The Dark Knight Things The Dark Knight got Right/Wrong

[Goodfellas]

so did Two Face know that Joker set up the traps for him and rachel? Or did he believe Jokers " I was in jail story" or was he know Joker was responsible and just wanted to go after maroni for hiring Joker?

sorry if its off topic but the last post just reminded me of that question

 

[The Joker]

so did Two Face know that Joker set up the traps for him and rachel? Or did he believe Jokers " I was in jail story" or was he know Joker was responsible and just wanted to go after maroni for hiring Joker?

sorry if its off topic but the last post just reminded me of that question

He knew Joker set it up. "Your men, your plan". He was just of the belief that Joker was a mad dog, and he felt the ones who unleashed him were really responsible for Rachel's death.

 

[Pirate Queen]

The "reveal" in tas is still better than that of TDK imo.

I dunno...the way they were teasing us with it while he was in the hospital bed was fantastic. I remember that being one of the most exciting moments (for me and my friends, anyway) in the whole movie. Every time he slightly turns his head, it's like "Cmon...CMON..." until he finally shows the whole thing, and it's such a shock that I had to shut my brain down for a second and realize what I was looking at :3

But that's not to say his TAS accident and reveal weren't equally as breathtaking- I'd even wager to say that's the best episode (both parts included as one) of the whole series.

 

[miggizle85]

Yeah that's what I meant about Harvey losing his morals too easily.

At least with the Batman TAS episode the set the whole thing up as one huge downfall of a great man. He starts off as a great man but even from the first scene we see that something just isn't right with him. Then we get another scene where he flips out and attacks his friend Bruce. Then we get the best set up during his psychology session where the lightning strikes and we even see Two-Face. Then it all spirals out of control as Thorn tries to blackmail him on the eve of what was supposed to be the best day of his life. Finally it climaxes as he face is disfigured in an explosion and he can no longer even look at the love of his life without her fainting. To me all those things really make me believe that Harvey could've have lost it enough to become Two-Face.

In TDK is was kinda like. Okay here's a great man. He has a pretty stressful job, but it never really pushes him over the edge. (Even when he was playing Russian Roulet with joker's goon he knew all along that it was never going to land tails). Boom his fiance (whom he knew like what 4 months tops) is dead. His face gets burned. Now all of a sudden he is a villain bent on revenge.

I don't know. I just feel that there could've been just a little more to make it more believable. you gotta admit that it you would expect the movie to be better than the animated version, but it wasn't (to me at least). I guess the biggest reason the TDK version failed for me was because I never really bought the Harvey/Rachel love thing. Really come on. To me they seemed more dedicated to their jobs than to eachother.

 

[TheDarkKnight08]

I dunno...the way they were teasing us with it while he was in the hospital bed was fantastic. I remember that being one of the most exciting moments (for me and my friends, anyway) in the whole movie. Every time he slightly turns his head, it's like "Cmon...CMON..." until he finally shows the whole thing, and it's such a shock that I had to shut my brain down for a second and realize what I was looking at :3

But that's not to say his TAS accident and reveal weren't equally as breathtaking- I'd even wager to say that's the best episode (both parts included as one) of the whole series.

Agreed.

Especially with "Say it!". The audience freaked with that.

 

[Superman-Prime]

The bad



Heath Ledger was not as great as people make him out to be

Ugh! You disgusts me.

Someone needs to shoot a troll's head off.

 

[yoshimura]

Ugh! You disgusts me.

Someone needs to shoot a troll's head off.

But it is true.

 

[Joe Von Zombie]

But it is true.

Debatable

 

[Cax40]

I swear im the only person that digs bale's batvoice.

I also liked Bale's Batman Voice. It sounds much more threatening and more disguised than in the previous Batman movies. It is not carved in stone that Batman has to speak with a low whisper.

 

[CristiMAN]

But it is true.

Thank GOD Nolan doesn't hang out around these forums... We would have got a perma white stupid lame Joker jumping and gigling, with a Spandex Batman with underwear in the outside driving the most stupid vehicle you can imagine with wings...

Now to question Ledger's legendary performance that everybody praises as Oscar Winning (fans, critics, and almost everybody in the world)... seems strange, to say the least...

 

[SpandexFan]

RIGHT

A Joker closer to the comics version. Insane as hell but still amusing.

