[TheOrator]

Well, you're wrong on a couple of things.

We do know how Harvey and Rachel got captured. It is clearly stated by the Joker and then by Two-Face and the cop guy he killed that they were driven to those locations by a couple of dirty cops were escorting them.

The Joker's escape made sense. He kidnapped the Asian guy from the cell, and that's the only reason he went to jail. Gordon even says "He wanted to get caught. He wanted me to lock him up!"

Also, I thought about how he got all those new henchmen. Well, a couple of things. He is a liar, and the mob is desperate. It wouldn't be too hard to convince a desperate criminal that you won't kill him.

Also, as I said earlier, I don't think Two-Face is dead. And we don't have any evidence that says he is with certainty.

Other than that, to each his own.

And welcome back to the forums.

[civilian_number_two]

Orator, it doesn't make any sense if Dent is not dead. Batman can't exactly take the fall for his killings and go on the lam if everyone in Gotham knows that Harvey Dent is imprisoned in Arkham Asylum. And they can't just let him loose and say "Batman took the fall; now to back to being a crusading District Attorney," becaue he won't, and he'll kill more people. So either Gotham finds out he's gone mad or Batman takes the fall and he is dead. Batman had to know he was dead or he wouldn't have made the decision he did at the end.

I don't like that the filmmakers killed him off, like he was some secondary villain. He's not. Two Face is one of the best Batman villains out there.

I hope they do a decent detective movie next, with the Riddler and a lot less killing. The Riddler was never about killing people. But movies being what they are, I doubt they'll do that. There are so many movies about bank heists and such, where the robbers are the heroes, that audiences don't really care about criminals who just steal stuff. So I expect another psycho killer is coming up.

This post has been edited by civilian_number_two: 31 July 2008 - 05:06 AM

[TheOrator]

But everyone in Gotham doesn't have to know he's in Arkham, he could just be sent there secretly. Hell, even when he becomes Two-Face the criminal (which I think would only work if he becomes some crazy murdering vigilante) no one has to know he's Harvey Dent, I don't think what had happened to his face was public knowledge. Even the cop who had escorted him said he thought Dent was dead.

[mireaux7]

if theres one thing i can say about "the dark knight", its that...how come "batman begins" couldnt have been this damn good?

the only bad thing about this film was having to look at the hideous maggie gyllenhall...yeeech..ucck!

[J m HofMarN]

The first film apparently was partly filmed in Chicago too but it wasn't never apparent. Also, they built an extensive set for Gotham City. However, it doesn't look as though any such efforts were made here.

The choice of Chicago was because of its criminal past. NYC, where some Batman movies have shot, isnt quite the same place. If you look at Chicago it has a lot more of the alleyways and general scary places that fit Gotham than New York actually does. So it makes sense to shoot there. Also it is possible that the change of sets is representative of the change in Gotham. In the first one the place is beset by crime. In this sequel the criminals are on the run, the city is brighter and more hopeful.

There were plenty of people connected with the mob he was robbing who witnessed these killings and it really wouldn't have taken much effort to put the word out on him. Yet he always seemed to have a small army of thugs at his disposal.

No one knew it was the joker. All of the men looked identical. And the mob guys did fire shots ,so it might have been possible to blame all deaths on them.

In the confusing mess, it was really difficult to tell who the real Batman was and who the phonies were. Also, I don't mind the idea that Batman inspired copycat vigilantes but I detest the fact that they all chose to dress in Batsuits. Also the fact that they were all overweight nerdy types didn't help matters.

Again, this is demonstrative of the new Gotham. This movie isn't just about Batman versus the criminals of the world, it's about the entire city trying to change and follow the examples of the white and dark knights. That said, yes, it was a rather confusing mess.

Next item, the sadism. The level of cruelty that is inflicted on various people throughout the movie is so disgusting, it really detracted from the movie for me. When the Joker put a knife in someone's mouth and drew it slowly through their cheeks, I instantly thought to myself that this was not something that I would care to watch again. The same goes for the terrorist video and the hanging scene. I also felt that way about the manner in which Rachel Dawes was killed off. I didn't like the fact that they killed her although if that was all they did, I could have accepted it. I mean, we're not supposed to like the fact that an innocent character gets killed afterall. But the way they had her waiting in uncertainty, all alone as the timer ticked down was particularly cruel.

