[Sina]

Just watched it yesterday and was immensely pleased. In my opinion this is the best superhero movie ever made, and the best movie I've seen this year.

I should probably make it perfectly clear that I actually like Batman before making this post; but am I the only one who thinks it's "wrong" to call Batman a superhero? Technically, he doesn't have any powers that makes him "super", besides a funny mask and an embarrassing amount of money, apparently. Wolverine isn't a superhero, and I'd say he's more "super" than Batman.

I also think it's not very cool that The Dark Knight has the ridiculously high score of 9.1 on imdb. I mean, it wasn't THAT good. Batman returns was better anyway...

[reiner]

When I use the word superhero, it usually means some sort of hero is over the top, larger than life.

I would definitely think batman falls into this category.

[Sina]

Well, he does (it also depends on what you put into the term 'larger than life', though)... but he falls a bit short on the whole awesome-powers-deal.

[Dorothy]

He has super amounts of cash. Batman - The B stands for $$

[Sina]

They should make a movie about Bill Gates, then. He'd be an awesome superhero.

[Icey]

They already did, and it was awesome. He fought Steve Jobs and ultimately made him join the dark side.

This post has been edited by Icey: 24 September 2008 - 03:39 PM

[Sina]

Hahaha, that's totally awesome. Really.

[Heccubus]

UGH. Pirates Of The Silcon Valley! What a treacherous waste of film. The only bright side to it was seeing Bill Gates played by Anthony Michael Hall. I kept wanting him to get stoned and start talking about how women "cannot hold they smoke".

This post has been edited by Heccubus: 24 September 2008 - 10:47 PM

[Vesuvius]

I know I'm late in responding to this, but I finally saw this film. I thought it was alright.

I will give credit for the Joker, no doubt.
What I didn't like though was the introduction of the film. It was like a mess of random dialogue, some fight scenes, a bit of dialogue, and I honestly didn't know what was supposed to be happening until about 30 minutes passed.

Things started to blend together after that, but it was no solace (for some reason) to see the Rachel character. She didn't do anything. It was like:

"well, she's there, again, there she is, doing nothing, whoops! she died. Well, there, she's gone. Hey! Two-Face!"

I think some of the build up of certain scenes and dialogue was pointless. The rest however was pretty good and the action wasn't over the top. Some people didn't like Batman's incoherant growling, but I actually didn't mind it. He was angry, I let it go.

[Just your average movie goer]

Well, here we go again... The Dark Knight. I've just recently got the DVD so it's fresh in my mind again.

As those who read (tolerated?) my rants about it earlier know, it wasn't love at first sight with this film for me but after a second viewing, I came to appreciate it a lot more. It has a lot of strengths and I think actually that there is one that hasn't been mentioned... although Slade has sort of brushed over it with his comment about this being a Gotham movie. Anyway, I think one of the greatest strengths about this film, and its predecessor as well to a lesser extent, is the way in which Gotham comes alive as a fully realised city. In Burton's films, it was a setting. In Schumacher's acts of vandalism, it was an extravagent showcase for neon lighting and stupidly big statues... but in the Dark Knight, it's inherently connected with Batman to the point that the city itself produced the caped crusader as much as any influence. I liked the complex relationships between the DA's office, the Gotham police, the media, Wayne Enterprises... all of it. It was a convincingly portrayed society that was depicted onscreen and full strength to Nolan for pulling it off so well.

Of course, it is by no means perfect either. The Joker's ability to escape from prison, hold a mob meeting on a boat, rig a hospital with explosives then rush to the harbour to do the same with a couple of ferries before readying a tape for the press and rushing to a skyscraper to set up a hostage drama all in an afternoon's work defies all logic and the constraints of time. However, we can suspend disbelief because of the payoff.

However, the ending still remains unsatisfying for me - Batman taking the blame for Hervey Dent's crimes and being hunted by the Gotham Police Department is not a fitting way to close the franchise... so the final verdict on the Dark Knight can really only be delivered if and when a follow up (which should probably be a conclusion to the franchise) arrives.

Now, it seems likely that a third movie will be made. The studio is sitting on a cash cow so they'd want it more than anything. Although, one can certainly understand why Nolan would want a bit of a break before getting back into the franchise.

No doubt, most of us have read various rumours on the net that are about as much value as an expired bus ticket, suggesting such gems as Johnny Depp then Eddie Murphy taking on the role of the Riddler. There was one about Cher as catwoman as well... which actually wouldn't be as bad as everyone on the wide world web believed. An ageing vixen, jaded that her time in the sun is over with nothing to show for it, would probably be more convincing than a young Angelina Jolie type. However, it's a moot point as that, like all the other rumours, was nothing but a made up joke.