A Two-Face who actually looks like grotesque comics version. It never occured to me how gross that famous extra hole in the mouth and extruding eyeball would look if done right. They also nailed Two-Face as a quasi-ally of Batman. He's not just a pointless crazy villain, you can see why Two-Face could reform.

New actress for Rachel. I was disappointed at first to hear the news only because I like watching the same actors and actresses in sequels for continuity's sake but it made me realize how much of a sh***y actress Katie Holmes is watching Maggie G's interpretation. Although admittedly, she's nowhere near as cute.

Bat-Cycle is as far as it went for Batman's weapons arsenal. Thank god they didn't show a Batboat when Michael Caine talked about it. I HATED how the Burton/Schumacher vehicles had a Bat-Everything.

OMAC or whatever you want to call Batman's big brother device from the cell phones. This is so true to modern stories about Batman. How far does he have to go to remove personal liberties to fight his crime?


WRONG

Not showing the Arkham Asylum rogue's gallery. It was there. Scarecrow at the beginning. But Two-Face died. They could have had a great closing scene with Batman walking the line of Arkham Asylum with Scarecrow, Two-Face and Joker all grasping the bars on their padded cells.

New batsuit. Sorry, just starts to look like a military kevlar suit the further they go. You have to stick with some basic principles of the character, and while I freaking love how realistic Nolan tries to be, the new outfit looked stupid. I prefered the first movie's armor.

 

[Fitzwilliam]

wrong - Not enough Scarecrow

Also...

Could have done with more cowbell.

 

[Mr. Earle]

I also liked Bale's Batman Voice. It sounds much more threatening and more disguised than in the previous Batman movies. It is not carved in stone that Batman has to speak with a low whisper.

Exactly. Conroy just thickened his voice and it was enough because he had a great voice. Bale growls. And i prefer it because it suits Batman and the purpose of his disguise: Frightening criminals.

Sometimes though he didnt sound so well, but most of the time: spot on!

And if people think that batman is supposed to whisper, its because up until Nolan no director had his batman interrogate or scare someone. And now i remembered one of BB's best scenes: Flass' interrogation. I cant describe how ecstatic i was back then! The first iconic batman interrogation on screen!!!!!

 

[Jack O Lantern]

The biggest flaw in this movie is the end.

You have a bunch of criminals given then opportunity to save themselves at the expense of others nut instead one takes it apon himself to sacarfice himself to save others and no other prisonier seems to have a probelm with this because it is the right thing to do. So in Gotham City the criminals would willing sacrafice their own lives to save others, so why do we need a guy like Batman running around again?

 

[Mr. Earle]

The biggest flaw in this movie is the end.

You have a bunch of criminals given then opportunity to save themselves at the expense of others nut instead one takes it apon himself to sacarfice himself to save others and no other prisonier seems to have a probelm with this because it is the right thing to do. So in Gotham City the criminals would willing sacrafice their own lives to save others, so why do we need a guy like Batman running around again?

Hohoho! You hit the nail in the head! Great insight!

Also, why did Bats get the blame at the end? Couldnt he become Gotham's hope? He could take Dent's place as the incorruptible hero. But perhaps he could never be because he is an outlaw?

 

[Jack O Lantern]

Why couldn't they just say the murder was unsolved?

 

[Mister J]

The biggest flaw in this movie is the end.

You have a bunch of criminals given then opportunity to save themselves at the expense of others nut instead one takes it apon himself to sacarfice himself to save others and no other prisonier seems to have a probelm with this because it is the right thing to do. So in Gotham City the criminals would willing sacrafice their own lives to save others, so why do we need a guy like Batman running around again?

You have to be kidding.

There were a number of prisoners (as well as guards) whose heads immediately dropped in despair or who had exasperated looks on their faces after the detonator was thrown out. A number of the prisoners were imploring the warden to press the button as soon as the Joker finished making his statement. It was hardly a decision that was rejoiced over.

