The Official "Dark Knight" Discussion -- SPOILER ALERT IF YOU HAVEN'T SEEN IT!

Peter Marlowe · 07-20-2008, 09:13 PM

Okay. Saw this in theaters last night...mixed feelings about it. First -- and this is very trivial -- I liked the opening sequence of the bats filling the screen better in Batman Begins than how Nolan opened this one. There could have been a bit more "punch" in the opening theme/sequence as there was in the last film when the DC/Warner/Legendary Pictures logos first come onscreen; as I said, all trivial...

Now, let me get to what I didn't like: Katie Holmes not returning was a mistake; just took me out of the story. I didn't like the choice for Dent, either -- Tommy Lee Jones blew Eckhardt's performance out of the water I thought. And what was the deal with Dent's "Two Face" villian character not even being explored? He shoots a couple of people at the end and waves a gun around and the "Two Face" character we loved in Batman Forever only gets that amount of screen time? What about his long run in the comics? The character didn't even seem that frightening or authentic to me; the role was miscast in my opinion. After coming off of No Reservations, Aaron didn't seem like he was the right choice for Harvey Dent.

Another thing that bothered me through the run of the picture was my constant questioning of Chris Nolan's inconsistency of following the comic blueprint: and perhaps diehard Batman fans can clear this up for me; it just seemed like many of the origins weren't explored correctly or even thoroughly -- did Nolan take his own angle for this? Was Tim Burton and Joel Schumacher's visions more accurate? Let's get to the whole Joker thing -- according to Burton's Joker (played by Jack Nicholson), the criminal known as "Jack Napier" working for Carl Grissom eventually gets thrown in acid by Batman himself and becomes the Joker...is THIS the way the story really went? Did Napier really kill Bruce's parents or was it Joe Chill as Nolan suggested in Batman Begins?

What I liked about it? The stronger suit Bale wears in this one looks fantastic, and the stunt work and fight sequences with the Jokers men were outstanding -- I never thought the late Heath Ledger would have been right for this role; after all, whoever played the Joker had big shoes to fill after Nicholson's off the wall performance. But Mr. Ledger pulled it off -- a darker, more sinister Joker is what's explored here. But it also brings up questions and more issues with authenticity: Why wasn't the Joker's origins explored or explained in this? We just know him as a bank robber that puts makeup on to hide some scars on his face -- but what about Tim Burton's angle of the Joker, once again...wasn't the Joker supposed to be dropped in a vat of acid so he "gets" those disfigurations and covers them up with white face makeup? According to Nolan's take of this character, the Joker has no ID, no fingerprints, no record...in Burton's 1989 Batman, it was known that he was definitely Jack Napier. I also didn't like the whole scene at the end where the Joker set up the two ferries leaving Gotham to explode based on whether or not the other boat was going to press the detonator; it just seemed like unnecessary fluff for Nolan to fill up two and a half hours.

Some other things were unnecessary, too: the whole connection with the Japanese business mogul laundering the money somehow to what was going on in Gotham; way too complicated. And I think that's where Nolan went wrong with this in general: the whole screenplay (of course, this isn't the director's fault) just seemed way too confused and tried to do what Spider Man 3 did -- cram way too much into one film; at some points I couldn't really follow what was going on and after a certain amount of time, I didn't really care anymore...I wanted to see what the essence of this film was actually about, and that was Batman chasing down the Joker, and inbetween there was just too much going on. The introduction of Harvey Dent becoming Two Face seemed unnecessary in this sequel and rushed to the point that his long comic run gets shortened to a half hour or so of screen time where some bad acting and horrible dialogue writing and delivery don't really expose Two Face for the psycho he was; like I said, I think Tommy Lee Jones nailed the performance in Batman Forever...

But overall, this was a real fun ride -- definitely going to pick this up when it arrives on Blu ray. There were just so many things that had holes through them and other things like Wayne Manor not being reconstructed yet, the untied "catching" of the Joker which is never explored after that, the loss of the Tumbler in exchange for the bat cycle, the whole Scarecrow thing (was he in the film? Was he not? The credits said it was Cillian Murphy playing him once again, but where -- that scene early on where Batman rounds up those thugs dressed up like Batman and Scarecrow in that van?) that it makes me question whether or not this one was better than Batman Begins. The biggest issue here though is which version is going according to the "Batman mystique"...was Joker an unidentfied madman with natural scars on his face or was he Jack Napier, dropped into a vat of chemicals by Batman?

