The Dark Knight [SPOILER THREAD]

[Machiavelli]

Hey! Wanted was entertaining, mindless fun!

[VANFLAMESFAN]

Originally Posted by Machiavelli

Hey! Wanted was entertaining, mindless fun!

Here here.

Saw it twice, loved every second of it, tons of fun.

[Itse]

Originally Posted by VANFLAMESFAN

As far as your nitpicking in your first paragraph, come on man....let it go, enjoy the movie, stop looking for things to be "that guy" who didn't like one of the best reviewed movies of the year.

Looking at Rotten Tomatoes ratings calculator, which is a pretty good indicator of reviews in general, it's at number 6 from movies that are top of the box office RIGHT NOW. That means it's propably going to be somewhere between 20 and 30 for movies this year. Number 7 is Iron Man. And that's just movies with wide American distribution, so calling it "one of the best reviewed movies of the year" is a bit of a stretch. Good reviews, sure. Just like Iron Man.

And I'm not "looking for things" or "nitpicking". The action is boring and so's the plot. If it bothers you that it's my opinion, look away. As you put it, "Come on man"; I'm comparing it with Iron Man, which is not exactly a pivotal moment in movie entertainment. You really think I'm doing this to be an elitist? I thought Underworld for example was superior to this. (Not much, but hey, at least it gave a damn about it's plot.)

I guess I could sum it up like this: Dark Knight tries to be clever, frightening and entertaining, but it fails mostly because everything in execution is so middle-of-the-road, safe and tested, PG-13 summer blockbuster, fun for the whole family. And nobody cares about the script.

[Yeah_Baby]

Originally Posted by Itse

Looking at Rotten Tomatoes ratings calculator, which is a pretty good indicator of reviews in general, it's at number 6 from movies that are top of the box office RIGHT NOW. That means it's propably going to be somewhere between 20 and 30 for movies this year. Number 7 is Iron Man. And that's just movies with wide American distribution, so calling it "one of the best reviewed movies of the year" is a bit of a stretch. Good reviews, sure. Just like Iron Man.

And I'm not "looking for things" or "nitpicking". The action is boring and so's the plot. If it bothers you that it's my opinion, look away. As you put it, "Come on man"; I'm comparing it with Iron Man, which is not exactly a pivotal moment in movie entertainment. You really think I'm doing this to be an elitist? I thought Underworld for example was superior to this. (Not much, but hey, at least it gave a damn about it's plot.)

I guess I could sum it up like this: Dark Knight tries to be clever, frightening and entertaining, but it fails mostly because everything in execution is so middle-of-the-road, safe and tested, PG-13 summer blockbuster, fun for the whole family. And nobody cares about the script.

ouch I wonder what you though of Spiderman 3...

[Maritime Q-Scout]

If you didn't like the movie, that's cool. I'm actually really interested in the people who didn't like the movie, or preferred Batman Begins. Mostly because it's out of the norm, and I like the different perspectives. So I want to state as a disclaimer the fact you didn't like the movie I"m totally cool with.

However I have one question, and one comment:

Originally Posted by Itse

2. The plot was really stupid and boring. Okay, there's the Joker. In the first half hour we have established that he's omnipotent if he isn't fighting Batman. Everything he does will succeed perfectly. Takes 30 minutes for this to sink in. (15 for those who have seen action movies before.) Then we always learn beforehand what he's going to do. Then he does exactly that, in a rather uninteresting and unimaginative way. And since we know that everything he does will inevitably succeed, and he keeps on telling us what he's going to do, what am I supposed to get excited about?

Originally Posted by Itse

The Joker tries to make this point of "people are all really just animals when pushed to extremes", but he never really succeeds in pushing anyone.

So does the Joker always succeed unless fighting Batman, or did the people on the boats cause the Joker to fail by showing that there is good in humanity?

Originally Posted by Itse

4. The confused moralism of Joker. The Joker states he's an agent of chaos, and goes on to specify how he likes to blow up all the plans everyone else is making. Yet actually, he's pretty much the only guy in the whole movie who HAS a plan (and he ALWAYS has a plan, which mostly consists of blowing something), and also really the only guy who freaks out when his plan doesn't work.

Actually I don't think anything was confusing at all. The Joker is manipulative. In fact if I was to compare this version of the Joker to another character it would be Ben from Lost. Always has a plan, even when it seems like he's flying by the seat of his pants, and will lie to you even though he doesn't know you simply to throw you in the wrong direction. All he was doing by stating to Two-Face that he doesn't have a plan, he just does, was pushing Two-Face into the dualistic nature of 50/50, or . . . heads or tails. If he said everything was planned how does that play into pushing Two-Face into flipping a coin for decisions?

The Joker knew what he was doing when lying to Two-Face, and in turn, to the audience as well. The first scene was evidence that he was a planner, and a detailed one.


Again, I don't want to come across as being bitter or flaming you for hating the movie. Frankly I thought your points were detailed and outlined very well, and I respect that, and your opinion. My only question would be to the boat situation, which I think actually was brilliant by the Joker wanting the good people to murder the murderers thus causing the good people to become the evil ones, and in turn deserving to die the same way (anyone else think the detonators also blew up their own boat?)