As for Robin, well, he doesn't belong in Nolan's world. Although, he's no doubt played an important part in the comics, bringing in younger audiences, he probably has no place in Batman movies period. It's hard to imagine that a thoughtful man like Bruce Wayne would jeopardise a young teenager by bringing him into the violent and dangerous world that his alter-ego inhabits. Also, its impossible to imagine criminals trembling in fear at Robin... or uttering the name of "Robin'. I mean, seriously... Robin?

Thankfully, Christian Bale won't have a bar of it either and I think that bodes well.... and this IS true. Apparently the actor said that if Robin is in Batman 3, he will chain himself up and refuse to go to work. As far as I know, Nolan has no intention of bringing him in either.


So what could one do with a follow up to the Dark Knight? I realise that film makers probably don't trawl through internet forums for ideas (and after reading a suggestion somewhere about rehashing the baddies from Hellboy 1 for Hellboy 3, I kind of hope they don't) but I'm pretty sure we've all got some ideas of our own.

For a title, I think they could probably keep going with the whole thing about not using Batman in it. Personally, I think "Gotham Rises" has a nice ring to it. They could call it "The Caped Crusader" but that's really just "The Dark Knight" under another name.

Anyway, I think that given the end of the last film, there is a definite end that a sequel should work towards... Batman needs to be redeemed in Gotham's eyes and he needs to be able to hand his mantle over to someone else.

So I thought to myself, there's another aspect of this that could easily be tied into the main thrust of it. Just as Batman needs to be redeemed in Gotham's eyes, so does Bruce Wayne. In much the same way that as Batman, he has taken a fall from grace to save Hervey Dent's reputation, he has taken a fall as Bruce Wayne, casting himself as an irresponsible playboy and probably a real risk as the head of Wayne Enterprises. You can just imagine that when they're not worrying about something like the Joker's rampage of terrorism, the citizens of Gotham are worrying whether the antics of this seemingly flamboyant character are going to bankrupt his company and drive the city into another recession.

Then given that the person Batman had intended to hand his mantle over to, Hervey Dent, died at the end of "The Dark Knight", the course really became obviously clear. Also, you might remember that after Bruce Wayne said Gotham needed its true hero and he had been blown halfway to hell, Alfred hold him "Which means in the meantime, they'll have to put up with you."

So yeah, I think you can see what I'm driving at. After Batman redeems himself and saves Gotham, he can hand the job of caring for the city not to another law enforcer or DA... but to himself, Bruce Wayne. With the latest criminal freaks gone and things calming down, Bruce Wayne can emerge, reformed in the public's view, with a newfound sense of maturity and take on the role of a caring philanthropist, using his wealth and influence to improve the city and make it a better place for all... much as his parents did at the beginning of "Batman Begins". It would be the perfect way to close the franchise off and return full circle.

The only thing that would remain then would be choose a suitable villain (or villains) for the film. Unfortunately, here I would be no help. As I said in an earlier post, I've never read the comics so my knowledge of the Batman villains is rather limited.

I do know that I loathe the Penguin as a character. He should definitely be ruled out. Ditto for Mr Freeze and Poison Ivy... and I'm sure there are a dozen more that should never see the light of day. I read a suggestion somewhere about Rhas Al Ghul's daughter but that would be retreading old ground most likely.

Anyway, maybe there's food for thought in there. Maybe even discussion or debate.

[civilian_number_two]

Some specific things about your post:

1) HARVEY, not "HERVEY" You've been doing this the whole thread despite Barend censuring you.
2) "Continue the thing of not using "Batman" in the tiutle? What "thing?" They used "Batman" in the title of the first one ... (Batman Begins). One movie isn't really enough to call it a trend.
3) Bruce Wayne can't be a prominent philanthropist. He does that work already, but quietly and just enough not to scare his shareholders. Bruce Wayne has to be a foil to Batman, and I know where you're going with the "If Batman is a villain ... " thing, but the irresponsible playboy image is there to throw people off the scent when a crimefighter with seemingly endless cash and Wayne's exact build keeps showing up and cracking skulls. No, the public hero of Gotham City now finally has to be Comissioner Gordan.

More general:

The problem with going any further with Batman is that he doesn't have any more really cool villains. Villains that haven't been done in the movies that is. Catwoman is ok (totally disagree on the aging starlet idea by the way; part of her storyline is the love/hate thing with Bats), The Riddler could make a decent movie, maybe, and then you got what? Maxie Zeuss? The Mad Hatter? Croc? Bane? Talia can't enter into it because the last movie did a hatchet job on Ra's.

