The Dark Knight What 'departures from canon' are not acceptable to you?

Gordon has been shagging Harvey Dent's wife on the side. He was in a good mood that morning.

(I fill in the characterization gaps with my own fun backstories. You should try it sometime!)

LOL!!!

Okay, how about this? Joker was able to have the parade because he bought the Commissioner a bunch of Ding Dong's. Realizing he had to play politics to get ahead, Batman had the Batsignal filled with whipped cream and cherries prior to delivery. Gordon had to eat the cream and cherries out of the signal before he could use it. Meaning, before the press conference.

Meaning, Gordon is happy. :D
 
I would love to see what would happen if someone advertised that they would drop that much money on the crowd during a parade, legal or not, in the real world. I really would.

Commissioner Gordon (and Dent, and Gotham) trusted Batman in BATMAN 89 because he helped save the city and fought evil. Essentially the same reason Gordon trusted Batman in BATMAN BEGINS. What's the big deal? Is it done with little to no character development and no interaction between them? Sure, but its not illogical given the events of the film and the Batman mythos.
 
And with the snap of 2 fingers, the party has ended. :o
 
I was reading hush the other day and realized im not really ok with the theater exit went,the play scaring bruce and all,it should have been zorro and it wouldent have done much to the story in the least,he could have fused the two as well,mabey some bats are realsed during a scene in the play and burce is scared but sees zorro is not or somthing about using fear or anything of the sort but that just bugged me a bit.
 
I was reading hush the other day and realized im not really ok with the theater exit went,the play scaring bruce and all,it should have been zorro and it wouldent have done much to the story in the least,he could have fused the two as well,mabey some bats are realsed during a scene in the play and burce is scared but sees zorro is not or somthing about using fear or anything of the sort but that just bugged me a bit.

I guess the exclusion of Zorro was just a creative decision by Nolan & Co. Perhaps they just didn't want to show him specifically emulating any certain hero. They chose to focus on the "fear of bats" motif exclusively.

Putting in a reference like Zorro has certain implications; it's a really specific allusion and I think, narratively, it should be connected to some sort of payoff later in the film. Frank Miller did this well in his Year One script if I remember correctly. But again, I guess it's just a direction Goyer and Nolan chose not to go in.
 
Just ask the cops and citizens who indulged in a known serial killer's party parade.

Authorities. The Major stated publicly they weren't able to prevent it.

LOL!!!

Yes, or how about the way Batman gives Gordon the bat-signal, and Gordon, who has been wanting to arrest Batman throughout the film, is suddenly all chuffed, "we received a letter from Batman this morning!"

Eh? Why do you trust Batman now? Because he apparently threw the Joker off a roof?!?!?

Same happens in BB. Last time Batman and cops met, Bats ran his tank over police cars smashing them with cops inside them, and put small bombs on streets so the cars would turn over and crash violently with cops inside them. Several cops could have been seriously injuried and/or killed. Then, Gordon is publicly - and 'officially' (from Gotham PD roof) - calling Bats to help the Police Dept insterad of arrestiung him for putting so many policemen lives in jeopardy (let's remember, just and only in order to save his chick's life.)

Why do Police officially trust Batman now? Because he made a train to collapse telling there was a very dangerous man inside it? Ok, maybe Gordon knows the truth, but making the whole Police Dept. to "officially" trust Batman and consider him an official help by calling him with the bat-signal from the PD roof? It's not like Gordon called him by phone privately which would have been more realistic and plausible.

In Burton's Batman case I felt - and this is no defense or justification - it was like the Police Dept was so So very inefficient (they couldn't prevent Joker's parade) that they finally gave up and went 'Meh, let's call this guy, we're not going to be able to take care of future Jokers by ourselves if weren't able this time, that's for sure.'

I guess with this characters you have to suspend your belief sometimes. That's why I always find hard to swallow the word 'realism' or 'gorunded in realism.'
 
Same happens in BB. Last time Batman and cops met, Bats ran his tank over police cars smashing them with cops inside them, and put small bombs on streets so the cars would turn over and crash violently with cops inside them. Then, Gordon is publicly - and 'officially' (from Gotham PD roof - calling Bats.

I'm going to wait till TDK before I make an ultimate judgment on this. I suspect there will be further issues regarding Lt. Gordon relying on the help of a vigilante. I'm sure Loeb is, at best, reluctant to allow it.