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Azure

People are starting to say it could beat the $1.8billion that Titanic made worldwide.

I think it can.

I was reading that too, but not a chance.

Titanic got to $600m/$1.8b because teenage girls literally went and saw it ten times. TDK is going to kill every non-titanic record though.

On another note. It's a shame about movie piracy and how it's killed the industry...

[Hemi-Cuda]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

I was reading that too, but not a chance.

Titanic got to $600m/$1.8b because teenage girls literally went and saw it ten times. TDK is going to kill every non-titanic record though.

On another note. It's a shame about movie piracy and how it's killed the industry...

Titanic was a rare movie, one that could tap into the 3 biggest audience realms. love story for the teen girls, great action and special effects for the young males, and a good historical setting for the serious movie goers. course even when you have all that, it still takes an excellent director to tie everything together or you get a dud like Pearl Harbor. i just really don't see anything topping Titanic in the next few decades since it was the perfect storm of movies

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Sainters7

Really? A movie with Angelina Jolie sucked? I dont believe it...

Compared to Beyond Borders, everything else Jolie has done is Grade A stuff.........

[spydermal]

Originally Posted by Hemi-Cuda

Titanic was a rare movie, one that could tap into the 3 biggest audience realms. love story for the teen girls, great action and special effects and boobies for the young males, and a good historical setting for the serious movie goers.

Fixed.

[Hack&Lube]

Nolan has stated he doesn't like science fiction or powered type charcters like Mr. Freeze, Poison Ivy, Clayface, etc. Whomever he chooses will probably again be a more realistic and psychological villain instead of one with super powers or abilities. Personally despite her being magical, I'd like to see Zatanna in the final movie...just as a cameo perhaps.

Err...back to villain discussion. Of the prominent ones, only the Riddler really remains but it's hard to do a riddler that isn't just another take on the Joker character. Perhaps to bring the story arc back to Batman Begins, you could combine the plot with Talia al Ghul maybe. Perhaps Hush would be a good character. Nomatter what though, I have no idea how they are ever going to top the Joker.

Dark Knight to the 3rd movie (what are they going to call it? Caped Crusader? Lame!) is going to end up being Empire Strikes back to Return of the Jedi if Nolan doesn't pull off a miracle. He could go a much different route. Maybe do a Frank Miller Dark Knight Returns type story set many, many, many years (a decade) after feature an aging Batman returning and his own salvation.

[Hack&Lube]

This all reminds me of some Batman Joke Art I did for the possible sequel back in 2005

[Itse]

Originally Posted by Maritime Q-Scout

So does the Joker always succeed unless fighting Batman, or did the people on the boats cause the Joker to fail by showing that there is good in humanity?

That's film logic for you. It's actually enough to just have Batman present. Besides, it's the "final" scene where the Batman finally takes Joker down. Obviously this is when the Joker must fail. If Batman hadn't been there, the boats would have blown.

Actually I don't think anything was confusing at all.

I didn't say confusing, just confused. If you say that everything he says was a lie, then really you have no explanation for the character. That just makes him a guy who blows things up a lot for no real reason, which is hardly original.

If you accept that Joker is supposed to be an agent of chaos, you have to admit that he pretty much fails miserably, mostly because what he actually IS in the movie is the most highly organized character. The man with the plan, for whom things work out... Except his plans are so inane that not a lot of actual chaos is created, outside your average death and destruction which we've seen in tons of movies already.

Or you can claim that he's full of s*** which just means he's a creepy but inherently actually pretty empty.

I get the feeling that you're projecting way too much of the coolness of some of the comic book Joker stories into what actually happened on the screen.

My only question would be to the boat situation, which I think actually was brilliant by the Joker wanting the good people to murder the murderers thus causing the good people to become the evil ones, and in turn deserving to die the same way (anyone else think the detonators also blew up their own boat?)

No the detonators wouldn't have blown both boats, because then no-one would have known who blew the boats.

And no, that wasn't brilliant plan, it was among the most stupid in the movie, as it failed in the most obvious way. (The plan among other things put Joker in a visible spot for a long time, giving Batman time to catch him.)

First of all, there's the exectution; he's counting on the boats not communicating... Hello, cellphones? Morse code? Police radio? (cops on both boats). But that's just to point out the general no-brainer style of the movie. Call it nitpicking if you like, I'd agree

But the real problem was that there's really four things that people on each boat could have tried to do:
1) Blow up the other boat
2) Wait and hope that neither the other boat or Joker blows them up (or hope for Batman)
3) Try to defuse the bomb, throw it overboard or something like that (the most obvious option)
4) Blow up your own boat to save the other boat. (The Joker wouldn't know what happened until it's too late, so as good a plan as any.)

If someone out of the hundreds of people on either boat (which happen to have a bunch of hardened criminals, cops and possible some engineers too among them, who might very well actually know something about bombs) tries option number three, Jokers plan goes to hell. If the bomb goes off, the Joker just created a boatload of martyrs. If it doesn't, neither boat explodes unless he blows the other one up himself, which isn't the point.