The guy the Joker did that to was a mob boss who tried to have the Joker captured dead or alive, in which case he probably wouldnt have fared much better than his victim. And again, this all comes down to Gotham taking responsibility for its own streets. This is the movie where we start to see the people take steps against organized crime, so from here on out the idea is that we're going to have more spectacular and interesting individual villains, rather than networks of people who are after profit. Also, the last sentence is utter bollocks. They're the villains for chrissakes. Would you prefer that they gave her a teddy bear to keep her company? And for that matter she wasn't alone, she got to talk to Dent and share her last moments with her love. That made for a rather poignant scene, I thought. If all you could think of seeing that was "gosh these people are mean" then I don't know what to say. And I myself was stunned that the hero made the choice to save Dent rather than his girlfriend, considering everything. I think that was another example of this movie showing people striving for the greater good above personal interests and if necessary their own lives.

his character was killed off after a few short scenes killing people we couldn't really give a damn about. That's a problem one can expect in a movie which has far too many characters and doesn't pay enough attention to them.

His character was killed because he took a good idea (people taking responsibility for cleaning up the city) and then took it entirely too goddamn far, to the point of vigilantiism of criminals and believing even innocents were guilty. So more so than the joker he had to die to prevent things from going too far. In a way, he was more dangerous than the Joker. Joker represented evil from outside the system, whereas Dent represented what could happen if the system went too far.

There is a lot of this in the movie. The most ridiculous part had to be the Joker's escape from prison. When he was chasing the police vehicles under the impression that Batman was Hervey Dent, he seemed to magically anticipate that his plan would go awry and in the space of a moment, arranged to have a prisoner with a mobile phone bomb implanted in his chest placed in the police holding cells for when he arrived there. For a guy who loved chaos, he sure seemed to have a knack for thinking fifty moves ahead of his opposition. When he escapes from prison and has one hundred hostages and that thing with the boats set up, I lost any inclination to care. It seemed that the whole movie's plot had reached the point where it could be boiled down to "The Joker drives Batman crazy and does lots of pointless bad things".

Point conceded. I think people have mentioned this before. But that's all tied to suspension of disbelief. We saw Joker's knack for planning in the first scene where they take down the bank. I don't think we need to see the same process repeated every time he does anything.

[civilian_number_two]

JM, Batman intended to save Rachel Dawes and to let the police save Dent. The Joker gave him the wrong addresses for the two intended victims.

Orator, you can't secretly send a guy to an asylum for the criminally insane, even in a comic book. There's a process involved, requiring at the very least one day in a courtroom and a public record of that day.

This post has been edited by civilian_number_two: 01 August 2008 - 07:07 AM

[TheOrator]

Hell, if he's alive, he can have himself committed. You wouldn't need to go to court for that and it would demonstrate the inner struggle he's still going through.

Besides, Gordon's the only person in all of Gotham just about that plays anything by the books. Maybe in the interest of public opinion they bend the rules to get him committed quietly.

[J m HofMarN]

Civ- ah I hadn't caught that part. That guy really does think ahead.

[Just your average movie goer]

Hi again. Well, I don't want to do a hit-and-run post so I thought I'd reply to some of the points you guys have raised.

Orator,

We do know how Harvey and Rachel got captured. It is clearly stated by the Joker and then by Two-Face and the cop guy he killed that they were driven to those locations by a couple of dirty cops were escorting them.

Yeah, I remember that. Instead of saying it wasn't properly explained, I should have said it wasn't well handled. We really should have seen those corrupt cops turn on Hervey and Rachel, especially as even when these cops are referred to later, we have no idea who they are. Well, I had no idea who they were at any rate. It seems that you followed this thing better than I did.

The Joker's escape made sense. He kidnapped the Asian guy from the cell, and that's the only reason he went to jail. Gordon even says "He wanted to get caught. He wanted me to lock him up!"

I must have missed that. Again, I blame the fact that the movie was too rushed and didn't spend enough time on fleshing out important scenes.

As for Hervey Dent being dead or not, his body didn't look like it was moving anywhere.


Hey Civ, I like your idea about the Riddler. Actually, a decent 3rd movie could redeem this film somewhat in my eyes. It's like the Bourne series. The Bourne Supremacy for instance is a complete waste when viewed on its own, in my opinion anyway. But as a prelude to The Bourne Ultimatum, it is a little more tolerable.