That brings up yet another question, too: What about the Two Face character? According to Schumacher's Batman Forever, Dent was the Gotham D.A. who had acid thrown at him from Boss Moroni in a courtroom and as Batman tried to save him, he was hit with the stuff hence disfiguring his face and making him turn against Batman and the police...according to Nolan's take on it, Dent was tied up in an empty factory warehouse where chemicals were tied to a bomb set to go off, as was Rachel, and as Batman dragged him out, fire caught onto the chemicals on Dent's face and burned him -- the Joker then visits Dent's hospital room and thus Dent begins going after people but for no real reason that's made clear...so, which version is "correct"? Are they just two separate visions?

I also have a problem with the Gordon character, as now he becomes the famous Commissioner Gordon in The Dark Knight; isn't Oldman's portrayal of this legendary character too young? Unless Nolan is telling a real "beginnings" story with both these films, as Alfred and Gordon are both much younger than what traditional Batman films and shows have portrayed...

In general, though, this was a cool summer flick and a definite satisfying long awaited sequel to Batman Begins...aside from authenticity and remaining true to the source material issues and a bit long in the tooth with regards to length, this is probably the must-see event for Summer 2008.

Discuss away!

Loves2Watch · 07-21-2008, 12:16 AM

I was OK but I too had many of the same issues you did and I also felt it lacked continuity.

Peter Marlowe · 07-21-2008, 12:34 AM

Agreed, Doc. Thanks for joining the discussion and giving your thoughts!

jbadamantium · 07-21-2008, 04:35 AM

As far as Joker's back story goes, The Dark Knight pretty much nailed it. There has never been a back story for Joker and probably never will be, but he likes to tell many different tales about it. The closest anyone has come to writing an actual back story was in Moore's "The Killing Joke," but even that isn't accurate as the Joker himself says in the book.

Mase · 07-21-2008, 10:02 AM

So basically what you are trying to say(to the OP) is you wanted this movie to be exactly what has already been told and seen before. You want soemthing that stays close to home, you want some recycled garbage. Is that right?

If thats the case then this movie is not for you at all, go watch all the old shows and movies you seem to like so much. This movie and Batman Begins is a different take on the Batman as a whole. Why beat a dead horse and retell the same stories over and over again but with different actors, that would be lame, this is new and fresh..

This movie is not perfect, but no movie is. This movie however is brilliant in soo many ways and manages to pull you in even if you are not a comic book enthusiast, same as Iron Man did. Its worth a watch in the theater to anyone who enjots good cinema. This movie should be seen for the acting, for the story, for the visuals and for the audio. This movie sets the bar high in a lot of different aspects and I would not be surprised to see this win plenty of awards in all categories..

My take on it is go watch it and enjoy, its not often we get an action movie with this much meat in it. This will truly be a demo disc and a day and date buy on Blu-Ray for me..

Peter Marlowe · 07-21-2008, 11:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lilmase1153

So basically what you are trying to say(to the OP) is you wanted this movie to be exactly what has already been told and seen before. You want soemthing that stays close to home, you want some recycled garbage. Is that right?

If thats the case then this movie is not for you at all, go watch all the old shows and movies you seem to like so much. This movie and Batman Begins is a different take on the Batman as a whole. Why beat a dead horse and retell the same stories over and over again but with different actors, that would be lame, this is new and fresh..

This movie is not perfect, but no movie is. This movie however is brilliant in soo many ways and manages to pull you in even if you are not a comic book enthusiast, same as Iron Man did. Its worth a watch in the theater to anyone who enjots good cinema. This movie should be seen for the acting, for the story, for the visuals and for the audio. This movie sets the bar high in a lot of different aspects and I would not be surprised to see this win plenty of awards in all categories..

My take on it is go watch it and enjoy, its not often we get an action movie with this much meat in it. This will truly be a demo disc and a day and date buy on Blu-Ray for me..

What are you talking about? I never said I wanted this to be a rehash of the Burton story...I was asking which version was "true" according to the comics, etc.