Whatever they do, the villain will need to be outrageous enough that Gotham can forget the allegations targeting Batman. I agree that the notion that Batman killed Harvey Dent was too much, that Batman can't continue doing his thing if the pubblic is allowed to believe that. So to carry the theme of the end of this movie, Gordon has to take on a public leadership role, and Batman has to be exonerated in the end. And to get there we need a supervillain, someone who can chew up the scenery as well as Joker did. I just don't know which way they'll go. Multiple villains, like they mistakenly did in BB?

I would bet on a Catwoman thing, and she'll eventually beocme an antiheroine/ally, like she is in the comics, and a Riddler thing. Riddler will be perverted to allow him to kill people, since a clever and mysterious burgler isn't very scary after you've dealt with a lunatic who can blow up hospitals. The real problem with making Joker as big and loud as they made him is that clearly they'd planned to use him in another movie, and now there's little chance they'll risk that.

[Vesuvius]

I'm in favor of the villain Clayface. He and Freeze were quite possibly my two favorite villains. Mr. Freeze can be done, but without the sillyness that we saw in Batman and Robin. Clayface can be done, so long as his morphing techniques aren't abused = limited CGI.

Although the Joker is alive at the end of this film, but there's no actor to fill that role (as of yet) Nolan could possibly get away with using the character Harleyquin. Who knows?

[Otal Nimrodi]

As for Robin, well, he doesn't belong in Nolan's world. Although, he's no doubt played an important part in the comics, bringing in younger audiences, he probably has no place in Batman movies period. It's hard to imagine that a thoughtful man like Bruce Wayne would jeopardise a young teenager by bringing him into the violent and dangerous world that his alter-ego inhabits. Also, its impossible to imagine criminals trembling in fear at Robin... or uttering the name of "Robin'. I mean, seriously... Robin?

Er... I was with you until this part. Have you read comics lately? I mean seriously... I'll take issue with how its being written, but I'll also take issue with saying that all Robin does in the comics is bring in the younger audiences.

This is the only thing which bugs me about your post.

Also, Penguin. Penguin doesn't work well in the way he was the last time he was in a movie. But the way he is in comics these days actually fits in pretty well with the mythos of the Nolan movies.

I'm behind you 100% on Poison Ivy, though. She was created because they had to stop using Catwoman, and she never really interests me except as a foil to Harley Quinn.

[Just your average movie goer]

By the numbers...

All right, Civ: Harvey. However, it's been ages since I posted here so I don't remember Barend censoring me. And you got me on the title too but you know what I mean.

In response to your point about the Bruce Wayne thing, I completely understand the reason for the playboy persona. It's purpose is to distance himself from Batman. However, if the time comes that Gotham no longer needs Batman, Bruce Wayne will no longer need that persona.

However, I can see Gordon becoming Gotham's true hero and actually, that would fit in quite appropriately with the groundwork that's already been laid.

As for the question of going further with the series, I think the ending of The Dark Knight necessitates it. Batman deserves a proper send off... not a parting shot of him running away from the cops. I for one hope there's a follow up act and I'm sure I'm not alone.

Regarding Catwoman and the Riddler, they sound cool to me in theory but I have a hard time imagining how they could be done well. However, you guys would know more about that. As for the Joker, we've already seen that. I think it'd be much more engaging if we had a film that dealt with something new.

So Clayface, Mr Freeze, the Riddler or Catwoman, hey? I think now I probably can't join in a discussion on the baddies due to my lack of knowledge about the Batman comics.

Have you read comics lately?

I've already said I've never read the comics. Though before you jump on me, I'd wager that a large number of people who are watching this series haven't either. I just like these movies because they're good. That's the only reason. I also love the Hellboy movies and I've never read a Hellboy comic either.

Of course, your opinion as a fan of the comics is very important. Everyone here (myself excluded) clearly is very familiar with the world of Batman... but still, I really don't like the idea of Robin being in the series. I don't think this Batman needs a partner.

Anyway, I thought it was fun throwing some thoughts around. However, if there is another Batman movie and Nolan is at the helm then I think it'll be in good hands.

Yeah, I probably don't have anything else to add really. But it was nice to stop by Chefelf's forums again. Happy posting, eveyone. See you all later.

[Lord Aquaman]

To me, the whole Batman taking the fall for Harvey Dent's crimes is pretty much the equivalent of Han Solo getting frozen in carbonite in ESB - it's the cliffhanger element that makes you want to see what happens next. And after all the money DARK KNIGHT made, we know a 3rd Batman film in this set is inevitable.