JM, as for the change of sets, your theory about the changing mood sounds nice and all - but buildings don't suddenly change appearance overnight because a city's feeling more hopeful. Also, Gotham City still has to look like an imaginary city in order to properly work. I shouldn't be able to identify the places Ferris Bueller visited while I'm watching a Batman movie.

Also, they had numerous scenes inside Wayne Tower and not once did they use an exterior shot of the building.

No one knew it was the joker

Possibly ~ but he did take his mask off before he left the bank. Anyway, it's a small gripe. Like I said, the intro to Batman pissed me off much more.

The guy the Joker did that to was a mob boss who tried to have the Joker captured dead or alive, in which case he probably wouldnt have fared much better than his victim.

And the copy-cat Batman he did it to? I don't know if you noticed but when they pulled his body down to the street, they saw his face had the cut smile too.

It was sick and unnecessary. Ditto for the thing with Rachel Dawes. And no, of course I don't expect them to give her a teddy bear. And no, my problem was not that they were mean. But you can have baddies being bad without being really sick. This is the magic of fiction. You can control characters and the situations you're writing about/filming etc. So baddies are only as sick as you make them.

I mean, you could easily have Rachel killed in a drive-by shooting and have her fall into Hervey's arms... or a surprise apartment bomb that kills her and scars Hervey in one go. You can create the same end result, the baddies can still be mean... but the movie itself won't seem as miserable.

His character was killed because he took a good idea (people taking responsibility for cleaning up the city) and then took it entirely too goddamn far, to the point of vigilantiism of criminals and believing even innocents were guilty. So more so than the joker he had to die to prevent things from going too far. In a way, he was more dangerous than the Joker. Joker represented evil from outside the system, whereas Dent represented what could happen if the system went too far.

You've just outlined in no small amount of detail a damn good reason why they shouldn't have killed Hervey off. He would have made a great villain for the third movie. And from what I've heard about the comics, it sounds like that's how Hervey Dent/Two Face was supposed to start out... a vigilante spiralling out of control.

Anyway, it was a waste.

But I'm glad you agreed about the Joker's powers of planning fifty moves ahead at least.


Although, to be honest, I'm glad you guys enjoyed it. I really wanted to but I couldn't unfortunately - like I said earlier, I had been looking forward to this film for a long time. At the end of it, I remember I just got up and left with the same level of emotion I reserve for getting off a bus. It just left me feeling empty. However, if you guys enjoyed it, that's great. I wouldn't want to stop you from liking it.

I do however feel the need to state that for the record, I personally don't think it deserves the level of praise it's currently getting.

Yeah, I get that it's supposed to be dark and I sure as hell wouldn't want anything like Batman and Robin. That kind of thing is just awful. I actually wanted it to be fairly dark too. However, it's not a movie about a conventional vigilante. It's about a guy who dresses up in a cool costume and glides through the night, leaping on baddies from rooftops and the like. So although I'm glad they made it darker, I have to ask "Why so serious?"

[TheOrator]

Also, they had numerous scenes inside Wayne Tower and not once did they use an exterior shot of the building.

You mean, apart from the John Hancock Center with the word WAYNE on it? I mean it isn't the same Wayne Tower as the last movie but it is definitely the building in which the scenes take place. Also, the monorail system is gone too. Regrettable, yes, but not detracting from the film.

And JYAMG, yes, the filmmakers made the Joker as evil as they wanted him to be--any old mobster can kill Rachel in a drive-by, or rig her apartment to explode. The Joker didn't just want them to die--he wanted them to suffer.

His motivation for this is made clear when he explains why he uses knives.

But maybe the movie is harder to follow than I remember - I have seen it three times.


So far.

[Just your average movie goer]

I missed that building you're referring to. Can't remember seeing it anywhere.

And I get that the Joker wanted Rachel and Hervey to suffer. He clearly gets off on it. I just thought they went too far with his sadism for my tastes. I want to be entertained, not disturbed. No matter what direction they want to take the character, Batman should still be fun, shouldn't it? Why else would we watch a movie about a grown man dressed up in a costume? Bob Kane intended it to be fun. Dark of course... but fun all the same. Although, that's probably just a matter of opinion, I guess. Fun, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder.

