crap for fun, and with no repentance, and yet Ra's and Harvey have to be taken down? It wouldn't be as big of an issue for me if they'd simply address it, but there is no remorse or guilt at the death of Ra's, and he seems grim but unsaddened at the fact that, intentional or not, he just killed Harvey/Two-Face. I truly hope this is addressed at least to some degree in the third film.

The biggest non-ethical/intellectual issue for me is this: I want us to finally see the payoff for the "improvements to the southeast wing" line from Begins.

Comments on these? Or any other issues/concerns?

Man, there was nothing wrong with TDK so Shut the #$%^ Up about it Just Kidding. Your thought are respected here. still I disagree.

 

[Copyright 2008]

1. More traditional and conventional suit
2. More traditional and conventional Batmobile
3. The return of Ra's Al Ghul and Two-Face.

Two-Face isn't coming back, and even if Eckhart hadn't been clear on that, if he were to come back it would pretty much destroy everything that TDK built upon and make it for naught.

 

[Ronny Shade]

Two-Face isn't coming back, and even if Eckhart hadn't been clear on that, if he were to come back it would pretty much destroy everything that TDK built upon and make it for naught.

That's so not true.

What do you mean by that?

 

[Copyright 2008]

His story reached it's natural climax and end. He was never meant to be the kind of Two-Face that goes around robbing banks on the second day of the second month sort of thing. Plus it kind of ruins the whole point of Batman taking the blame for his murders.

 

[Ronny Shade]

Everything gets ruined eventually. A Dent return towards the second half of BB3 would make Batman's life even worse...a fugitive and a liar. Bad life for Bats=Good movie material, good drama.

And the whole point of Bats taking the blame is so the joker doesn't win.

But we all know, he's going to eventually.