I think it's telling that Nolan staged the final scene as a private meeting (the signal itself notwithstanding) between Gordon and Batman and not as a Town Hall meeting.
 
Yeah, I grew up on B89 and it's very close to my heart. But for every supposed error by Nolan someone can point out, I'll see it and I'll raise them one big Burton blunder.

It's why I love when people attack the microwave emitter angle. Sure, it's silly psuedo-science, but at least its a relatively clever way of explaining how a terrorist can inconspicuously disperse a deadly toxin.

But no, that's too far-fetched. A serial murderer and his armed goons being allowed to parade through the streets with giant balloons is much more logical.

And the microwave emitter may not be that far-fetched - somebody linked an article about a similar weapon being developed on the BOF forums. So while it's still very much comic book logic it's not as stupid as some would like it to be.

I would love to see what would happen if someone advertised that they would drop that much money on the crowd during a parade, legal or not, in the real world. I really would.

Commissioner Gordon (and Dent, and Gotham) trusted Batman in BATMAN 89 because he helped save the city and fought evil. Essentially the same reason Gordon trusted Batman in BATMAN BEGINS. What's the big deal? Is it done with little to no character development and no interaction between them? Sure, but its not illogical given the events of the film and the Batman mythos.
If it was somebody who'd murdered people? I dunno, is humanity really that stupid?

I don't really disagree with the last part, we were just discussing how B89 isn't a perfect film - you know, like how BB isn't either.

TBH, the one thing that truly bugs me about B89 was how Joker knew what Batman was talking about when he ranted about having Joker killed his parents. How did he know which specific murder he meant? I suppose it was just a lucky guess and I'm really not trying to take anything away from a superbly acted scene, but it always niggled me.

Completely OT now...
 
TBH, the one thing that truly bugs me about B89 was how Joker knew what Batman was talking about when he ranted about having Joker killed his parents. How did he know which specific murder he meant? I suppose it was just a lucky guess and I'm really not trying to take anything away from a superbly acted scene, but it always niggled me.

Completely OT now...

The way I always so that scene was that Jack decided not to even bother considering the accuracy of Batman's comment and instead just started to agree with him, in the hopes of feeling his mercy.
 
TBH, the one thing that truly bugs me about B89 was how Joker knew what Batman was talking about when he ranted about having Joker killed his parents. How did he know which specific murder he meant? I suppose it was just a lucky guess and I'm really not trying to take anything away from a superbly acted scene, but it always niggled me.

I know exactly what you mean.

I always assumed it was just Joker being a sniveling creep. On a more specific level, maybe Napier really hadn't killed anyone that would've fit the bill as Batman's parents since he was a younger hood.

Classic scene, anyhow. :joker:
 
The way I always so that scene was that Jack decided not to even bother considering the accuracy of Batman's comment and instead just started to agree with him, in the hopes of feeling his mercy.

*nods* That's pretty plausible, especially given the 'I was just a stupid kid' excuse.

Classic scene, anyhow.

Agreed. :up:
 
Trying to use Nolan's version to justify an overly violent and realistic Batman?

I think that's kinda an odd thing to say. I mean, we already got an overly vioent Batman before. And a violent Batman isn't anything new, either.

An immortal wouldn't have worked in Nolan's universe so he made Ra an mortal. Nobody seemed to complain about that, I think getting rid of a pimp suit and lip stick won't ruin the Joker either.
 
An immortal wouldn't have worked in Nolan's universe so he made Ra an mortal. Nobody seemed to complain about that, I think getting rid of a pimp suit and lip stick won't ruin the Joker either.

It's never explicitly said that Ra's isn't immortal. Obviously, some form of Ra's Al Ghul has survived for centuries to lead the League of Shadows. Whether a viewer want's to believe it's been Neeson's character for all those centuries or whether it's simply a title is all up to interpretation, purposely left vague by Nolan.

However, the essential characteristic of Ra's Al Ghul, the "dream" that has lasted centuries and continues through Neeson's character, is maintained, whether you're inclined to believe in its supernatural elements or not.

The "pimp suit and lipstick" or rather simply, the theatricality of The Joker is just as essential to who the Joker is. And since Nolan maintained the essentials of Ra's Al Ghul, it stands to reason he'll do the same for Joker.
 
I would love to see what would happen if someone advertised that they would drop that much money on the crowd during a parade, legal or not, in the real world. I really would.