Oh well, I shouldn't complain. I'm happy with Batman Begins so I can always watch that instead. You guys can have The Dark Knight.

[TheOrator]

What not fun?

Didn't you see the whole bat-cycle bit? That sky hook-Korea scene? A lot of the movie was fun.

But again, to each his own.

[Otal Nimrodi]

Comics aren't what they were in the forties. They got darker, and none of them have gotten darker than Batman. The Joker in the comics paralyzed Barbara Gordon, beat Jason Todd almost to death with a crowbar, then finished the job with an explosion. He's just as sadistic as they portrayed him.

It's not about what the creator intended for the character. Green Lantern used to be an ex-railway engineer in red, green, and purple. Sandman used to be a guy in a gas mask and a trench coat. Now Sandman's the lord of dreams and Green Lantern's a space cop. Better? Maybe. It's a matter of opinion. But different? Definitely.

I'd agree that a comic book movie should be fun for anyone BUT Batman. If there was a Justice League movie, a Superman movie, a Wonder Woman movie... Any hero EXCEPT Batman, I would have been upset about the dark tone. But this is Batman. And not only that, he's facing off with Joker and Two-Face, arguably two of the darkest, most twisted characters in his rogue's gallery.

It should not be fun.

Now, as I said, that's not to say I don't want a fun superhero movie. I'd kill for a Justice Society movie, and if there was no fun in that, I'd be the first one to get angry about it. But I want a dark Batman. Everything else should be light, even if it has serious philosophical overtones, should be but Batman should be dark.

Not that you're not entitled to your opinion, I simply disagree with you.

[J m HofMarN]

And the copy-cat Batman he did it to? I don't know if you noticed but when they pulled his body down to the street, they saw his face had the cut smile too.

It's easy enough to assume that was done post mortem.

Ditto for the thing with Rachel Dawes.

Of course it's sick and unnecessary, he's a villain. How is it any more evil for him to give his brand of evil that personal touch when every other villain ever has just hijacked a nuclear warhead and threatened bumfuckville with it for a ransom? Nuclear warhead kills or irradiates hundreds of thousands. Knife in mouth might cut a lady's gums. I think a completely random evil guy is kind of refreshing.

I mean, you could easily have Rachel killed in a drive-by shooting and have her fall into Hervey's arms... or a surprise apartment bomb that kills her and scars Hervey in one go. You can create the same end result, the baddies can still be mean... but the movie itself won't seem as miserable.

Harvey damn ye!!!

Hervey reminds me too much of The Love Bug.

Anywho, yes, they could have been unconsious of their impending death. By the same token, Jack could have just decided to take a nap on the Titanic so we wouldnt have had to see him freeze/drown to death.

He would have made a great villain for the third movie. And from what I've heard about the comics, it sounds like that's how Hervey Dent/Two Face was supposed to start out... a vigilante spiralling out of control.

I too am going to reserve judgement on whether he's really dead. It doesnt seem the style of the new movies to kill off perfectly good villains. Here's a consideration: if Bats took his pulse on the cooked side, he was touching something akin to leather. Maybe he couldn't feel any pulse through that. If nothing else that's a loophole for the film makers. I would prefer that he didnt die, but if he has to, he has to. Better him than Joker!

So although I'm glad they made it darker, I have to ask "Why so serious?"

I rather like the fact that ideas like sacrifice, civic responsibility, social ethics, and so forth appeared in what is arguably a superhero movie. It wasnt just Batman fighting Joker, it was Gotham itself. That's an interesting concept.

This post has been edited by J m HofMarN: 03 August 2008 - 12:45 AM

[civilian_number_two]

Damn it, Otal beat me to reminding you of Alan Moore's KILLING JOKE, wherein Joker shoots Barbara Gordon in the spine, then jokes about it while kidnapping Gordon in an effort to prove that a bad day can change a man's morality. This is DC comics canon, by the way. While it may have looked funny in the comic, running a naked Gordon around a dilapidated circus while midgets prodded him with sticks probably would have looked like sadism on the screen.

The Joker an uneven character, sometimes just goofing off and at other times genuinely sadistic. He's been this way since the 70s. Complaining that you didn't like the latter portrayal is saying you don't like the Joker in the Batman comics.

And yeah, the crowbar. I hadn't thought to bring that up, but good point.

This post has been edited by civilian_number_two: 04 August 2008 - 04:15 AM