Peter Marlowe · 07-21-2008, 11:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jbadamantium

As far as Joker's back story goes, The Dark Knight pretty much nailed it. There has never been a back story for Joker and probably never will be, but he likes to tell many different tales about it. The closest anyone has come to writing an actual back story was in Moore's "The Killing Joke," but even that isn't accurate as the Joker himself says in the book.

What book? Who likes to tell different tales about it?

Mase · 07-21-2008, 01:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter Marlowe

What are you talking about? I never said I wanted this to be a rehash of the Burton story...I was asking which version was "true" according to the comics, etc.

Everything you stated wrong with this movie is because it strayed from what you already knew from the previous movies..

Also Harvey Dent did not just go randomly killing people after his accident, he went for the people whom were involved in the death of his loved one.. The cops who betrayed her, Maroni for having the cops do what the did and knowing which cops were crooked and than Gordon because he should have saved her and for the fact he had those crooked cops on his team. It was not Random what so ever, it made sense so long as you followed the movie..

Peter Marlowe · 07-21-2008, 01:19 PM

Look, let's calm down a little here and take a deep breath because there's no need to be hostile for this discussion thread; that's why I started the thread in the first place -- so we can all discuss this film in a civil manner with civil tongues (even though we're not really "speaking" but "typing"...). This is a place to explain to folks who may not have gotten some of the film exactly what was going on -- which you did about Harvey Dent below, and which I'll get to.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lilmase1153

Everything you stated wrong with this movie is because it strayed from what you already knew from the previous movies..

I never said any of this was "wrong"; I simply compared Burton's original film and some of Schumacher's Batman Forever with this new take on Joker and Two Face -- you're confusing what I said I "didn't like" about some elements of Nolan's Dark Knight with "thinking it was wrong based on the 1989 film"...and that's not what I meant. I am trying to ascertain which of the visions were closer to "source" materials such as the comics, etc.; has there ever been a back story to the Joker? Did he have an identity? Why did Burton tell the story as if his name was "Jack Napier" and he actually killed Bruce's parents? Did this actually happen in comic scripts and plots? Did Batman turn him into the Joker by dropping him into the vat of chemicals, as Burton portrays?

Quote:

Also Harvey Dent did not just go randomly killing people after his accident, he went for the people whom were involved in the death of his loved one.. The cops who betrayed her, Maroni for having the cops do what the did and knowing which cops were crooked and than Gordon because he should have saved her and for the fact he had those crooked cops on his team. It was not Random what so ever, it made sense so long as you followed the movie..

Like I said in my original post, Nolan made the mistake that Sam Raimi did in Spider-Man 3 -- he went off in a million different directions and began to lose a great deal of the audience (at least in the theater I saw it in) with splintering subplots and the like; again -- there's a difference here in direction in that Schumacher's Dent (Lee Jones) was portrayed as an off the wall psycho killing and robbing for fun since Batman couldn't save him from the acid that was thrown at his face...that's NOT how Nolan portrayed him, and, once again, I'm trying to get at which version is closer to accurately portraying the source materials. It was also dissapointing that this "villian" in Nolan's version was only given a half hour or so of screen time before being killed...the Two Face character had a long run in the comics, so I didn't get this; wasn't Two Face a lethal villian for Batman? If so, why did Nolan kill him off without even one confrontation sequence with Bale in the Dark Knight?

Mase · 07-21-2008, 01:39 PM

As you said in text it is hard to obtain a persons intent, my reply is not meant to be hostile or up in arms although I can see how ones perception may see it as so.

You keep saying you dont like what is in this film and Batman Begins because it is not true to the comic books or what has already been seen in previous itterations..

Quote:

Another thing that bothered me through the run of the picture was my constant questioning of Chris Nolan's inconsistency of following the comic blueprint

You didnt like it because it was not true to the comic book

Quote:

There could have been a bit more "punch" in the opening theme/sequence as there was in the last film

You didnt like it because it was not like the first film

Quote:

The introduction of Harvey Dent becoming Two Face seemed unnecessary in this sequel and rushed to the point that his long comic run gets shortened to a half hour or so of screen time where some bad acting and horrible dialogue writing and delivery don't really expose Two Face for the psycho he was; like I said, I think Tommy Lee Jones nailed the performance in Batman Forever...