My guess is, the streets would be packed with people.

BUT... on the other hand, if the guy is the same guy who's known to have been poisoning cosmetic items, anybody who goes out there and gets gassed by him is just proving Darwin right. :dry: Why wouldn't the police be there to at least try and arrest him?

Commissioner Gordon (and Dent, and Gotham) trusted Batman in BATMAN 89 because he helped save the city and fought evil. Essentially the same reason Gordon trusted Batman in BATMAN BEGINS. What's the big deal? Is it done with little to no character development and no interaction between them? Sure, but its not illogical given the events of the film and the Batman mythos.

Some character development and interaction would have been nice, frankly.
 
Authorities. The Major stated publicly they weren't able to prevent it.

Why weren't they able to prevent it? I don't remember that. I would think they would want to arrest the guy who's been killing random people by poisoning cosmetics?

Same happens in BB. Last time Batman and cops met, Bats ran his tank over police cars smashing them with cops inside them, and put small bombs on streets so the cars would turn over and crash violently with cops inside them. Several cops could have been seriously injuried and/or killed. Then, Gordon is publicly - and 'officially' (from Gotham PD roof) - calling Bats to help the Police Dept insterad of arrestiung him for putting so many policemen lives in jeopardy (let's remember, just and only in order to save his chick's life.)

I agree, but we do know that somehow nobody died in all of that. We also know that the police, in Begins, are corrupt, though to what extent, exactly, it is never specifically stated. Which does not excuse Batman's having driven over them, really, but it does suggest that they are not likely to want to talk to Batman regardless. Loeb, so far as I know, never warmed to the idea of Batman running around in his city.
Why do Police officially trust Batman now? Because he made a train to collapse telling there was a very dangerous man inside it? Ok, maybe Gordon knows the truth, but making the whole Police Dept. to "officially" trust Batman and consider him an official help by calling him with the bat-signal from the PD roof? It's not like Gordon called him by phone privately which would have been more realistic and plausible.

I'm with P-Cubed on this one. I think that, while the Bat-signal was not a discreet way to contact Batman, it was the only option that Gordon really had if he wanted to talk to him. And I'd bet that the bat on that searchlight is removable. LOL. I think Gordon did it to call Batman because Batman used it as a signal to Gordon before. Again, it was only Gordon on that roof with Batman, not Loeb or anybody else.

And, Gordon seems to show some degree of wariness towards Batman. The whole "escalation" talk stopped just short of being an indictment of Batman's tactics. After handing off that evidence bag, Gordon stopped just short of saying, "Nice work, jackhole."

Then at the end they sort of kiss and make up. The, "I never said thank you" is sort of a reversal, it's Gordon being like, "hell, you know, I'm not sure I like what you're doing, but, you are trying to help, and, dammit, I like your car."
In Burton's Batman case I felt - and this is no defense or justification - it was like the Police Dept was so So very inefficient (they couldn't prevent Joker's parade) that they finally gave up and went 'Meh, let's call this guy, we're not going to be able to take care of future Jokers by ourselves if weren't able this time, that's for sure.'

I wish I knew exactly what the dealio was with the cops in Batman '89. Because I think you're right, but, it's sort of curious. The cops seemed corrupt, or at least some of them were. Eckhardt was clearly on the take, helping cover up for Grissom. And Gordon didn't seem to be able to do a lot about it, which I always wondered about.

I guess with this characters you have to suspend your belief sometimes. That's why I always find hard to swallow the word 'realism' or 'gorunded in realism.'

I think "grounded in realism" is a reasonable statement, which describes Batman Begins. "Realism", on the other hand, does not describe any Batman movie I have ever seen, including BB.
 
And the microwave emitter may not be that far-fetched - somebody linked an article about a similar weapon being developed on the BOF forums. So while it's still very much comic book logic it's not as stupid as some would like it to be.

Exactly. There's nothing really unrealistic about a microwave gun. AT ALL. But the movie doesn't really explain the details of its functionality, leaving it a bit dodgy as to its effects. We know what happens if you put metal in a microwave oven, which at first I assumed was why it totaled the ship. But then it was riding on a train and not blowing the train up... eh? I think the reason they didn't explain much about how the microwave gun worked was so that they could stretch what is actually possible with it. And that's where it's comic-book logic.

If it was somebody who'd murdered people? I dunno, is humanity really that stupid?

