The Dark Knight

[punkdc]

5 days gang! I know I'm not the only one excited for this movie. Who got midnight tickets?

[Trial]

To set up the third film, it shows Bruce Wayne learning to fly at the end of this one

[P-Dub]

I don't get it.

I've got midnight IMAX tickets and also IMAX tickets for the next day and I might see it in a regular theatre the same night and also I am insane.

[seanrush]

MIDNIGHT IMAX TICKETS WERE SOLD OUT IN MY THEATER! It's horrible! I did get tickets for Friday though.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TSIg3LrNh3I

[slapstickeulogist]

I guess it was only a matter of time

http://nymag.com/movies/reviews/48514/

[Shane]

is anybody else wearing a full batman costume to the premier? pat francis?

[punkdc]

is anybody else wearing a full batman costume to the premier? pat francis?

Now that someone said it....I hope he does

[Me!]

I'm working at a movie theater currently, so far one and a half midnight showings are sold out.

[Famous Police Dog]

are you going to see the dark knight, me?

[punkdc]

I'm working at a movie theater currently, so far one and a half midnight showings are sold out.

How many midnight showings are there?

[P-Dub]

Not wearing a costume, but...

"Special midnight premiere in our state-of-the-art IMAX Theatre complete with Superhero themed activities, adult costume contests, and a cash bar."

...at least i'll be entertained when i'm waiting in line.

[Me!]

Hmmm, I'm not sure. I think we're going to have at least three midnight shows, but I'm sure we'll have some more theaters being used for Batman. I think Indiana Jones and the Crystal Flop, Get Dumb, The Incredible Dork, and Maybe Kung Fu Panda might be on their way out to make room.

It'd be great to screen one of the movies, but I'm sure I'll be working instead.

[Michael Blacklist]

Hmmm, I'm not sure. I think we're going to have at least three midnight shows, but I'm sure we'll have some more theaters being used for Batman. I think Indiana Jones and the Crystal Flop, Get Dumb, The Incredible Dork, and Maybe Kung Fu Panda might be on their way out to make room.

It'd be great to screen one of the movies, but I'm sure I'll be working instead.

I've only heard of Kung Fu Panda.

[nadsat droog]

Is that movie business lingo?

[P-Dub]

Indiana Jones and the Crystal Flop
I prefer "Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Dull".

Get it? 'Cause it's...yeah.

[Jawa]

3 days!

[seanrush]

Did anybody manage to get the free tickets to tonight's showing?

[pauliophonic]

Let's just relax.

[Vanessa]

i saw it last night in IMAX and all i can say is that it is amazing!

[P-Dub]

Let's just relax.

I keep telling myself that!

EDIT: It's not working.

[Jawa]

I was worried that Heath Ledger's death would affect my ability to enjoy this movie, but so far I'm not feeling it, at least in my repeated viewings of the various trailers.

This thought probably sounds both horrible and stupid (okay, it *is* horrible and stupid), but that's what slithers around in my head sometimes.

I do think Heath Ledger as the Joker will be amazing. Aw, crap, now I'm getting bummed out.

Out, human feelings, out!

[drieux]

Managed to get into an early IMAX screening yesterday.

I want to keep myself from completely geek-sploding here, but I loved the movie from beginning to end. Heath Ledger's Joker is exactly what we all wanted him to be - vicious, insane and relentless. Bale is fantastic once again and Eckhart was pitch-perfect as Dent, including the transformation and sudden shift, none of which felt forced to me.

I know we've all been building this up for ages now, but this movie delivered completely. Holy crap, I was ecstatic through the whole thing.

Definitely see it in IMAX if you have the opportunity.

[Jawa]

Managed to get into an early IMAX screening yesterday.

I want to keep myself from completely geek-sploding here, but I loved the movie from beginning to end. Heath Ledger's Joker is exactly what we all wanted him to be - vicious, insane and relentless. Bale is fantastic once again and Eckhart was pitch-perfect as Dent, including the transformation and sudden shift, none of which felt forced to me.

I know we've all been building this up for ages now, but this movie delivered completely. Holy crap, I was ecstatic through the whole thing.

Definitely see it in IMAX if you have the opportunity.

Your review just made me geek-splode. I hope you're happy.

[drieux]

Trust me - once the flick starts you'll start geek-sploding like crazy. I know by now everybody's seen that opening bank sequence online, but in IMAX it's just beautiful, as are all the action sequences. You'll be shooting geek juice all over the walls.

I completely forgot to mention the Watchmen trailer...wow. I was apprehensive about the flick even being made, but the final shot of that trailer got me more excited than I thought I would be for it. Really great trailer and when it started and I realized what it was for, I had a small geek-splosion in the pants area. Which was soon followed up by the steady pleasuring of The Dark Knight.

I will definitely be catching this in the theater again.

EDIT: because I'm retarded.

[Fentmore]

Can't wait to see this as everyone else, it has looked great since the first trailer. I've heard the movie, more often than not, described as a great crime drama. I never kept up with the viral marketing for the movie over the past year (I heard it was inventive and cool by the way). This article summarizes the story that unfolds over the course of the alternate reality game (ARG - Like Lost had a couple years ago). The story is intricate, detailed, and really cool, definitely fits the description of the movie. The information is a precursor to the movie, so it doesn't spoil anything but filling in what's happening in Gotham before the movie. The "fake" sites are really cool too.

Tomorrow afternoon!

http://www.thebadandugly.com/2008/07/16/dark_knight_primer_one/

[P. J. Head]

Trust me - once the flick starts you'll start geek-sploding like crazy...

You'll be shooting geek juice all over the walls...

...I had a small geek-splosion in the pants area. Which was soon followed up by the steady pleasuring of The Dark Knight...


I'm glad you liked the movie. Now please stop saying these things.

[Jouster]

I don't want to start a new thread, so I'll just post it here: The first Watchmen trailer (http://www.empireonline.com/video/watchmen/) (not a bootleg).

[Berliner]

Oh man, I've been waiting for years, but finally tomorrow I'm gonna be able to see Mama Mia!(!).

[drieux]

I'm glad you liked the movie. Now please stop saying these things.

As long as you understand how much I liked it, then we're cool.

Geekriffic!

[KevinLee]

Oh man, I've been waiting for years, but finally tomorrow I'm gonna be able to see Mama Mia!(!).
I went to see The Dark Knight at midnight and there were people there for a midnight showing of Mama Mia, and some kid in front of me in line asked, "What kind of queers go to see Mama Mia?" Even though I doubt he was interested in an answer.

One of my brothers went to see it at another theater and he said that before the lights had gone down a guy dressed as Robin walked in and
someone yelled at him,"Robin's Gay!" AND THE GUY LEFT!

What I 'm wondering is, "What is it about Indiana that creates homophobes?"
or "Did this happen anywhere else?"

(p.s. i'm high)

This movie was awesome.

[MonManka]

the movie was really awesome as mentioned above. i have no idea how they will make a 3rd movie. This will be hard to top.
I have only 3 complaints about this movie, none of which are spoilers....

1. Batmans "voice". it was so raspy. it seemed like bale was really trying to impersonate the voice. It got annoying at times. i think it sounded better in the first one.

2. I think katie holmes did a better job then maggie gylenhaal as Rachel. maggie was looking pretty beat in the movie.

3. Not enough Scarecrow.

[Jawa]

3. Not enough dippity doo.

Despite being excited about this movie's release for some time, I didn't learn until recently that the dippity doo was in it.

(editing out a potential spoiler)

[KeithTalent]

What the hell was Nicky Katt doing in this movie

I was all excited when he showed up and then he's just like "look out!" for fifteen minutes. I imagined Nolan calling him up all "hey, wanna be in Batman? We're gonna bring you in for a day and shoot you saying inane things in a truck"

I enjoyed this movie but it could have lost at least thirty minutes, and I could even tell you which ones. How fuckin' boring was that sonar thing, f'rinstance

[the_psychologist]

Backlash Begins!

I was reading the IMDB last night for this film, and it's hilarious to watch the world's reaction to it being the #4 film of all time. Almost all of the American reviews are hyperbolic, seemingly-phony 9 or 10 star "Best Movie Ever" deals. And then you have a small number of very negative reviews from foreign users.

The most common complaints sound valid to me, just based on the trailers and what I know about the team behind the film, so I am getting ready to be let down when I see it. I have been fighting to retain my childhood innocence re: new BIG films, but Indy 4 may have finally killed that. Seems like big films open big and have huge advance hype, and then the mantle is inevitably pulled back to reveal another decent-but-flawed flavor of the month.

I guess I was let down the moment I found out it would be avoiding Miller's series as inspiration. For a kid from the 80s obsessed with the new wave of more adult comic books, "The Dark Knight" could only mean a mortal struggle vs. Superman and the Mutants. Oh, well.

That, and I just don't like Bale as Batman. He seems too much like the runty kid who got pushed around at school, not some suave, rich vigilante.

[Michael Blacklist]

My Wall-E curse followed me to the Arclight last night, where the fire alarm went off twenty minutes into the movie.

[aenemaTron]

the movie was really awesome as mentioned above. i have no idea how they will make a 3rd movie. This will be hard to top.
I have only 3 complaints about this movie, none of which are spoilers....

3. Not enough Scarecrow.

I consider things that aren't in the trailer/no one knows about that you have to see the movie to find out to be spoilers.

I'm seeing this tonight. I will not be surprised when whatsisname appears. I blame you.

[TomHicks]

I think people are going with the precedent that after a movie opens or an episode airs in its usual timeslot, people are free to post about it -- spoilers be damned. The only reason I am in here now is I was at the gym last night after work, and at midnight the ArcLight looked like Mardi Gras. The outdoor area and bar patio were packed. I was barely able to sneak in and set off the fire alarm.