Making the decision to not blow up a boatload of random people, even to save your own neck, while selfless, is about one of the most basic acts of human decency that can be summoned. However, it doesn't change the fact that they're criminals. Just because Deebo wouldn't kill thousands of people with a simple press of a button, doesn't mean that he wouldn't beat the hell out of you, rob you, launder ill-gotten gains or whatever the hell he was in prison for. Or in your world, do criminals have to be entirely unrepentant, soulless vessels without a shred of moral fiber? That scene wasn't designed to convey some overwhelming selfless nature of Gotham's prisoners. It was done to counter the notion that 'civilized people would eat each other when the chips were down' and that 'not everyone is as ugly' (or morally bankrupt) as the Joker. The message is that people, despite their flaws, mistakes and/or fear, won't necessarily become depraved when faced with a harrowing choice.

Beyond that (and particular to the need for Batman), what does any of that has to do with the criminals who are still on the street or the considerable mob influence that still plagues Gotham City? Just because some hardened criminals decide they don't want to be mass murderers doesn't eliminate crime and corruption.

 

[Carmine Falcone]

Very well said J.

And ohmigod Jack O Lantern; Do you really see things this black and white? That's pretty astounding.

 

[The Joker]

Well said, Mister J

 

[Jack O Lantern]

You have to be kidding.

There were a number of prisoners (as well as guards) whose heads immediately dropped in despair or who had exasperated looks on their faces after the detonator was thrown out. A number of the prisoners were imploring the warden to press the button as soon as the Joker finished making his statement. It was hardly a decision that was rejoiced over.

Making the decision to not blow up a boatload of random people, even to save your own neck, while selfless, is about one of the most basic acts of human decency that can be summoned. However, it doesn't change the fact that they're criminals. Just because Deebo wouldn't kill thousands of people with a simple press of a button, doesn't mean that he wouldn't beat the hell out of you, rob you, launder ill-gotten gains or whatever the hell he was in prison for. Or in your world, do criminals have to be entirely unrepentant, soulless vessels without a shred of moral fiber? That scene wasn't designed to convey some overwhelming selfless nature of Gotham's prisoners. It was done to counter the notion that 'civilized people would eat each other when the chips were down' and that 'not everyone is as ugly' (or morally bankrupt) as the Joker. The message is that people, despite their flaws, mistakes and/or fear, won't necessarily

Beyond that (and particular to the need for Batman), what does any of that has to do with the criminals who are still on the street or the considerable mob influence that still plagues Gotham City? Just because some hardened criminals decide they don't want to be mass murderers doesn't eliminate crime and corruption.

Are you serious

In my world? In my world a guy doesn't dress up like a Bat?

You see that's the problem, they create this world that is so rife with evil that it necessitates the creation of Batman. In this film he talks about the day that Gotham no longer in need of Batman. Now what does he mean by that? Does he mean an end to all crime? No of course not that would be naviety. He's talking about a time where normal, legitment forces can control the level of crime, like we have in modern wrestern socities.

All that you talk about makes sense, in the real world, but this is not that. This is a world where henchmen will dump posion into the water supply without think twice, this is a world that is so curropt that the mob would turn to the Joker, this is a world that needs a guy like Batman to save them. But if in a ferry crowded by criminals not one would so much as voclaize his displeasure at sacraficing his own life for others, then Batman is not needed in that world

 

[Mister J]

Are you serious

Entirely.

In my world? In my world a guy doesn't dress up like a Bat?

The actual point behind that question was to gather if you were under the belief that criminals have to be entirely devoid of even the slightest human decency, but thanks for confirming that Batman doesn't exist in your world. It's much better when that stuff is just confined to the comics and related lore.

You see that's the problem, they create this world that is so rife with evil that it necessitates the creation of Batman. In this film he talks about the day that Gotham no longer in need of Batman. Now what does he mean by that? Does he mean an end to all crime? No of course not that would be naviety. He's talking about a time where normal, legitment forces can control the level of crime, like we have in modern wrestern socities.

All that you talk about makes sense, in the real world, but this is not that. This is a world where henchmen will dump posion into the water supply without think twice, this is a world that is so curropt that the mob would turn to the Joker, this is a world that needs a guy like Batman to save them. But if in a ferry crowded by criminals not one would so much as voclaize his displeasure at sacraficing his own life for others, then Batman is not needed in that world

What? All the people screaming at the warden to push the button (to the point where the guards needed to aim their weapons and fire a warning shot to get everyone to keep their distance), the looks of desolation on a number of their faces afterward, even the fact that Lister mentioned that the prisoners would kill the Warden and take the detonator anyway and you somehow come to the conclusion that there was no displeasure for that decision?