Not all of humanity. A few people are, but these are the same people who make drunken bets and cut their own testicles off in the bathroom of a pub. Darwin awards people. Anyway, like you I would like to think that the people of Gotham City would go, "dude, that clown guy is the reason my girlfriend keeled over in the bathroom last week doing her hair, I don't trust that son of a ***** to give me gifts. He could pay me to kick him in the fellas and I'd be looking for the part where I lose a foot."
I don't really disagree with the last part, we were just discussing how B89 isn't a perfect film - you know, like how BB isn't either.

:up:
TBH, the one thing that truly bugs me about B89 was how Joker knew what Batman was talking about when he ranted about having Joker killed his parents. How did he know which specific murder he meant? I suppose it was just a lucky guess and I'm really not trying to take anything away from a superbly acted scene, but it always niggled me.

Thank God somebody mentioned that. :)

Completely OT now...

Yes, but when it's reasonable discussion I like to think that's not a bad thing. :up:
 
That has a nice ring to it!

You're like my own personal J. Jonah Jameson.

LOL!!!

MEAT -- I'llgetyouanicebigboxofChristmasmeat. Soit'salittlegreenwhaddayawantit'sFebruary. YouwantfreshChristmasmeatinFebruary? Don'texpectmuchdoya, GETOUTTAMYOFFICE!!!!

:ninja:
 
If it was somebody who'd murdered people? I dunno, is humanity really that stupid?

Yes.

TBH, the one thing that truly bugs me about B89 was how Joker knew what Batman was talking about when he ranted about having Joker killed his parents. How did he know which specific murder he meant? I suppose it was just a lucky guess and I'm really not trying to take anything away from a superbly acted scene, but it always niggled me.

Because Jack killed a lot of people when he was little. He seemed pretty confused. I doubt he knew exactly who Batman was referring to.
 
Donner's Superman flicks basically do the same thing....no one really wears anything outlandish outside of superman, the city looks realistic as hell, etc. Some of these diehard begins fans dont get it whatsoever. Nolan was inspired by the adventure films of the 1970's...

Namely, Superman the Movie.

Yeah, that's a way Donner helped make Superman stand out and make him seem so special. He was this extraordinary guy in a rather ordinary place.

About the burton films, they werent really violent. He killed people, but they didnt get all gory and what not. some batfans honestly want an r rated film for whatever reason, where most versions of batman never get that bloody or violent

Well, that's true. Batman, even at his most violent......doesn't ever really get R rated, I think. In DKR, maybe.....maybe.

I just think people want a no holds barred Batman, probably stemming from the whole realism thing that seems to be spreading like the crabs.

Its probably a fear of getting a dummbed down children's book type film though, too.

They were talking about "the hideous Penguin Man in the sewers". He was clearly "out of place" and clearly regarded as a freak until Shreck and the media turned him into a hero.

Yet, he fit in like a glove. It's probably why they accepted him so easily.

Just ask the cops and citizens who indulged in a known serial killer's party parade. I know, "Gotham's Greed" and all, but hubba hubba hubba, money money money..what are they morons?

LOL....It was Jack's charisma that won them over.

Authorities. The Major stated publicly they weren't able to prevent it.

why not, though? I mean, I don't think there was any police presence at the parade either. Meh....that Mayor was too chicken anyways. Get it....? Chicken...? Cause he....ah, forget it.

I'm going to wait till TDK before I make an ultimate judgment on this. I suspect there will be further issues regarding Lt. Gordon relying on the help of a vigilante. I'm sure Loeb is, at best, reluctant to allow it.

Or the Mayor could be involved. TDK could clear things up.

The way I always so that scene was that Jack decided not to even bother considering the accuracy of Batman's comment and instead just started to agree with him, in the hopes of feeling his mercy.

Honestly, I think the Joker has no idea what Batman was talking about. Batman had gone psycho....and Joker knew it, so he was just trying to stall.

An immortal wouldn't have worked in Nolan's universe so he made Ra an mortal. Nobody seemed to complain about that, I think getting rid of a pimp suit and lip stick won't ruin the Joker either.


We don't know that Ra's ISN'T. It was hinted at more than once. And, if Ra's returns....I think we'll all know for sure.

But, Ra's being immortal could happen in Nolanverse.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Staff online

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
200,566
Messages
21,762,388
Members
45,597
Latest member
iamjonahlobe
Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"