[Michael Blacklist]

I think people are going with the precedent that after a movie opens or an episode airs in its usual timeslot, people are free to post about it -- spoilers be damned. The only reason I am in here now is I was at the gym last night after work, and at midnight the ArcLight looked like Mardi Gras. The outdoor area and bar patio were packed. I was barely able to sneak in and set off the fire alarm.

Oh, you!

[aenemaTron]

I think people are going with the precedent that after a movie opens or an episode airs in its usual timeslot, people are free to post about it -- spoilers be damned.

Only he said they weren't spoilers. Just saying, it's not a big deal.

[MonManka]

I consider things that aren't in the trailer/no one knows about that you have to see the movie to find out to be spoilers.

I'm seeing this tonight. I will not be surprised when whatsisname appears. I blame you.

yeah your not missing much. and i thought it was common knowledge. I have been avoiding press for the dark knight and knew about the scarecrow for the past 6 months.

also to the poster above.after the fire alarm did they restart the movie? whats the arclight procedure with that?

[P-Dub]

Yeah, the fire alarm thing must happen all the time, unless you had some really shitty luck.

The movie was terrific. It is dense, tragic, scary and not a minute too long.

I don't see how anyone who's a fan of Miller's (or Alan Moore's or Jeph Loeb's, etc) take on Batman could be dissapointed. This is a crime movie for grown-ups that rewards your close attention in spades.

[helloitslate]

I really enjoyed this movie I know I am going to see this at least two more times.

I went to the 330am cineramadome screening and it was crazy insane when we got out all the news vans were there reporting. Did everybody get those collector pins of Batman,Joker and Two-face? I thought they were pretty cool I was able to score 2 sets.

I personally like Christian Bale as Batman he is an amazing actor and easy on the eyes so it's a win win sitch. If I had to rate the Movie Batman actors it would be Christian Bale, Michael Keaton, Val Kilmer then George Clooney but if I could leave him off the list I would. Re watching Batman & Robin the other day made me shiver there is like a million things wrong with that movie.

[Berliner]

You forgot Adam West :(

[aenemaTron]

And George Lazenby.



This was really great. Great like no other comic book-derived movie has ever been. They went there. The movie was rich and varied enough that it felt like a year's run of comics. It sidestepped potential fanboy complaints by staying true to the spirit of the characters, unlike Burton's Batman where he just sprayed shit on the screen and then killed the characters before they even scratched the surface.

Oh, yeah- anyone sit through the credits? Anything at the tail end?

[Michael Blacklist]

The Arclight crew got the movie up and running after about 20 minutes of false evacuations. It's odd: I worked in a movie theatre for five years and have seen a movie a week for my entire adult life and I'd never been evacuated from a theatre. To have it happen now twice in one month has really annoyed me. Can't wait to see if this mojo continues at Comic-Con.



Oh, yeah- anyone sit through the credits? Anything at the tail end?

There's a title card midway through as a memorial for Ledger and another crewmember who died during production. No hidden scenes.

[Grant Pardee]

I've gone Dark Knight crazy. Saw it at midnight, then again Friday night at IMAX. Wonderful.

But all I keep thinking about are the dogs.

It's unusual how many times dogs are seen or referred to in the movie, so I've been trying to figure out the general idea/message behind it.

We have the dogs attacking Batman at the beginning, enough so that Batman wants to upgrade to a new suit. Dent compares the Joker to a "mad dog", essentially irresponsible for his actions, instead blaming Maroni for "letting him off his leash." Joker himself says he's as simple as a dog chasing cars. The Joker is guarded by attack dogs at the end.

So, what's with all of the dogs?

It's a representation of the Joker/Batman relationship, I think. We know they're two sides to the same coin. Underneath, both are feral creatures, wanting to submit purely to desires of the id. Difference is, Batman's domesticated. He's submitted to the rules of the house, which shouldn't apply to him, Joker tells him, since he can never be one of them anyway. The Joker knows who he is and we're shown how animalistic he is at heart (he escapes from prison, for instance, and hangs his head out the car window like a dog).

The interrogation scene is what sells it, I think. You see these two primal creatures - beasts at heart, really - sniffing each other out. Joker is able to whittle Batman down to admitting Batman only has one rule (essentially saying, "they don't tell me what to do, I tell me what to do, just this one thing"). Around the Joker, Batman's desperate to come off his leash... the Joker has never been on one.

The actual, literal dogs in the movie, though, I think more closely associate with the escalation theme. Batman is first attacked by dogs when he battles the Scarecrow. He needs to upgrade his suit afterward because of it. So as criminals have responded with bigger, badder intent, Batman must also retaliate. At the end, Joker is surrounded by dogs - as they attack, he attacks. Visually, it's hard to deny the connection, as they literally pile on Batman. Maybe its just to show the Joker at his most animalistic?

I think there's probably something to be said for the idea of dogs as loyal creatures or fiercely independent lone wolfs. The idea of the Joker being a dog that bites the hand that feeds (the Joker rebukes the comfort he could potentially be offered with the mob establishment), whereas Batman is unfailingly faithful to his establishment of government law offices - the police, the attorneys, the city in general ... to the point of covering up murders made by his own establishment to save face.

Also, just thought of this: when we last see the Joker, he's leashed. He's hanging on a damn thread! We don't see him in cuffs, in a paddy wagon, in a straight jacket - he's hanging on a leash. Why end with that specific visual? There's no better way to defeat him, given this theme. Pretty symbolic, if any of this holds water to their intent (and I very much think it does).

Maybe I'm way off. I'm sure you'll let me know if I am.

[slapstickeulogist]

Was the "It will do fine against cats" line a hint towards a Catwoman appearance in the future? I hope not.

[~ Tiger Lily ~]

re: best screen

Everyone says to see this on IMAX - Does that necessarily mean the dome? I have never liked domes for mainstream film viewing, but I love those giant stadium screens.

Should I be going at Arclight or Universal Studios IMAX? Or what?

[Michael Blacklist]

Should I be going at Arclight or Universal Studios IMAX? Or what?

If you just like giant screens and good presentation, hit Arclight. The appeal of The Dark Knight in IMAX is that Nolan shot six or so action scenes in the actual IMAX format. While the movie normally hits the center of the IMAX screen with black on top and bottom, during those scenes the entire IMAX screen is used. I expect that it's overwhelming and nauseating.

[~ Tiger Lily ~]

That sounds OK. It's just the dome that I'm not keen on. So Arclight has no official IMAX screens, right? That's a separate entity, I gather.

[punkdc]

That sounds OK. It's just the dome that I'm not keen on. So Arclight has no official IMAX screens, right? That's a separate entity, I gather.

The night shots are amazing in the IMAX dome version...you can see the big AND the little dipper so clearly.

[Michael Blacklist]

That sounds OK. It's just the dome that I'm not keen on. So Arclight has no official IMAX screens, right? That's a separate entity, I gather.

Yeah, separate entity, and they differ in quality. The Universal one is pretty nice.

[KevinLee]

Was the "It will do fine against cats" line a hint towards a Catwoman appearance in the future? I hope not.

No, it was about dogs. Cat's are the opposite of dogs.

What I wanna know is, "Where's the review TimBuktu?"

[pmottaz]

I'm glad someone said something about Bale's Batman voice. It feels forced and it doesn't come off so great when everything else around it seems so natural.

On a completely other note, I would be very interested to see this hyper-realistic team of Batman storytellers handle Robin. Like a little kid Robin, that is. I've heard that Bale says he's out of here if they do Robin in a movie, but I'd be really interested to see how they'd handle it.

And Two-Face looked totally rockin'.

[KeithTalent]

Robin would be an awkward fit with this Batman universe. I'd like to see the Riddler in the next one if they can come up with some genuinely clever stuff. Who would you hire to punch up riddles?

The extent of Two-Face's damage was cool. Unfortunately it was distractingly CGI-looking. Computer effects never look quite real. Putting them on the most recognizable thing in the world, a human face, is a bad idea.

The more I think about this movie the more problems I have with it. It's still pretty awesome, don't get me wrong. But, for example...if none of the stuff with Two-Face had happened, would it have really hurt the film? I don't understand this desire to have two villains in every superhero movie.

[P-Dub]

Grant, I liked your dog essay. You might be onto something.

Also, I liked how the IMAX format was used. It was used sparingly, and it wasn't used only for the badass action stuff.

For instance, the showdown between Bats and the Joker is mostly in IMAX. The shot where Joker is dangling upside down but the camera makes it look like he is right side up...man, that will mess you up. It must be the first time IMAX has been used to maximize emotional and psychological impact.

[punkdc]

The Riddler would be awesome. I thought Carry was great in that role so I have no idea how they make him darker.

[Hated Milk Machine]

SPOILER ALERT

I was amazed at how effortlessly they pulled off the Two-Face story arc. I honestly thought they were just going to set him up for the next movie, but they managed to make him a good guy, then a bad guy, then dead, without feeling like they were cramming too much in. That's really hard to do, and they did it almost flawlessly.

What a great movie!

[Ethan]

Just saw the movie and I can say with confidence that (although this isn't really saying much) it was the best comic book/superhero movie I have ever seen.

One thing that really bugged me about the villains of the spiderman films is that they all had to have some dark troubled past. They all had to secretly want to be good but ultimately succumb to evil. This aspect just made for unsatisfying villains and equally unsatisfying films.

However Ledger's Joker was perfect. Mesmerizing, haunting, disturbing, (uncomfortably) funny, and just plain scary. All without ever giving us a backstory, or a cop-out moment of redemption or regret. It was pure, it was absolute, and it was a joy to watch.