What were they supposed to do afterward? Boo? Start a fight with the biggest, most menacing guy on the boat? Feverishly flail their manacled hands at a nearby window in a futile attempt to retrieve the device? The thing was gone and there was nothing to be done about it, except look around in astonishment. To think that no criminal would have blown the other ferry up is incredibly shortsighted. Lesser stated, just because no one had the stones to work through armed guards to take the thing (at least, at that point) is hardly a reason to assume no one had a problem with it being tossed overboard. The overarching point illustrated on the prison ferry scenario is that one person, though a criminal, had enough courage and character to do what the more upstanding citizen, whom actually had the power (the Warden), should have done, which was to have some semblance of faith that things would resolve themselves in another fashion short of mass murder. It was far from a unilateral statement that every prisoner on the ferry was as noble. They fell on both sides of the issue, though the only one to take action did so centered by morality.

Furthermore, that still doesn't begin to address how that affects criminals who aren't imprisoned or those who will come to be (i.e. the reason for Batman's existence). Or are you of the mind that Lister's decision is somehow determinative of every existing and would-be criminal for the rest of Gotham City's future?

 

[Jack O Lantern]

Entirely.


The actual point behind that question was to gather if you were under the belief that criminals have to be entirely devoid of even the slightest human decency, but thanks for confirming that Batman doesn't exist in your world. It's much better when that stuff is just confined to the comics and related lore.


What? All the people screaming at the warden to push the button (to the point where the guards needed to aim their weapons and fire a warning shot to get everyone to keep their distance), the looks of desolation on a number of their faces afterward, even the fact that Lister mentioned that the prisoners would kill the Warden and take the detonator anyway and you somehow come to the conclusion that there was no displeasure for that decision?

What were they supposed to do afterward? Boo? Start a fight with the biggest, most menacing guy on the boat? Feverishly flail their manacled hands at a nearby window in a futile attempt to retrieve the device? The thing was gone and there was nothing to be done about it, except look around in astonishment. To think that no criminal would have blown the other ferry up is incredibly shortsighted. Lesser stated, just because no one had the stones to work through armed guards to take the thing (at least, at that point) is hardly a reason to assume no one had a problem with it being tossed overboard. The overarching point illustrated on the prison ferry scenario is that one person, though a criminal, had enough courage and character to do what the more upstanding citizen, whom actually had the power (the Warden), should have done, which was to have some semblance of faith that things would resolve themselves in another fashion short of mass murder. It was far from a unilateral statement that every prisoner on the ferry was as noble. They fell on both sides of the issue, though the only one to take action did so centered by morality.

Furthermore, that still doesn't begin to address how that affects criminals who aren't imprisoned or those who will come to be (i.e. the reason for Batman's existence). Or are you of the mind that Lister's decision is somehow determinative of every existing and would-be criminal for the rest of Gotham City's future?

Yes they should start acting desperate, yes they should have more than sad faces. People don't act rationally in those kind of stituations, we saw that on 9/11, when people were jumping out of windows 200ft up. Yet the crminal under belly of the must deviant, curropt and evil city, that is so morally curropt that an anicent society felt that the only opyion left open was to destroy yet can only muster sad faces?

Afraid of armed guards? Really? I guess taking a risk like that is not an option when facing certain death other-wise.

The point of that scene was to show that people are good and that the Joker can't win Gotham's soul because of the goodness in gotham. But the problem with that is, the rest of themovie and the whole of batman Begins shows Gotham being that bad. Like I mentioned before in BB random henchmen were poisionng the water supply without a second thought. The city is morally bankrupted and they need Batman to show them the way, and eventually he will and he can go back to having a normal life, that's one of the major themes of the movie and by having one of the climatic scenes contradict that is a major flaw.

As for the criminals on the street, Batman is not needed for the common criminal is he? He's there to get Gotham back on track and then he is going to leave them, notice the parrallel to Rome that Dent brought up, one guy takes charge, shows them the way and then steps down, but doesn't solve all of their problems.

A Batman like figure isn't needed in the real world, so the film-makes have to create a world in which he is needed and by having a group of cons spare the lives of innoncents in exchane for what they thought would be theirs. As for a group of people sending thousands of others to death not be easy, well congress found it asy enough didn't they.