Worst AND MOST LIKELY scenario is option number three or four on the prisoner boat. It's most likely because that's the boat where people are more ready to take chances. If nothing else, the cops there should be ready to take chances with their load and try to defuse the bomb, because it would've been win-win for them. Either they save the civilians or they save themselves without getting their hands dirty and still having hope the other boat can do the same.)

If the baddie boat blows itself up (willingly or not), instead of turning a bunch of "good" people into "bad" people, Joker would have turned a bunch of "bad" people into "good" (dead) people.

It actually would've been rather cool ending for the scene if the baddies had blown themselves up, as this would've been a much stronger and darker (which was supposed to be the main color of the movie) statement of the inherent goodness of men. Even hardened criminals are ready to sacrifice themselves rather than take part in mindless slaughter of innocents.

But no, the scriptwriters didn't think that far. They didn't come up with anything clever. They just made Joker and people on both boats look kind of dumb. The people on the boats didn't do anything active, just waited and hoped someone would else would do something, and Joker was stupid because he took unnecessary chances with a plan that had a high propability for failing.

[Itse]

Originally Posted by Hack&Lube

Dark Knight to the 3rd movie (what are they going to call it? Caped Crusader? Lame!) is going to end up being Empire Strikes back to Return of the Jedi if Nolan doesn't pull off a miracle. He could go a much different route. Maybe do a Frank Miller Dark Knight Returns type story set many, many, many years (a decade) after feature an aging Batman returning and his own salvation.

I think it's quite obvious that the next one is going to be "Dark Knight Returns", as they pretty much set everything they needed in this movie. Batman is going to go away and Batman is truly an outcast. That's also why they wanted to call this one "Dark Knight", as it would've been too weird for mainstream audiences to have "Dark Knight Returns" without having a movie called "Dark Knight before that.

It's also among the most iconic comic books ever, so if they think they've got this dark Batman thingie covered, why wouldn't they touch the most iconic Batman comic ever? Which means the endfight will be against Superman, for those who are never read one of the best comic books ever. Of course they have a slight problem because Batman kills Joker in that one, and with Ledger first doing such a great job and then dying they're going to have to come up with a new Joker, which is a bit awkward. But who wouldn't want to play Joker now? He's starting to be like Al Capone, the dream baddie of every actor.

[VANFLAMESFAN]

Originally Posted by Itse

But no, the scriptwriters didn't think that far. They didn't come up with anything clever. They just made Joker and people on both boats look kind of dumb. The people on the boats didn't do anything active, just waited and hoped someone would else would do something, and Joker was stupid because he took unnecessary chances with a plan that had a high propability for failing.

You really thought about that boat scene a bit too much, give it a rest dude, it's a Batman movie. If you don't like it, fine, but writing an essay to justify your feelings about that one scene is just silly.

[troutman]

Saw the movie last night, and thought it was really good. My complaints are minor ones - the movie was a bit long (we thought it could have ended when Two Face got his face melted off). Also, what is up with Batman's voice? - he sounds like a Monster Truck spokesman when he talks - really distracting. How does the Joker keep attracting henchmen? - seems like a career path with a very short life span.

Was Chicago used as the back-drop? Where is Gotham and Metropolis in the DC version of the US?

There was a joke in the middle about cats - are they foreshadowing Catwoman?

The boat dilemna is a common device in comics - I remember Spiderman in the 1970s having to decide between Aunt May and Mary Jane in a battle with the Green Goblin.

[SportsJunky]

I'm not sure if this has been mentioned yet. Angelina Jolie rumoured as Catwoman:

http://celebedge.sympatico.msn.ca/Ca...abc&date=False

[Traditional_Ale]

Over-hyped.

Under-acted.

Could have been good if grittier, darker, edgier, with some decent fighting. But Batman doesn't exactly inspire me to expect some kind of display of dexterity. He moved like "The Thing" from the Fantastic Four, but hulkier.

Thought I liked it but the more I think about it...I don't think I did.

Joker was great though. Better than Jack's.

[VANFLAMESFAN]

Originally Posted by Traditional_Ale

Over-hyped.

Under-acted.

I can agree with the first, no chance in hell i agree with the second. Every performnace from the main characters was great and in no way "under-acted".

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

I'll wade into the whole debate about the Joker saying he didn't have any plans.
I think you guys are looking at it the wrong way.

Yes clearly the Joker has some pretty well laid out plans, the bank robery, the boats, the Racel/Harvey bomb setup.

The point isn't that the Joker is flying by the seat of his pants when he's blowing stuff up, the point is that he doesn't have an endgame.

He's just blowing stuff up for the sake of it, and doesn't really know or care what he is accomplishing by doing it other than killing folks and blowing stuff up. This is the type of plan he is refering to, not the individual incidents, but the big picture.

[troutman]

^^^^

Joker's endgame? Didn't he say he was fighting Batman for the soul of Gotham?