You didnt like this version of two face because it was different and shorter than the TLJ's version and different from Batman Forever.

Thats only a few but there are more comparisons you give for things that this film has done wrong because it strays from the norm..

This movie is for someone who wants a fresh new start to the franchise, not for someone who wants more of the same. I mean its why the first film was appropriately called Batman BEGINS, because this is a fresh take on the Batman universe which means we are most likely not going to see the exact same thing we have already seen dozens of times..

I agree on many of your points made but you can not fault a movie for being something different. Yes I wish Dent was in it longer as two face but that was just not the case, it almost seemed as if they wanted to wrap up this movie with no hopes for a third installment and leaving Two Face alive would not allow for such an ending..

IMO no Ledger = no more Batmans and add to that Bale is signed on for a couple Terminator movies and has 3 other movies either in pre production or filming and a 3rd Batman movie would likely be many years from now.. Who knows though, with how much money this movie will make I think the studios will find a way to squeeze out another film but I dont know if it can live up to what The Dark Knight has become.. Which is an instant classic

Peter Marlowe · 07-21-2008, 02:13 PM

What did ya do...come into this thread just to jump on someone's opinion about this film?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lilmase1153

As you said in text it is hard to obtain a persons intent, my reply is not meant to be hostile or up in arms although I can see how ones perception may see it as so.

That's all I was asking you to do -- see it from a different perspective and then perhaps in retrospect you would see that it was a rather hostile delivery method. I started the thread to simply discuss these issues and to possibly confirm or disprove certain differences between the two takes on the material.

Quote:

You keep saying you dont like what is in this film and Batman Begins because it is not true to the comic books or what has already been seen in previous itterations..

You misinterpretted again -- I am trying to ascertain which of the versions remains true to the source materials.

Quote:

You didnt like it because it was not true to the comic book

You didnt like it because it was not like the first film

You didnt like this version of two face because it was different and shorter than the TLJ's version and different from Batman Forever.

Thats only a few but there are more comparisons you give for things that this film has done wrong because it strays from the norm..

You're taking snippets of what I said and are distorting their meanings -- these things aren't "wrong" for being portrayed in these manners, I just didn't like them because we were already meant to think that the previous renditions of these events were the "correct" versions. When did I ever say The Dark Knight "strayed from the norm?"

Quote:

This movie is for someone who wants a fresh new start to the franchise, not for someone who wants more of the same. I mean its why the first film was appropriately called Batman BEGINS, because this is a fresh take on the Batman universe which means we are most likely not going to see the exact same thing we have already seen dozens of times..

I understand what you're saying here, and your first statement of this sentence is indeed what we should be discussing in this thread and need more of it -- "this movie is for someone who wants a fresh new start to the franchise"...however, you stray again in saying that it's not for someone who wants more of the same. You seem to be hung up on this whole thing about us wanting "the exact same thing as we've seen" when this isn't true -- we just want an explanation of which of the two versions is more true to the real story, if there IS one. I understand the first film was called BATMAN BEGINS -- and I understand what Nolan was trying to do there -- but that can also be misinterpreted to mean just a "starter story" that explains Batman's roots, can it not? Burton didn't explain any of the characters' origins, except for some moments devoted to the killing of his parents in front of the Monarch theater -- and again, Nolan and Burton have two different takes on THIS as well. According to Nolan's version, the parents and Bruce were seeing an opera at this theater, where the swinging characters remind Bruce of the bats that attacked him -- Burton has this being a movie theater they go to. And so many of us felt Batman BEGINS was going to explore Bruce's training as an ultra Ninja and why he did that -- and Nolan did explain that in the first film. Burton didn't explain Batman's origins.

Isn't it possible we can want an "origin story" for a comic based character? Did you know there's an entire back story that's missing from Daredevil in which he gets trained by "Stick" and other missing elements? Or how about the latest version of The Incredible Hulk in which the whole Banner gamma radiation experiment prestory is forgotten and lost in a title sequence brief mentioning?

Quote:

I agree on many of your points made but you can not fault a movie for being something different.

I'm not faulting it; as I said, it was an enjoyable ride and I will be picking up the Blu ray...I just wish it had some consistency with prior events, as the other member agreed with me on, as well as some logical links to the real comic story, if there is one.