[~ Tiger Lily ~]

Hmm

I think the 7/10 level reviews are about right.

The good aspects of this film are REALLY good, but there's just way too much (trying to) happen.

I loved loved the high-tech Batman they presented (his lair, vehicles, gadgets) up until the whole sonar thing. After that, it seemed like the movie devolved into some sort of Matrix/The Wire mutant that tried so hard to offer profound truths about humankind.

This may offend, but I feel like Ledger is getting a bit too much credit. The bottom line is that the Joker as a whole is badass, which includes the dialogue, the makeup, his on screen actions, etc.. I always loved the image of The Joker as a super-capable soldier who really just loves being at war. Ledger sure has some great moments with his portrayal, but I think many people are just fawning over the character finally being done right.

The fights were not as incoherent as reviews suggested. They just weren't long enough to become confusing. Not sure why so many people had trouble following them.

Maggie G. is really not right for her role.

I see what they were going for with the scope of this film, but it's just not what I wanted out of a Batman. Less redundant philosophizing, more Joker would have made my night better.

[Jixby Phillips]

Will I like it

[Famous Police Dog]

nah

[Jixby Phillips]

thanks dude

[P. J. Head]

slapstickeulogist: Catwoman is awesome. GOOD DAY TO YOU SIR.

punkdc: Yeah, however could they make the Riddler darker than Jim Carrey in a children's film?

Done making fun of people. Here's what I thinked:

Maggie Gylenhaal was pretty bad. So was Bale's Batvoice. So was the way they set up Two-Face and then knocked him down far too quickly. Everything else was fucking great.

This movie made me so tense that I was practically buzzing. And the tension didn't let up until the VERY VERY END. Afterwards, I felt almost rubbery from being so jacked up for two and a half hours.

I loved the way they faked us all out with Gordon's death; it sort of lulled the audience into a "they're not gonna REALLY kill anyone" complacency. And then they REALLY killed someone. And it was the most annoying character in the movie! Everybody wins!

Heath Ledger's performance would be legendary even if he was still alive. But I don't feel like the writers are getting enough credit. That is an insanely well-written character. He's got the guile, charisma, and terrifying unstoppability of before-he-started-to-suck Hannibal Lecter.

I really feel like I need to see this again to get a better bead on it. One thing it did very very well was build tension and pile climaxes on top of each other, but I may feel differently about it if I watch it with foreknowledge of how each scene plays out.

I can say this: at no point did I think "can't wait till this scene is over". Too many blockbusters are only enjoyable piecemeal; you sit through the interminable Aunt May speech because you know an awesome Doc Oc fight is coming, that sort of thing. Every part of this movie fit with every other part and nothing overstayed its welcome.

I can't goddamn wait for the next one.

[TomHicks]

I was surprised at the Frank Miller comparison above; the story obviously doesn't follow that old Batman in the future storyline, but I think this movie topped The Dark Knight Returns in, um, darkness. DKR ended looking to the future in a hopeful way, but I don't know if you can say the same about the film. Gotham's martyr and Rachels' love for Bruce Wayne are both lies, and it implies that the people of Gotham and BW are better off believing a lie.

I don't know if that's too nihilistic a reading, but I thought the movie wrapped up in a way that only the audience knows what really happened (because of Alfred burning the note). Actually, I guess the audience and Alfred know the truth.

[hound]

the way they set up Two-Face and then knocked him down far too quickly.

It's not guaranteed that Two-Face is dead. Batman was fine from the same fall. I think the funeral was for Harvey Dent because the man who was Harvey Dent is now dead. It was a symbolic funeral so the people of Gotham would think he died a hero instead of falling to the Joker's level.

[JayRunner]

There's spoiler stuff in here so read if you've seen it.

This film was fantastic. The scenes were riveting from the start and the different plots were woven together so seamlessly there was never a dull moment.

My favorite parts most often came from the Joker and his plans. From the first bank heist, where the thieves kill one another, to the detonators on the ferries, I was elated by the cleverness but disturbed by the situations. Making "the pencil disappear" was one of the best film murders I've ever seen. It was perfect for the Joker, simple, well executed, completely psychotic and pretty funny.

The back and forth between the 3 heroes Dent, Gordon and Batman vs. the criminals of Gotham were intense and extremely fun to watch. So many scenes started one way and then made a complete reversal putting the other side in control. I liked the multiple climaxes. Each revealed something intriguing that's important to the story and wrapped up different loose ends. I also liked Maggie in place of Katie because the Rachel role is a very strong character which Katie played pretty frail. The death was shocking but such an amazing twist I can't be disappointed in it.

There were some problems I had with it, but they were all outweighed by the good. I am not a fan of CGI when unnecessary and Harvey's face was definitely that. It would have been so much better to see a tangible make up job as opposed to the computer tendons. In a film so realistic the logistics of his wound was confounding. How is his left eye still functional? And how can his speech not be altered when missing half his lips?

Not to pile on but I also found the Batman voice too raspy and distracting. But with all the great dialog and the focus I was giving it, I didn't want to miss a thing and it was honestly hard to hear at points.

I'm half joking while I bring this up but they killed a lot of black characters. Gambol's thug with a pencil, Gambol with a knife, 2 of Gambol's men in a death struggle, the Judge is blown up, Comissioner Loeb is poisoned, Joker shotguns a street cop from the truck, and shoots another in the hospital. Once Gordon died I thought "finally, a big white death to even this all out", and then they brought him back! At least Deebo did the right thing and threw the detonator off the boat.

Overall a really fantastic film. The last time I was so transfixed on a screen was when I watched No Country for Old Men. These are two completely different films but the tension I felt in each is comparable. I hope to see it again soon.

[TomHicks]

Oh, that reminds me of a question I had: How did they explain Dent's death? I thought Batman was going to take the blame for the people Dent killed; but was he supposed to have killed Dent, too?* I mean, the cops were right there and actually chased B out of the warehouse.


*And Dent was still a good guy.

[disl]

are we still bitching about batman's voice? everyone is aware that it's the same as in "batman begins," right? you've had a few years to to get used to it, it shouldn't be an issue at this point. it's not going to change. just let it be. i don't really know what the alternatives would be, he has to use a different voice to protect his identity. what would be less distracting? a funny accent? a high-pitched squeal? stephen hawking voice? at least the raspy voice is somewhat intimidating. i think it works.

anyway, i thought the movie was great and the only problem i had was harvey's crazy terminator face at the end. everything else worked for me. awesome movie, great job!

[P-Dub]

In regards to the Batman voice, I think he sounded significantly raspier and more strained in TDK. However, I think it worked; with the way shit piles on in this movie, Batman's bound to get tired.

[KevinLee]

I liked this movie because going into it one must immediately believe that guy dressed as a bat furry is going to beat up and murderers, terrorists and corrupt landlords*.
A complete suspension of disbelief happens.

*and dogs.

[Berliner]

I'd just watched batman begins, and not only does it sound worse, he speaks a lot more in Dark Knight, making it a lot more noticeable.

[TimBuktu]

I thought that the Joker was so iconic he swallowed up the whole movie. I found myself waiting for scenes without him to be over so he'd be back on the screen.

Also, why didn't they cut some nose holes in the bat suit so batman could breath when he talks?

[jon]

I liked this movie a lot. I thought it was pretty good when I saw it, and in thinking about it it's gotten better in my mind, which is the opposite of what usually happens. The biggest thing I still had a problem with was the cell phone/sonar thing. It may have been the way it was executed visually, but it seemed too much like Professor X's Cerebro. I don't really read comics, so someone more knowledgeable could correct me on this, but having that ability/power to know where everyone is in that situation seems to border on having a real superpower, which kind of goes against the purpose of Batman. That's me, though.

As for his voice, yeah it's annoying. It wasn't just him, though. 30 Rock watchers will know what I mean when I say that the end, with Batman, Two-Face and Gordon turned into a "talking like this" contest.

[matt in the east]

Great movie.

Great, great movie!

[aenemaTron]

The cell phone thing, for me, goes in the bin with the "ferry full of convicts" next to things that didn't really make that much sense but implied interesting moral and ethical questions which are worthwhile regardless.

But the big display looked too cool.

A big part of Batman that was never explored in the earlier films was his reliance on technology. He is resourceful enough to beat up Superman, given enough preparation. Burton's Batman had bat-shaped jats and boats and crap but ultimately they were just vehicles. The Schumacher Batman threw all kinds of gadgets around but nothing was interesting or creative like the cell sonar. So I'll allow it.

As far as the fate of Dent- remember 9/11, when they were digging bone dust out and DNA testing it? So they didn't ID his body until the next day, so what. I don't think they'll imply Batman killed him, but people might blame him given the Joker was responsible for blowing up the hospital in response to the guy on TV threatening Batman's secret identity... convoluted, but within the realm of human behavior.

Still, Batman is on the run, and he's a suspect in five murders, two of whom were cops. The next movie is gonna suck for him!!

[Hated Milk Machine]

Also: that screechy noise they played during tense scenes was so perfect and DID ITS JOB. I almost peed myself when it got tense.

[TimBuktu]

So, do you think they'll re-cast the Joker or leave him out of the next movie? I think that Ledger's stamp on it was so strong, it's going to be really hard to even come close to it.

Also, I don't think Two-Face is dead.

[aenemaTron]

I was wondering if they'd show Dent steamin' and schemin' in Arkham as a little stinger on the end. If he died it was a very "indie drama" death, falling fifteen feet and all. In the comics you can survive anything.

As far as recasting the Joker, well, it may never come up. If they want people to pay attention to anything in the next movie, they won't do it.

[NFox]

So, do you think they'll re-cast the Joker or leave him out of the next movie? I think that Ledger's stamp on it was so strong, it's going to be really hard to even come close to it.

Also, I don't think Two-Face is dead.
Originally, I would have said that Two-Face is definitely dead, but after thinking about it, now, for a few days They may want to leave him alive. My thought has always been for the Riddler to be the villain in the third film. Before accounting for Ledger's death, it would make sense for the Joker (From within Arkham) to act as a mentor and influence on the Riddler (All my own crappy theory...feel free to disagree). Now, though, I think that Chris Nolan will see that people will view Ledger's Joker as untouchable and won't want to risk offending fans by replacing him. However, since the Joker's seeming protege, Two-Face could still be alive, it leaves a way to tie this movie to the next.

Assuming all of that to be true (Which it isn't), the only question left is: Would Nolan ever consider having Two-Face and Riddler in a movie and risk comparisons to Batman Forever?

All of that aside, I dug this movie from beginning to end. Too many sequels make the mistake of making you wait for action, this was not one of those films. From there, the relentless pace just didn't let up, and I hoped it never would. The characters were [mostly] extremely deep and well-defined, with many levels to them. The Joker was probably the best example of this, acting as a funny character to the casual viewer, but becoming something entirely different, something dark to anyone who was fully engrossed in the movie.

Is it the best movie in the world? No. But was it a really good film? Damn skippy, and I can't wait to see what Nolan and Co. do in the third film.

-Nick

[disl]

if they don't recast the joker, what are they going to do? just say that he died before the next movie takes place? that's silly. he's too good of a villain to kill off now, you have to re-cast him. if they pick the right person, it won't be an issue. i don't remember people being too excited that heath ledger was cast as joker when that news first came out and now he's getting oscar buzz. if they just cast it right again then i see no reason why the character can't continue.

[Hated Milk Machine]

i don't remember people being too excited that heath ledger was cast as joker when that news first came out

they were pretty excited from the start, I think. once photos showed how fucked up he looked it ratcheted up even more

[disl]

a quick google search says otherwise:

http://64.191.203.30/movies/Heath_Ledger_Is_The_Joker

i'll save you time, you can summarize what most people commented with "i'm not sure about this." everyone did get excited when the first pictures came out, though, that's for sure.

[aenemaTron]

I don't think you can judge based on that sample. Anyone commenting on anything on the internet- especially comic book movie casting- is already such a specific demographic, your conclusions are bound to be skewed.

I don't think initial excitement is indicative of anything. People are gonna be obsessed with the replacement's performance as compared to the previous one. But I don't see why the Joker needs to be in the next movie at all. He's imprisoned, the end, for now.

[JayRunner]

But I don't see why the Joker needs to be in the next movie at all. He's imprisoned, the end, for now.

I agree, it isn't necessary to bring the Joker back. I enjoy how Nolan and company have reinvented the characters so much it would be nice to see their spin on different villains.

I can't imagine Killer Croc or Clayface existing in the realistic world that's been established so I guess the logical choice would be to turn to villains like Catwoman or the Riddler. Although I'd like to see lesser characters like the Clock King (he was cool in the animated series) or maybe a better representation of Bane, since that character was disgraced in Batman and Robin.

[KevinLee]

I think they should recast the role.
Didn't people think of Jack Nicholson version of the Joker untouchable?
Obviously it wasn't.
Maybe it's a good thing that no two actors play him more than once.
Yeah, I don't see why the wouldn't want to include such an interesting and disturbing character in the next movie.

[pmottaz]

Next movie, they should save themselves the trouble and just focus on BATMAN again.

I kind of missed that in this movie. Joker stole the show, though Two-Face was pretty close as well.

But the way this one ends, with Batman on the run, would lead me to believe that the next installment would deal with him a lot more.

That being said, I have confidence in this crew to handle a suitable Catwoman or Penguin story. Riddler's M.O. is just too goofy for the kinds of movies Nolan appears to make. They could also handle the relationship between an adult Batman and a kid side-kick, but I doubt they'd do it.

[jon]

I don't think initial excitement is indicative of anything. People are gonna be obsessed with the replacement's performance as compared to the previous one. But I don't see why the Joker needs to be in the next movie at all. He's imprisoned, the end, for now.

That's about where I come down on it. There are enough other villains in the Batman universe that they can leave Joker alone for awhile.

My vote: Louie the Lilac.

[BananapeelWilliams]

That being said, I have confidence in this crew to handle a suitable Catwoman or Penguin story. Riddler's M.O. is just too goofy for the kinds of movies Nolan appears to make. They could also handle the relationship between an adult Batman and a kid side-kick, but I doubt they'd do it.

I could see them pulling off The Riddler if they made him an obsessive, Hannibal Lecter type character.

Penguin would be cool as well, Catwoman... Er, personally I don't think so.

[Berliner]

Talia Al Ghoul instead of Catwoman?

[KeithTalent]

There was something off about the mask in this one, I thought. I know they had a bendy new cowl this time, but was the design of the facemask the same as in Begins? In the rare shots where you got a good look, it seemed kind of like Fetal Alcohol Syndrome Batman.

[KeithTalent]

And the Riddler's not too goofy. Nolan has shown that fanboy details don't matter as long as you get the essence. The Riddler's a nut with a self-destructive compulsion to taunt the authorities. They can make that work, no problem.

[the_psychologist]

I must admit, I feel very puzzled by the phenomenon this movie has become. It really feels like I watched a different movie from most people. Great scenes but very flawed != best movie ever.

I was just reading the IMDB page and the reviews are ridiculously glowing. I understand that the IMDB attracts a certain type of fan, but good lord is the praise overblown. Contrast this with a site like CHUD where reactions are much more mixed.

I'm very curious why Americans (and perhaps the world) are ready to hail this movie as the second coming at this moment in time. It may be an interesting study for someone.

I also noticed that the top 1000 IMDB voters gave the film an average rating of 7.6, which is just about right IMO.

Not that I want to ruin anyone's enjoyment of the movie. I just want to understand the scale of the public reaction.

[aenemaTron]

It's not the best movie ever made, but I would say it's the best "comic book" movie ever made. That and people on the internet say crazy shit without thinking, because who cares.

'Dark Knight' Deemed Best Movie Ever by Internet Populace, Money (http://www.iwatchstuff.com/2008/07/dark_knight_deemed_best_movie.php)

[P. J. Head]

It's like Harrison Ford's "The Fugitive". Best movie ever made, no. Best movie OF ITS KIND ever made, quite possibly.

[KeithTalent]

How do you guys feel this compares to Iron Man?

[aenemaTron]

It's very different. No one's motives in Iron Man are as complex as almost everyone's motives in this. Iron Man had a lot more light-hearted humor, this had almost none. I loved both.

[Shane]

How do you guys feel this compares to Iron Man?

I think Iron Man was greatly entertaining, but I don't think it had the cinematography and storyline that TDK had, nor does Iron Man have the fan base that Batman does.

[Michael Blacklist]

The Dark Knight was the best Batman movie ever, while Iron Man was the best Iron Man movie ever.

[Itslikeimsayin]

I think Iron Man was a more fun movie while TDK was the better movie. I, too, loved both.

[Rick Paulas]

I forgot who said it, but the best little line I read about it was that The Dark Knight is the first time someone captured the essence of a graphic novel (as opposed to just a comic book story) on the big screen. Makes sense to me. As a stand-alone piece, without Begins or whatever's going to follow, it works.

[crazysheet]

I was just looking at a list of Batman villians and it seems like The Mad Hatter is a pretty cool one. I bet he's in the next movie. Thematically, it seems like it makes sense.

[pmottaz]

On the reactions that "TDK" being the best movie of all times tip...

I think that obviously has a lot to do with:
a) Being a thing people can easily get excitable (Batman! Joker!)
b) The mystique behind watching a troubled, yet talented actor giving a scene stealing performance
c) First impressions to something people were probably going to like already.

Think how well the Star Wars prequels would have been received had they been made remotely well. Instead, they seemed to go out of their way to show us shitty acting and some truly lame characters.

So this movie had a lot of hype coming off the last one doing so well, which did many things well but mostly got its highest praise for doing so few things poorly. Same with this movie. Now, that might sound like feint praise, but it's actually a high complement. You can nitpick those movies, but there's no Jar Jar. No teen Anakin. No crap like that.

It feels like the Nolan Batman movies are turning out to be similar to the Peter Jackson "LOTR" movies in that they don't so much successfully adapt the source material perfectly in tact, but rather they successfully adapt what fans always imagined would be the coolest parts of that source material. Fans will trade off on a Joker who wears make-up if that particular Joker is entertaining and scary as hell.

They seem to be getting enough of the right parts right and including very few bad parts.

On the Riddler For The Next Movie tip...

If anybody could do it, I bet these guys could, but I think he's just not much of a character. Nolan's biggest success as far as these Batman characters are concerned has come from picking a few key, root elements of each character and sticking to them hard, then letting the other stuff drop away as he wants. Like with Ra's al Ghul. It's not thaaaaaaat important that he have the Lazerous pit as he did in the comics, just that he and his organization are part of a global "saving" program. That's the root of it for him. Then you throw in a few other details (like his concealed identity---which fooled me initially, I must admit. He even talked about a dead wife and had the f'ing beard and I missed it!) and you've got him. Same with Joker. In some weird way, it carries more weight with a fan like me that they let him tell two stories about how he got his scars because that's more true to the legend of the character than if I saw him under that damn red hood falling into acid.