Quote:

Yes I wish Dent was in it longer as two face but that was just not the case, it almost seemed as if they wanted to wrap up this movie with no hopes for a third installment and leaving Two Face alive would not allow for such an ending..

Okay...NOW we're getting somewhere in this discussion! Indeed, that's what it seemed like in that Nolan seemed to be rushing in two villians as Raimi did in Spider Man 3...perhaps to close out the franchise? I can't see this happening as there are SO many other Batman villians to reinvent and reintroduce...what about Riddler? Penguin? Catwoman? And what of Robin...will Nolan introduce him? It would be a shame for the rebooted franchise to stop now, especially with the success of The Dark Knight at the box office, and it would be so interesting to see who they would get to replace De Vito, Carrey, Pfeifer for these characters...

But yes, I thought the Two Face thing was too short and not explored or developed enough -- this man was an essential Batman villian in the comic run and he simply gets offed within 30 minutes of this film?

Quote:

IMO no Ledger = no more Batmans and add to that Bale is signed on for a couple Terminator movies and has 3 other movies either in pre production or filming and a 3rd Batman movie would likely be many years from now.. Who knows though, with how much money this movie will make I think the studios will find a way to squeeze out another film but I dont know if it can live up to what The Dark Knight has become.. Which is an instant classic

Yes, I have to agree -- in many ways and aside from the issues I had with some of it, this was a comic based sequel that measures up to the now legendary Spider Man 2. Your comments about Ledger also bring up interesting points and things to consider: Joker wasn't dead at the end of this one and we never find out what happens to him, as Batman left him hanging out of the building, so will Joker be reintroduced with someone else playing him next time? Burton killed Joker off with Nicholson's rendition of the character, but Nolan didn't -- does this mean he will come back with other villians like perhaps Penguin or Riddler? Batman's enemies often worked together against him, so perhaps this is the direction it will go in...

Do you really think this was the last Batman in the reboot? Seems odd Nolan would only explore two villians, Scarecrow and Joker (well, and Two Face) in the run of two films; there are so many other plot lines to explore -- what about the official batmobile being made? And all his high tech gadgets in the batcave? What about the reconstruction of Wayne Manor?

Oh, and as for the TERMINATOR films -- yes, I saw the teaser for the fourth Terminator where John Connor is now grown up -- I didn't know Bale was signing on for these! These just won't be the same without Arnold, though.

Mase · 07-21-2008, 02:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter Marlowe

1.Do you really think this was the last Batman in the reboot? Seems odd Nolan would only explore two villians, Scarecrow and Joker (well, and Two Face) in the run of two films; there are so many other plot lines to explore -- what about the official batmobile being made? And all his high tech gadgets in the batcave? What about the reconstruction of Wayne Manor?

2.Oh, and as for the TERMINATOR films -- yes, I saw the teaser for the fourth Terminator where John Connor is now grown up -- I didn't know Bale was signing on for these! These just won't be the same without Arnold, though.

1. Well I hope they dont make a third if they cant get Bale again and if they try and recast The Joker. I know I am not the only one who feels that way but it would be a poor choice but one I am sure studios would choose if forced to.. Being that this movie is set 6 months after Batman Begins Wayne Manor is still be reconstructed and now that this current Bat mobile got dumped if they did make a 3rd isntallment I am sure they would include the Bat mobile but I thinnk it would take away from what Nolan has done. Which is make this as realistic as a comic book hero movie can be. That is where the difference lies with the different batmans. Nolan made these two films as real as possible where Burton and the others played to the complete opposite.. Oh as for Robin, Bale said he would bail if they tried to introduce Robin into the movie and I agree it would not work for this gritty type of movie.. Holy ______ Batman, is just way too cheezy..

2. The new Terminator is set before the Terminators you and I have seen, it is back in the future before they time traveled. Where the war is still being fought, and they have Roland Kickingger palying the T-800 which is what Arnold was, and Roland is also Austrian and played Arnold in A&Es See arnold Run... So its not Arnie but its close

Peter Marlowe · 07-21-2008, 02:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lilmase1153

1. Well I hope they dont make a third if they cant get Bale again and if they try and recast The Joker.

Do you think Bale won't want to do it? Has he said anything about it? I know what you mean about not casting the same people who have already "grown into" the roles -- it would be like Maguire no longer playing Peter Parker...but still, I'd love to see a third one with the exploration of perhaps Penguin or Riddler...who do you think could play these roles as good as or better than De Vito and Carrey?