But with Riddler, I don't know what they could mine other than a rip off of Joker. Even the Animated Series crew--In my mind still the #1 authorities on adapting and producing Batman--admitted to major troubles in handling Riddler. One dude (Radomski, I think) even once admitted that he fought to keep Riddler out, because the M.O. of giving clues and puzzles just doesn't make any sense, even if you just say "he's crazy." In the end of that show's run, they did about 2 or 3 episodes of Riddler, and that's it. Out of close to 90. It could be done, but I just can't imagine it right now.

Nerds.

[helloitslate]

I think there may go for one of the Girl villians since Rachel was killed off so it leaves an opening for a woman character. Which means we could be seeing Catwoman.

Or maybe other female villians :Poison Ivy,Talia al Ghul , Nyssa Raatko, Nocturna or Jane Doe maybe?

even if they end up recasting the JokerI doubt that that they would include Harleen Quinzel since she didn't originate in the the comics but on the animated series

Hmm I wonder.

[the_psychologist]

I bet Nolan's Joker would still be cool if played by another capable actor, but I can't help but feel that he should stay in an asylum and simply be alluded to if there's a third film.

I would still love to see an adaptation of Miller's series. Batman needn't be a geezer, but why not up the stakes and have him battle someone who is clearly his physical superior (ie Superman). He clearly has ridiculous scientific skills, and it would be cool to see him leverage some really diabolical weaponry against a "real" superhero (in the sense of physical abilities).

[Berliner]

I think one of the reasons I was not 100% satisfied with this movie was how I approached it. To some degree, I think people like the idea of superheroes because they want to be superheroes, and they want to live vicariously through them. When you see this version of Batman, you really think, "Thank God I'm not Batman." Maybe that's what elevates it to something beyond its genre, but this was a little too bleak for me. I think that is what Iron Man had that this movie lacked.

There are polar ends of Batman. There's the Bob Kane, Frank Miller super gritty version, and the campy TV show, silver age depictions of him. I can appreciate the gritty version, but I also really enjoy the campy version. In all honesty, the Adam West version is still my favorite Batman movie. There are moments of that movie that are simply just sublime.

I feel like people are saying that this series is the "true Batman," and I don't agree with that. I kinda feel like these Nolan films are the "high art" version, and that of course trumps the "low art" campy versions. Those Schumacher films definitely went too far in the opposite direction, but I think Dark Knight is too oppressive and depressing for me to enjoy. I did really like Batman Begins though, so who knows.

Overthinking all of this like always,

Berliner

[disl]

I was just looking at a list of Batman villians and it seems like The Mad Hatter is a pretty cool one. I bet he's in the next movie. Thematically, it seems like it makes sense.

it would seem that way, i thought so too at first. and then i watched his origin story on the aforementioned "batman: the animated series" and holy cow, it was dumb. entertaining, but dumb.

i think the riddler could work if done right, but i don't necessarily think he needs to be the focus of the next movie if he's in it. it might be more interesting to have him as a minor character to be developed to a featured role in a 4th movie while focusing more on two-face (presuming he's still alive, which i'm starting to believe more and more) and maybe explore scarecrow a little bit since he just kind of exists at this point. in my mind, the riddler would have to be born out of the joker so it would be necessary to see that transformation. his alias seems like a natural, copy-cat deviation from the joker, it seems necessary to see his development into a true sociopath rather than diving right into it. that worked fine for the joker, but it doesn't feel right for the riddler to me.

that said, i'd like to see the third movie deal primarily with two-face and scarecrow. two-face because his story is interesting and scarecrow because that is a loose end that needs to be tied up before everyone stops caring, assuming they already haven't. he kind of just goes away at the end of the first movie, did basically nothing in the second, and no one is even mentioning him for the third. i would like his story to be resolved before he's just hanging out until batman 8 when those prescriptions he's writing all over town finally come back to bite him in the most tedious way possible.

[Hated Milk Machine]

I think one of the reasons I was not 100% satisfied with this movie was how I approached it. To some degree, I think people like the idea of superheroes because they want to be superheroes, and they want to live vicariously through them. When you see this version of Batman, you really think, "Thank God I'm not Batman." Maybe that's what elevates it to something beyond its genre, but this was a little too bleak for me. I think that is what Iron Man had that this movie lacked.

There are polar ends of Batman. There's the Bob Kane, Frank Miller super gritty version, and the campy TV show, silver age depictions of him. I can appreciate the gritty version, but I also really enjoy the campy version. In all honesty, the Adam West version is still my favorite Batman movie. There are moments of that movie that are simply just sublime.

I feel like people are saying that this series is the "true Batman," and I don't agree with that. I kinda feel like these Nolan films are the "high art" version, and that of course trumps the "low art" campy versions. Those Schumacher films definitely went too far in the opposite direction, but I think Dark Knight is too oppressive and depressing for me to enjoy. I did really like Batman Begins though, so who knows.

Overthinking all of this like always,

Berliner


Are you sure you weren't just a grumpy gus when you saw it? Because the movie itself isn't that bleak at all - almost every possibly moral or ethical dilemma has been resolved in favor of "the good guys" thus far in the series.

Think of this movie like the Empire Strikes Back of the Batman Begins franchise.

[Berliner]

Are you sure you weren't just a grumpy gus when you saw it? Because the movie itself isn't that bleak at all - almost every possibly moral or ethical dilemma has been resolved in favor of "the good guys" thus far in the series.

Think of this movie like the Empire Strikes Back of the Batman Begins franchise.


That's the thing, because I will admit I used to do stuff like that in my younger days (prejudging a movie before I saw it). I really, really tried to like it. At one point I thought to myself I caught myself thinking "I should be liking this more." In the end, I did like it, but that's about it.

[nadsat droog]

I just got back from it and liked it a lot, but I agree with this: Best movie of its kind? Yes. Best movie ever? No.

If a movie doesn't completely blow me away, I sometimes have a hard time stepping back, taking it all in and assessing it. I might need to see this again or let it swirl around in my skull for a day or two before I begin to pontificate on the finer points of the film.

One idea I just had for the third (and final, according to those involved) film, would be to take the notion that too many bad guys don't work in these kinds of movies and give it the Nolan twist. Perhaps do something with the "Arkham Asylum: A Serious House on Serious Earth" graphic novel. I'm not 100% familiar with it, but I think it might be fertile ground to work with.

[pmottaz]

I think one of the reasons I was not 100% satisfied with this movie was how I approached it. To some degree, I think people like the idea of superheroes because they want to be superheroes, and they want to live vicariously through them. When you see this version of Batman, you really think, "Thank God I'm not Batman." Maybe that's what elevates it to something beyond its genre, but this was a little too bleak for me. I think that is what Iron Man had that this movie lacked.

There are polar ends of Batman. There's the Bob Kane, Frank Miller super gritty version, and the campy TV show, silver age depictions of him. I can appreciate the gritty version, but I also really enjoy the campy version. In all honesty, the Adam West version is still my favorite Batman movie. There are moments of that movie that are simply just sublime.

I feel like people are saying that this series is the "true Batman," and I don't agree with that. I kinda feel like these Nolan films are the "high art" version, and that of course trumps the "low art" campy versions. Those Schumacher films definitely went too far in the opposite direction, but I think Dark Knight is too oppressive and depressing for me to enjoy. I did really like Batman Begins though, so who knows.

Overthinking all of this like always,

Berliner
I wanted to let you--and consequently everyone reading this--know that not only do I fully support your opinions, but I'm grappling with them, too. I think one of the things keeping me at distance from this franchise's Batman is because it is born largely out of "The Long Halloween," which is all gritty and dark and all that, and it just wasn't/isn't my favorite Batman.

To that end, modern-day Batman can never really live up to the incarnations I first fell head over heels for as a kid (the Adam West show, the cartoon, the Keaton version, etc.). Even though I may recognize the quality of these later versions--and in some cases the superiority--it still doesn't mean I have to looooooove it.

I wanted to further "Amen" the sentiment of "Holy crap, I'm glad I'm not Batman"-ness in this franchise. Once again, for the movies they're telling, it's all great, but I used to be a kid/older kid/young man who dreamed about being Batman and doing all the Batman stuff that he does. Maybe I'm just older, but I don't feel that way about this particular version.

FURTHERMORE, I had a weird reaction to Batman beating up dogs. Not "beating up" beating up, but you know what I mean. It may sound square, and I'm sure many people thought it was a total pussy move, but I've always loved that moment in "Batman: Year One" where Batman--while being pursued by the crooked cops--not only saves a stray cat from a collapsing building, but actually gives an extra punch to one of the cops that tried to shoot the cat. It's straight out of that book "Save the Cat," but it's little things like that which make you like the character.

The Bale Batman didn't do anything like this to make me like him in the get go, outside of just being Batman. Which, really, should be fine, but maybe it's this missing element that made me lose touch with Batman as the movie went on. Maybe this is why it's so much easier for the charismatic, energetic Joker to steal the show. Come to think of it, "Batman Begins" has a couple of these moments at the beginning to get us to like Bruce Wayne (sharing his stolen food with a kid, for example), so I don't know... maybe I just missed that moment in "TDK."

FURTHER FURTHERMORE, as far as Scarecrow is concerned, that character has historically produced some of the better Batman stories with the least amount of face time. He's really just a nifty story tool to get people to deal with fear, and then the payoff is seeing the good get rung through the ringer. I really think we've heard enough about Scarecrow as a character. On the other hand I loved seeing him show up in the opening fight of "Dark Knight" because... that's Batman. To me, Gotham City should be full of crazy costumed criminals for Batman to stop. So I liked that. But loose end? Nah. Not for me, anyway.

[TimBuktu]

I reviewed it, but youtube is busted. Here it is though...

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Ty5sXIB6q_U&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Ty5sXIB6q_U&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

<object classid="clsid:d27cdb6e-ae6d-11cf-96b8-444553540000" width="464" height="388">
</object> (http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/cb5281a10d)

[Jambalaya]

That being said, I have confidence in this crew to handle a suitable Catwoman or Penguin story. They could also handle the relationship between an adult Batman and a kid side-kick, but I doubt they'd do it.

http://digg.com/movies/Penguin_and_Catwoman_won_t_be_in_next_Batman_movie

"Batman screenwriters David Goyer and Jonah Nolan have responded to claims that the baddies in Batman 3 will be Catwoman and The Penguin by saying that the baddies in Batman 3 definitely won’t be Catwoman and The Penguin."

I know Christian Bale has said that he wouldn't make a movie that introduced Robin. I'm betting the 3rd movie will be more about Batman than any particular villain. In the way of villains, Nolan will probably use some less popular ones.

Also, I agree that TDK needed more Prince.

[NFox]

http://digg.com/movies/Penguin_and_Catwoman_won_t_be_in_next_Batman_movie

"Batman screenwriters David Goyer and Jonah Nolan have responded to claims that the baddies in Batman 3 will be Catwoman and The Penguin by saying that the baddies in Batman 3 definitely won’t be Catwoman and The Penguin."

I know Christian Bale has said that he wouldn't make a movie that introduced Robin. I'm betting the 3rd movie will be more about Batman than any particular villain. In the way of villains, Nolan will probably use some less popular ones.

Also, I agree that TDK needed more Prince.
And to everyone talking about "setting up a fourth movie" I remember reading that Nolan intends for this reboot to exist as a trilogy...no more. I hope he ties up every loose end at the end of the 3rd, otherwise greedy studio execs will probably bring Shumacher back. So I say the 3rd movie either needs Batman to die (If not Bruce Wayne as well) or to just get Gotham to a point where Batman is no longer necessary.

The latter seems likely, if only for the ferry scene in TDK where they showed that even without Batman's intervention, the corruption and immoral direction that Gotham's citizens were once going towards is becoming a thing of the past. Plus, the first two movies have featured heavily on discussions regarding the time when Gotham no longer needs Batman. It almost seems like they're setting up an out.

Of course, that's just my opinion, I could be wrong.

-Nick

[aenemaTron]

I've looked through villain lists and something I found on digg (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25681350/) and there were two that looked most plausible.

Roman Sionis AKA Black Mask: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Mask_(comics))
"Black Mask has no super human abilities however he is a master criminal strategist and skilled in the use of hand guns."

Talia Al Ghul would be a good one, too, if they cast it right. And if they brought back Liam Neeson. I'd allow it.

[JayRunner]

I would agree with Black Mask, especially since his origin story is so screwed up.

[AmericasMobileDevice]

I really liked this movie. I am willing to forgive the questionable science behind the radar cell phone thing or the way the Two Face thing moves rather quickly because of how awesome it was one The Joker was repeating "I want you to hit me. Hit me. Hit me. Hit me." Fuck that was great.

[Berliner]

FURTHERMORE, I had a weird reaction to Batman beating up dogs. Not "beating up" beating up, but you know what I mean. It may sound square, and I'm sure many people thought it was a total pussy move, but I've always loved that moment in "Batman: Year One" where Batman--while being pursued by the crooked cops--not only saves a stray cat from a collapsing building, but actually gives an extra punch to one of the cops that tried to shoot the cat. It's straight out of that book "Save the Cat," but it's little things like that which make you like the character.


I think that dog beating is why PETA ranked him five instead of any higher.

http://blog.peta.org/archives/2008/07/top_10_animalfr_1.php

[TomHicks]

I thought it was awesome when he punched that dog. Just because it was somehing you don't see in a movie.

I don't think the movie ends up with the good guys winning. I think the good guys ended up doing a lot of bad things, like illegal rendition, torture and illegal surveillance. One of the good guys was up for murdering a boy. Then I think the two remaining good guys decide to lie to everyone to get them to believe in hope that they (Gordon and Batman) know doesn't exist.

And as far as sequels go, one word: Bat-Mite!

[KevinLee]

My thought has always been for the Riddler to be the villain in the third film. Before accounting for Ledger's death, it would make sense for the Joker (From within Arkham) to act as a mentor and influence on the Riddler.
Whatchu talkin'bout?

And also did anyone hear Batman got arrested?
He stayed over night because no one would post Christian's Bail.


(No one cares about Batman, everyone loves Heath Ledger.
Because Heath stole every scene, like that stoner girl in "Knocked Up."
People are on his jammy.)

[KevinLee]

So I say the 3rd movie either needs Batman to die (If not Bruce Wayne as well) or to just get Gotham to a point where Batman is no longer necessary.


These both sound like terrible ideas for the Batman movies. I think I'd be dissappointed with either of these things happening in the next one.



Plus, the first two movies have featured heavily on discussions regarding the time when Gotham no longer needs Batman. It almost seems like they're setting up an out.

However, you might be on to something.


NNNNNNNNNFFFFFFFFFFOOOOOOOOOOOXXXXXXXXXX DaaAAAAMMN YOOUU!!

[Shane]

And also did anyone hear Batman got arrested?
He stayed over night because no one would post Christian's Bail.



They did allow Christian to post his own Bale, however

[brianpalmer]

I recently came across an interesting article that makes the argument that the film is pro Bush/Cheney in the way it deals with security issues.

"Confronting the Joker, a nihilistic enemy whose motives are both unexplained and beside the point, the Batman faces his biggest dilemma yet: whether to abuse his power in order to save Gotham City. Again and again in the movie, the Batman's moral hand-wringing results in the deaths of innocents. Only by becoming like the monster he must vanquish can Batman secure a victory that even he understands is Pyrrhic."

Read all of it <a href="http://www.washingtonindependent.com/view/batmans-dark-knight">here</a>.

Any thoughts?

[disl]

i have a friend who recently spoke to the storywriter (too lazy to look up the name) and he said that the writer said that the allusions to the war on terror were on purpose. second hand knowledge but it seems pretty obvious. if the cell phone sonar thing wasn't enough of a clue then i don't know what would be.

if we had cell phone sonar technology, would you be for or against using it to track down osama?

[Jouster]

i have a friend who recently spoke to the storywriter (too lazy to look up the name) and he said that the writer said that the allusions to the war on terror were on purpose.
That's funny, because in the interview I heard with Jonathan Nolan (you can hear it here (http://creativescreenwritingmagazine.blogspot.com/)), he says the opposite.

[disl]

it sounded more to me that he was saying that they didn't have an agenda when they wrote the script, not that the parallels aren't knowingly there. even if they wrote before the all the wire-tapping stuff came out (which i'm willing to believe), the fact that they left that in there afterwards has to be of some significance, doesn't it? simply taking no action and leaving it is a statement of some kind (besides the obvious one of "forget it, it's already there, just shoot the thing.").

not that i really care one way or the other, i don't think any differently of the movie if they had an agenda or didn't. anything that could be seen as political commentary is handled so well that it's a non-issue immediately to me.

[P-Dub]

the fact that they left that in there afterwards has to be of some significance, doesn't it?

Besides the fact that it's a major plot point, so rewriting it would have significantly postponed the shoot?

[disl]

the wire-tapping news came out in december 2005, "the dark knight" didn't start shooting until march/april 2007 (thanks, wikipedia!). they probably could have come up with something in those 16 months.

[arruns]

My concern is the lengths they went to to not show Barbara Gordon's face in the movie. Moves like that make me think they are avoiding locking themselves into a casting decision for the next movie, when we get subjected to Batgirl.

[P-Dub]

the wire-tapping news came out in december 2005, "the dark knight" didn't start shooting until march/april 2007 (thanks, wikipedia!). they probably could have come up with something in those 16 months.

...but how lame would that have been? I just think the idea that a filmmaker would remove or change something that works--especially if it's a major plot point--out of fear of been seen as having a political agenda is silly and unrealistic.

Edited for clarity (I hope)

[disl]

honestly, i don't really care that much one way or the other to really defend either side of it, the way it was addressed right away completely defused any problem i would have had with it. i will say, thought, that if luscious fox would have been like "hell yea, by any means necessary!" instead of saying that tapping into every phone was immoral except to just locate the joker this one time then i would have had a problem with it since that'd be a pretty heavy-handed pro-patriot act message. but he didn't so there's no issue. great movie!

[P-Dub]

Oh, no! I'm not arguing for or against the fact that the movie may or may not contain messages that could be construed as political. Arguing that would be as ridiculous as that last sentence because, as you illustrated, there are no overt examples.

I just thought your remark that "the fact that they left that in there afterwards has to be of some significance, doesn't it?" was strange, and I would say--if you're at all curious what other people think of your theory--that it has little to no significance.

That's all, and I like you and your posts, and I love the Dark Knight.

[Berliner]

i will say, thought, that if luscious fox would have been like "hell yea, by any means necessary!" instead of saying that tapping into every phone was immoral except to just locate the joker this one time then i would have had a problem with it since that'd be a pretty heavy-handed pro-patriot act message.

Did Pam Grier make a cameo that I missed?

[crazysheet]

George Bush = Batman
Alfred = Karl Rove
Ms. Dawes = The Public
Two Face = John McCain
Joker = Jon Stewart
The Mayor = Barack Obama
Scarecrow = Fox News

This whole movie was propaganda and I want my money back.