Quote:

I know I am not the only one who feels that way but it would be a poor choice but one I am sure studios would choose if forced to.. Being that this movie is set 6 months after Batman Begins Wayne Manor is still be reconstructed and now that this current Bat mobile got dumped if they did make a 3rd isntallment I am sure they would include the Bat mobile but I thinnk it would take away from what Nolan has done.

Understand about the Wayne Manor thing -- but what do you think would be "taking away" from what Nolan has done by reintroducing the batmobile...do you think the Tumbler was more "accurate"? I personally liked Burton's wild and outrageous batmobile concepts better than the Tumbler concept; was this jeep thing what he drove in the comic perspectives?

Quote:

Which is make this as realistic as a comic book hero movie can be. That is where the difference lies with the different batmans. Nolan made these two films as real as possible where Burton and the others played to the complete opposite..

You mean the "gimmicky cartoonish" look that graces the other films? I know what you mean about that -- but I gotta say, Burton's take on it was a LOT better than Joel Schumacher's neon-lit homosexual aspect of the franchise; Burton, while perhaps not as "real" as Nolan's vision of the characters and Gotham, at least gave the first film a dark feel -- Schumacher came in and splashed everything with neon lights and colors and put nipples on the batsuit -- forget the travesty that was Clooney playing Wayne or even Kilmer; the last two films in that franchise were a joke.

Quote:

Oh as for Robin, Bale said he would bail if they tried to introduce Robin into the movie and I agree it would not work for this gritty type of movie.. Holy ______ Batman, is just way too cheezy..

LOL...true. I didn't hear that about Bale; interesting.

Quote:

2. The new Terminator is set before the Terminators you and I have seen, it is back in the future before they time traveled. Where the war is still being fought, and they have Roland Kickingger palying the T-800 which is what Arnold was, and Roland is also Austrian and played Arnold in A&Es See arnold Run... So its not Arnie but its close

Interesting...thanks for the info. And so it's going to be a PREQUEL story, huh? Figures...we're in the age of Exorcist: The Beginning, Star Wars Episodes Blah Blah Blah, you know...

jbadamantium · 07-21-2008, 02:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter Marlowe

What book? Who likes to tell different tales about it?

The Killing Joke. Joker.

Peter Marlowe · 07-21-2008, 02:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jbadamantium

The Killing Joke. Joker.

Oh, okay -- I didn't even know there was a book about this! So, it's from the Joker's own perspective? Interesting...what about the comics, though...do you know how his back story is explored? Does it go the way Burton portrayed it, with someone named "Jack Napier" killing Bruce's parents and then becoming Joker from Batman dropping him into the acid? Or is he just an unidentified bank robber like Nolan portrays him?