[Fentmore]

Well to add to its list o' records of most screens shown, biggest midnight, opening weekend, July opener, PG-13 opener, single day take, opening day, friday, sunday totals and biggest IMAX opening, it has also been the first movie to reach 200 million in five days! As of Tuesday it hit 203 and change. The previous was Pirates 2, Spiderman 2 and Star Wars Ep 3 in eight days.

I like it when good things happen to good movies.

[RegularKarate]

My concern is the lengths they went to to not show Barbara Gordon's face in the movie. Moves like that make me think they are avoiding locking themselves into a casting decision for the next movie, when we get subjected to Batgirl.

you're kidding, right? no way Batgirl would be in the third. Just like Bale said he wouldn't be in one with Robin, I'm sure Batgirl falls under the same net.

[Ethan]

Yeah, they aren't going to touch Catwoman, Robin, Batgirl, or The Penguin.

I'd really really love to see Nolan's take on Bane however. One of the scarier Batman villains in my opinion.

[Americas Team]

I'd really really love to see Nolan's take on Bane however. One of the scarier Batman villains in my opinion.

That is actually a pretty perfect villain for a Nolan Batman movie. I think the next movie will jump forward a bit. It will switch from the super villains like The Joker being rare to kind of common place.

[Trial]

So do you guys want to wonder along with me what Joker's possible origins are? I think he was a relatively normal guy for the vast majority of his life, maybe getting bored or frustrated with society gradually until reaching a point of no return, and then not long after that Batman appears in Gotham. At the end of Batman Begins, Gordon calls him an escalation in reply to a succesful vigilante dressing like a Bat. I think the scars might be self inflicted (or maybe they weren't, and became his breaking point) and that they were also very recent because who won't recognize a guy with a carved-in smile? Because of that, he must also come from a different place than the organized crime of Gotham. Couple that with the fact that he doesn't even have fingerprints on file, I like to think that points to the "regular guy" theory. If the scars are self inflicted, then you can pair them with the makeup as retaliations to Batman's cowl.

He tells the detective in the interrogation room that he uses knives because you can savor the last moment of somebody's life where they show their true colours. Joker willingly puts his life on the line several times (making Dent point the gun at his head, fighting Batman and falling off the thing). In that second example, he simply laughs. He wants to die and become I suppose the opposite symbol of what Gordon/Batman use Harvey Dent for in the end.

Come on guys, let's JAM!

[helloitslate]

I also noticed when the Joker is talking to all the mob people he gets really annoyed when they call him "crazy" He gets quiet and says no he is not crazy. His defensive attitude to only that makes me assume he has probably been in an institution before.

Each story he tells of the scars focuses on the scars being a way to smile, stop being serious. Maybe the horrible father story is partially true to some extent he tells the party goer that he reminds him of his father, but then goes on to tell the wife story to Rachel. I assume there is some truth to each story. His disegard for money and going after the mob bank makes me thik maybe he did have a wife who gambled and got herself in trouble? Who knows?

Joker is a man that lives on Chaos and rarely if ever can you control or understand Chaos

[TacoSmith]

Maybe I'm remembering incorrectly but when they teased the Joker showing up in Batman Begins did they not suggest that he was one of the people that broke out of Arkham during Scarecrow's rampage?

[Keith Whitener]

I liked that the Joker seemed to want people to choose to do what they considered to be immoral, almost suggesting that their morality applied only when it was convenient. I like the idea of a villain who wants to make the good guys villainous! I liked it when he kept telling people to hit him!

[BananapeelWilliams]

So do you guys want to wonder along with me what Joker's possible origins are? I think he was a relatively normal guy for the vast majority of his life, maybe getting bored or frustrated with society gradually until reaching a point of no return, and then not long after that Batman appears in Gotham. At the end of Batman Begins, Gordon calls him an escalation in reply to a succesful vigilante dressing like a Bat. I think the scars might be self inflicted (or maybe they weren't, and became his breaking point) and that they were also very recent because who won't recognize a guy with a carved-in smile? Because of that, he must also come from a different place than the organized crime of Gotham. Couple that with the fact that he doesn't even have fingerprints on file, I like to think that points to the "regular guy" theory. If the scars are self inflicted, then you can pair them with the makeup as retaliations to Batman's cowl.

He tells the detective in the interrogation room that he uses knives because you can savor the last moment of somebody's life where they show their true colours. Joker willingly puts his life on the line several times (making Dent point the gun at his head, fighting Batman and falling off the thing). In that second example, he simply laughs. He wants to die and become I suppose the opposite symbol of what Gordon/Batman use Harvey Dent for in the end.

Come on guys, let's JAM!

This pretty much sums it up for me. I picture him as an ordinary (and VERY intelligent) man who basically just snapped.

My favorite description of the Joker is his therapist's from "Arkham Asylum."

"We're beginning to think it may be a neurological disorder, similar to Tourette's syndrome. It's quite possible we may actually be looking at some kind of super-sanity here. A brilliant new modification of human perception. More suited to urban life at the end of the twentieth century. Unlike you and I, the Joker seems to have no control over the sensory information he's receiving from the outside world. He can only cope with the chaotic barrage of input by going with the flow. That's why some days he's a mischievous clown, others a psychopathic killer. He has no real personality. He creates himself each day. He sees himself as the Lord of Misrule, and the world as a theatre of the absurd."

[darrylduffy]

:rolleyes:

[BananapeelWilliams]

:rolleyes:

what are u talking about

[Trial]

Maybe I'm remembering incorrectly but when they teased the Joker showing up in Batman Begins did they not suggest that he was one of the people that broke out of Arkham during Scarecrow's rampage?

I thought so too, and it's been a long time since I've seen it so you may be right, but when they say he doesn't have fingerprints on file in TDK I figured he'd never been locked up anywhere for anything

[Trial]

nutshell: I think he's a ghost dinosaur '96

[Keith Whitener]

Joker certainly went with the flow, so he made me think of Taoism in that they emphasize going with the flow of the world. Some say the world is a violent will that cannot be controlled and that our suffering comes from trying to understand and conquer it rather than, again, going with the flow. Is the Joker the manifestation of this violent will?

I also liked how Two-Face goes with the flow with the flip of his coin. Two-Face defers on his decisions, allowing the will of the world to guide him.

[Keith Whitener]

Also, did anyone else see that Dark Knight is now the #1 movie on IMDB's top 250 films? It's beating The God Father!

[arruns]

you're kidding, right? no way Batgirl would be in the third. Just like Bale said he wouldn't be in one with Robin, I'm sure Batgirl falls under the same net.

She may not be Batgirl, but I definitely think they are going to do something with Barbara. It was just too intentional for them not to.

[nadsat droog]

She may not be Batgirl, but I definitely think they are going to do something with Barbara. It was just too intentional for them not to.

In the credits, Barbara Gordon is listed as his wife's name and "Gordon's Daughter" is the girl's character.

[P-Dub]

Maybe I'm remembering incorrectly but when they teased the Joker showing up in Batman Begins did they not suggest that he was one of the people that broke out of Arkham during Scarecrow's rampage?


No.

Gordon: ...take this guy. Armed robbery, double homicide. Got a taste for the theatrical, like you. Leaves a calling card.

Batman: I'll look into it.

[TacoSmith]

No.

Gordon: ...take this guy. Armed robbery, double homicide. Got a taste for the theatrical, like you. Leaves a calling card.

Batman: I'll look into it.
But if you're to go back a line or two, here's the whole exchange:

Jim Gordon: And we still haven't picked up Crane or half the inmates of Arkham that he freed.
Batman: We will. We can bring Gotham back.
Jim Gordon: What about escalation?
Batman: Escalation?
Jim Gordon: We start carrying semi-automatics, they buy automatics. We start wearing Kevlar, they buy armor-piercing rounds.
Batman: And?
Jim Gordon: And *you're* wearing a mask and jumping off rooftops. Now, take this guy: armed robbery, double homicide. Got a taste for theatrical, like you. Leaves a calling card.
[Gordon presents Batman with a clear plastic evidence bag containing what appears to be a single playing card; Batman turns it over to reveal a "Joker"]
Batman: I'll look into it.

Why else mention the escapees?

[Joker]

Maybe the Joker is employing a large number of these Arkham escapees, and that is why the escapees are mentioned?

[Jawa]

Why else mention the escapees?

I thought it might be plausible that he was a former inmate at Arkham (after all, he does end up spending quite a bit of time there over the years in the comics).

Still, I'm really happy with how they *didn't* explain his origin, or where he came from -- spookier and scarier that way.

[Famous Police Dog]

Maybe the Joker is employing a large number of these Arkham escapees, and that is why the escapees are mentioned?

Whatever you say, Joker :rolleyes:

[Joker]

I just cant imagine that he was a former Arkham inmate because the authorities know so little about him(next to nothing.

[P-Dub]

Why else mention the escapees?

Because hundreds of crazy people running rampant is a problem that he and Batman have to deal with, alongside problems of escalation and the Joker. I guess you could take that to mean that they are hinting at future villians being escaped Arkham inmates, but the dialogue does not directly link the inmates and the Joker, though it does link Joker with the idea of escalation.

[disl]

if the joker had been in arkham, they would have been able to ID him when he gets taken into police custody. his fingerprints would have been on file.

[Joker]

That is what I was trying to say. At the end of Batman Begins, all they knew about him is that he left a calling card and that he had a taste for being theatrical.

[Jawa]

if the joker had been in arkham, they would have been able to ID him when he gets taken into police custody. his fingerprints would have been on file.


Damn you and your knowledge of the logistics of cinematic insane asylums!

[Harry Bongers]

On IMDB Fun Stuff for Dark Knight is says that Robin Williams expressed interest in playing the Joker. I really hope that interest wasn't reciprocated by Nolan. Just imagining that makes me ill.