07-20-2008, 09:13 PM	#1
Peter Marlowe Blu-ray Reviewer Join Date: Jun 2008 Posts: 2,245	The Official "Dark Knight" Discussion -- SPOILER ALERT IF YOU HAVEN'T SEEN IT! Okay. Saw this in theaters last night...mixed feelings about it. First -- and this is very trivial -- I liked the opening sequence of the bats filling the screen better in Batman Begins than how Nolan opened this one. There could have been a bit more "punch" in the opening theme/sequence as there was in the last film when the DC/Warner/Legendary Pictures logos first come onscreen; as I said, all trivial... Now, let me get to what I didn't like: Katie Holmes not returning was a mistake; just took me out of the story. I didn't like the choice for Dent, either -- Tommy Lee Jones blew Eckhardt's performance out of the water I thought. And what was the deal with Dent's "Two Face" villian character not even being explored? He shoots a couple of people at the end and waves a gun around and the "Two Face" character we loved in Batman Forever only gets that amount of screen time? What about his long run in the comics? The character didn't even seem that frightening or authentic to me; the role was miscast in my opinion. After coming off of No Reservations, Aaron didn't seem like he was the right choice for Harvey Dent. Another thing that bothered me through the run of the picture was my constant questioning of Chris Nolan's inconsistency of following the comic blueprint: and perhaps diehard Batman fans can clear this up for me; it just seemed like many of the origins weren't explored correctly or even thoroughly -- did Nolan take his own angle for this? Was Tim Burton and Joel Schumacher's visions more accurate? Let's get to the whole Joker thing -- according to Burton's Joker (played by Jack Nicholson), the criminal known as "Jack Napier" working for Carl Grissom eventually gets thrown in acid by Batman himself and becomes the Joker...is THIS the way the story really went? Did Napier really kill Bruce's parents or was it Joe Chill as Nolan suggested in Batman Begins? What I liked about it? The stronger suit Bale wears in this one looks fantastic, and the stunt work and fight sequences with the Jokers men were outstanding -- I never thought the late Heath Ledger would have been right for this role; after all, whoever played the Joker had big shoes to fill after Nicholson's off the wall performance. But Mr. Ledger pulled it off -- a darker, more sinister Joker is what's explored here. But it also brings up questions and more issues with authenticity: Why wasn't the Joker's origins explored or explained in this? We just know him as a bank robber that puts makeup on to hide some scars on his face -- but what about Tim Burton's angle of the Joker, once again...wasn't the Joker supposed to be dropped in a vat of acid so he "gets" those disfigurations and covers them up with white face makeup? According to Nolan's take of this character, the Joker has no ID, no fingerprints, no record...in Burton's 1989 Batman, it was known that he was definitely Jack Napier. I also didn't like the whole scene at the end where the Joker set up the two ferries leaving Gotham to explode based on whether or not the other boat was going to press the detonator; it just seemed like unnecessary fluff for Nolan to fill up two and a half hours. Some other things were unnecessary, too: the whole connection with the Japanese business mogul laundering the money somehow to what was going on in Gotham; way too complicated. And I think that's where Nolan went wrong with this in general: the whole screenplay (of course, this isn't the director's fault) just seemed way too confused and tried to do what Spider Man 3 did -- cram way too much into one film; at some points I couldn't really follow what was going on and after a certain amount of time, I didn't really care anymore...I wanted to see what the essence of this film was actually about, and that was Batman chasing down the Joker, and inbetween there was just too much going on. The introduction of Harvey Dent becoming Two Face seemed unnecessary in this sequel and rushed to the point that his long comic run gets shortened to a half hour or so of screen time where some bad acting and horrible dialogue writing and delivery don't really expose Two Face for the psycho he was; like I said, I think Tommy Lee Jones nailed the performance in Batman Forever... But overall, this was a real fun ride -- definitely going to pick this up when it arrives on Blu ray. There were just so many things that had holes through them and other things like Wayne Manor not being reconstructed yet, the untied "catching" of the Joker which is never explored after that, the loss of the Tumbler in exchange for the bat cycle, the whole Scarecrow thing (was he in the film? Was he not? The credits said it was Cillian Murphy playing him once again, but where -- that scene early on where Batman rounds up those thugs dressed up like Batman and Scarecrow in that van?) that it makes me question whether or not this one was better than Batman Begins. The biggest issue here though is which version is going according to the "Batman mystique"...was Joker an unidentfied madman with natural scars on his face or was he Jack Napier, dropped into a vat of chemicals by Batman? That brings up yet another question, too: What about the Two Face character? According to Schumacher's Batman Forever, Dent was the Gotham D.A. who had acid thrown at him from Boss Moroni in a courtroom and as Batman tried to save him, he was hit with the stuff hence disfiguring his face and making him turn against Batman and the police...according to Nolan's take on it, Dent was tied up in an empty factory warehouse where chemicals were tied to a bomb set to go off, as was Rachel, and as Batman dragged him out, fire caught onto the chemicals on Dent's face and burned him -- the Joker then visits Dent's hospital room and thus Dent begins going after people but for no real reason that's made clear...so, which version is "correct"? Are they just two separate visions? I also have a problem with the Gordon character, as now he becomes the famous Commissioner Gordon in The Dark Knight; isn't Oldman's portrayal of this legendary character too young? Unless Nolan is telling a real "beginnings" story with both these films, as Alfred and Gordon are both much younger than what traditional Batman films and shows have portrayed... In general, though, this was a cool summer flick and a definite satisfying long awaited sequel to Batman Begins...aside from authenticity and remaining true to the source material issues and a bit long in the tooth with regards to length, this is probably the must-see event for Summer 2008. Discuss away! __________________ ONKYO TX-SR605B HDMI 1.3a; Onboard Dolby Digital Plus/TrueHD, DTS-HD Master Audio Panasonic DMP-BD10A SONY 1080p KDS-50A2020 SXRD Mains: polkaudio R20 Center: polkaudio CSi30 Surrounds: polkaudio R15 Sub: polkaudio PSW10 Also in the rack: marantz CC4001 TASCAM CD-RW900SL PROFESSIONAL Technics SL-QD33 (due for replacement) APC SurgeArrest System INTERCONNECTS & SPEAKER CABLING BY MONSTER Last Review:

07-21-2008, 12:16 AM	#2
Loves2Watch SPAM Police Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: AZ, NM, TX, MX Posts: 13,746	I was OK but I too had many of the same issues you did and I also felt it lacked continuity. __________________ Theater 1 - Panasonic TH-85PF12U Plasma TV, 6 Conrad Johnson LP275M Amps, Anthem Statement D-2 Pre/Pro, 6 Thiel SCS4 Speakers, 2 REL T-1 Subs, Infinity Interlude 120S Sub, Simaudio MOON Orbiter Universal Disc Player, ELP Laser Turntable, 2 Dish Network ViP 622 DVR's, Oppo BDP-83 Blu-ray Player, Onkyo DV-HD805 HD DVD Player. Friends don't let friends buy Korean brand TV's.

07-21-2008, 12:34 AM	#3
Peter Marlowe Blu-ray Reviewer Join Date: Jun 2008 Posts: 2,245	Agreed, Doc. Thanks for joining the discussion and giving your thoughts! __________________ ONKYO TX-SR605B HDMI 1.3a; Onboard Dolby Digital Plus/TrueHD, DTS-HD Master Audio Panasonic DMP-BD10A SONY 1080p KDS-50A2020 SXRD Mains: polkaudio R20 Center: polkaudio CSi30 Surrounds: polkaudio R15 Sub: polkaudio PSW10 Also in the rack: marantz CC4001 TASCAM CD-RW900SL PROFESSIONAL Technics SL-QD33 (due for replacement) APC SurgeArrest System INTERCONNECTS & SPEAKER CABLING BY MONSTER Last Review:

07-21-2008, 10:02 AM	#5
Mase Way of the Samurai Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Tempe,Az Posts: 2,517	So basically what you are trying to say(to the OP) is you wanted this movie to be exactly what has already been told and seen before. You want soemthing that stays close to home, you want some recycled garbage. Is that right? If thats the case then this movie is not for you at all, go watch all the old shows and movies you seem to like so much. This movie and Batman Begins is a different take on the Batman as a whole. Why beat a dead horse and retell the same stories over and over again but with different actors, that would be lame, this is new and fresh.. This movie is not perfect, but no movie is. This movie however is brilliant in soo many ways and manages to pull you in even if you are not a comic book enthusiast, same as Iron Man did. Its worth a watch in the theater to anyone who enjots good cinema. This movie should be seen for the acting, for the story, for the visuals and for the audio. This movie sets the bar high in a lot of different aspects and I would not be surprised to see this win plenty of awards in all categories.. My take on it is go watch it and enjoy, its not often we get an action movie with this much meat in it. This will truly be a demo disc and a day and date buy on Blu-Ray for me.. __________________ PlayStation 3 : legnd Killer Xbox 360: Legnd K1ller Steam ID: Legnd_Killer Currently playing Uncharted 2(PS3) Borderlands (360) NBA2k10 (360) COD4/WaW (360)

Similar Threads to The Official "Dark Knight" Discussion -- SPOILER ALERT IF YOU HAVEN'T SEEN IT!
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Official Bioshock Discussion Thread	eiger	Gaming & Systems	43	09-14-2007 03:06 PM

07-21-2008, 04:35 AM	#4
jbadamantium High Definition is the definition of life. Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 127	As far as Joker's back story goes, The Dark Knight pretty much nailed it. There has never been a back story for Joker and probably never will be, but he likes to tell many different tales about it. The closest anyone has come to writing an actual back story was in Moore's "The Killing Joke," but even that isn't accurate as the Joker himself says in the book.