[TacoSmith]

I agree with the idea that it's better not to know Joker's history, I was just under the impression that they had sort of insinuated that he was in Arkham. But you guys are probably right about that other stuff.

[Fentmore]

On IMDB Fun Stuff for Dark Knight is says that Robin Williams expressed interest in playing the Joker.
Yeah I had heard that, there were a couple other possible names as well. "Wait'll they get a load of me". I think if Robin was on set hamming up the Joker, the cast and crew would have fired themselves.

[TomHicks]

Maybe the Williams thing came up because they worked on Insomnia.

[P-Dub]

http://movies.ign.com/articles/714/714752p1.html

"Williams is famous for his Jack Nicholson impression, but he suspects Nolan would be looking for a new take. "Well, you want to do a different Joker. You know, if they do Arkham Asylum, it would be amazing. Arkham Asylum is one of the greatest, nastiest comic books ever. It's truly, it's like the Marquee de Sade on that level, and wonderfully damaged and quite tragic, in terms of when you realize [what happened to] create these characters..."

We asked Williams whether he saw The Joker as more over-the-top or dark.

"You can go both," Williams said. "As in madness, there's a lot of ways to go. I think you can really explore how bright and how nasty-funny he is, just like I guess what Kevin [Spacey] did with Lex Luthor, made him really funny, but yet still damaged... As evil is, accessible and yet still horrific. Jump back and forth all the time. I'm kidding... Kidding!"

On the second kidding, Williams gave me a soft poke in the throat with two fingers. Amusing, but a bit surprising.

"See there it is," says Williams. "I saw your eyes go f**k off!""

[Fentmore]

http://movies.ign.com/articles/714/714752p1.html
As evil is, accessible and yet still horrific. Jump back and forth all the time. I'm kidding... Kidding!"

On the second kidding, Williams gave me a soft poke in the throat with two fingers. Amusing, but a bit surprising.

"See there it is," says Williams. "I saw your eyes go f**k off!""

I don't get this. What does it mean, what exactly was he doing (going for)?

[TomHicks]

I think it was fitting that when you look at Batman/Bruce Wayne and the Joker, they are somewhat close in age. They have a yin-yang dynamic; much more so than in the Burton Batman. It would have been hard to look at Williams, 57, and not wonder, Where has the Joker been all this time?

[dan telfer]

SPOILER PARADE!

-I saw a matinee. First time in a movie theater since January due to my infant daughter. Thank god I saw this movie, I needed something loud and fantastical to scratch the movie nerd itch properly.

-Heath Ledger was great. If you can get past the obvious "people heap hyperbolic praise on the deceased" aspect of the hype, you have to admit he did a great creative job with a huge pop culture icon. In my head I imagined his origin to be similar to "Killing Joke", only instead of Batman cornering him and having him fall into a vat of chemicals, he gets arrested, and insane with grief he ends up in Arkham. There the grief of his mob debts and dead wife and child ramp him up. No fingerprints on file? Eh, he could still have been at Arkham. Burned off fingerprints are a comic book staple, or hell maybe he was off doing the Red Hood thing not getting caught, saving up money for soem custom threads, and the Arkham outbreak inspired him to take the helmet off and fuck his face up. I know Heath and the Nolan were inspired by Killing Joke on some level. I like to think that his origin was something involving a horrible personal tragedy and absolute professional failure. It's a good way to make a Joker. What I like about Killing Joke is how sad and "real" the Joker's old life is. You got the impression he really tried to make his life work and he became "an agent of chaos" only when it was his last option.

-Maggie couldn't win. It wasn't her fault. She was better than Holmes-Bot 5000 but you always look at a re-cast character differently and they simply wrote way to much plot around her. I thought her death was a pain in the ass on two levels: 1) She had very little character development at all unless you count the first movie, where her face was different. 2) Her death sends the second half of the film in motion, so if you don't sympathize with her when she dies something nags at you the whole film. So, lots of blame can be heaped on Maggie for not building up the emotional weight the film requires, but I blame the film for being written as if the viewer should recognize her and care about her from Batman Begins. The character of Rachel should have been written out.

-I thought the Two-Face plot was fantastic and built really well, so I guess the filmmakers knew that and that's why Rachel stayed in the picture. The CGI didn't bother me because it made the film darker. Remember the hallucinatory CGI in Batman Begins? I thought the series had set the tone for a little creative license there (Though don't you think his burnline in his hair was a bit too symettrical?!) I agree that the lip/speech thing is noticeable, but the character looked like that in the comics and I don't remember it ever being addressed there, so I threw the film a bone. I think he lived- Dark Knight is a great story about Harvey Dent and like the Joker I think the film simply ends with him locked up. But in secret. I think that public memorial for Dent was to hide the fact that he was alive and evil not because he actually died from that fall.

-I thought the boat stuff was awesome. One of the most powerful moments in the film is that convict tossing the detenator out the window.

-It's like Battlestar Galactica. The real world gave the writers context to write within (terrorist is an awesome realistic replacement word for villain) but it wasn't written to be an allegory. Few films are that literal with their inspiration. I doubt any reference to real world issues was written as more than "this feels interesting", not "let's teach audiences this agenda".

-Bruce Wayne is still working on his batvoice. Meh. Don't care to analyze it further. He has to mask it- I don't think he as a character gets up in the morning and thinks "better not make this inconsistent or annoying". He just hides his voice, sometimes with fresh dog and knife wounds affecting it.

-New batsuit was awesome. Loved the Hong Kong sequence. Batman extracting foreign criminals from their home country rules. Though, uh, would China let that plane fly in their airspace so easily in modern times? I don't think so.

-The next/final villains would ideally not be in a Burton or Schumacher film (I think Dark Knight was the Nolans giving that a shot). The first film they did two villains who served the plot and tone above all else. I think the third will be villains who further a good plot that wraps up the trilogy. As far as classic villains The Monk (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monk_%28comics%29) obviously comes to mind because he's very dark, and his recent reimagining as a cult leader is more realistic than his first appearance as a vampire. Another good style match might be Deadshot (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deadshot) because he tried to be a replacement vigilante for Batman and is nuts/suicidal. Sorry nerds- I highly doubt it will be a cartoony one like Mr. Freeze, Ivy, or the Penguin, no matter how cool that might be. Honestly I think Burton's Penguin was about as dark as you could make him, the darkest villain Burton did, and I doubt Nolan would want to have his compared to Burton's. It will be something psychological, not magical or supernatural.

-These movies rule because they bring "dark" themes to the mainstream. That's really hard to do. Superheroism takes it over the top onto the peak of Mt. Awesome, but really, people are ga-ga over this film because it dares to show bleakness as a source of inspiration when most films skip the bleak part and hope to inspire with raw, unblemished cheeseballness.

[BananapeelWilliams]

-The next/final villains would ideally not be in a Burton or Schumacher film (I think Dark Knight was the Nolans giving that a shot). The first film they did two villains who served the plot and tone above all else. I think the third will be villains who further a good plot that wraps up the trilogy. As far as classic villains The Monk (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monk_%28comics%29) obviously comes to mind because he's very dark, and his recent reimagining as a cult leader is more realistic than his first appearance as a vampire. Another good style match might be Deadshot (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deadshot) because he tried to be a replacement vigilante for Batman and is nuts/suicidal. Sorry nerds- I highly doubt it will be a cartoony one like Mr. Freeze, Ivy, or the Penguin, no matter how cool that might be. Honestly I think Burton's Penguin was about as dark as you could make him, the darkest villain Burton did, and I doubt Nolan would want to have his compared to Burton's. It will be something psychological, not magical or supernatural.


I never even thought of Deadshot, that could be really interesting.

[hound]

I doubt Deadshot will be in it because he's in the Gotham Knight animated DVD that came out a few weeks ago, which was intended to bridge Begins and Dark Knight together.

[Trial]

What sort of insane wishful thinking is it that people think Dent survives? Batman barely gets up from that fall in his dog-proof suit after his fall is broken by several wooden THINGS.

[dan telfer]

"What sort of insane wishful thinking"? I think you've supplied enough adjectives, we don't need a "sort".

I believe Batman's suit was "mostly" dog proof. And he'd just gotten mauled by 3 rottweilers, beaten with a lead pipe, and shot in the stomach before that fall.

Plus, we already see Two-Face survive an exploding hospital.

Batman's whole "never kill" would be shattered if he killed Dent. Batman taking the fall for Two-Face's crimes could be considered him atoning for finally murdering someone (and murdering someone about to shoot a little kid is a decent excuse) but my personal interpretation is that Batman knew it wasn't a fatal fall, and that perhaps dropping that mob boss and calling it out as non-fatal was foreshadowing.

Edited to add: Post #666, bitches.

[punkdc]

Now for the guy who figured out who Batman is, his name escapes me at the moment, does he stand a chance at being Robin? I thought about it at work because he knows the secret already. As for the next movie I have also heard the Black Mask might be the villain.

[Darryl]

It wouldn't bother me if Robin never showed up in another Batman movie. There's something about the Batman being a loner that appeals to me more than him having a li'l buddy. Having said that, I think if anyone can bring Robin into the story successfully, it's Christopher Nolan.

[nadsat droog]

It's been mentioned here before, but if Robin is in the next Batman film, Nolan and Bale probably won't be involved with it.

[dan telfer]

Having said that, I think if anyone can bring Robin into the story successfully, it's Christopher Nolan.

To me this is like saying "If anyone can punch themselves in the nuts without hurting themselves, it's Christopher Nolan".

Two movies into this universe, I think it's clear Robin would fit in about as well as Batmite would.

[crlygrl]

I'd just like to say that this movie was fucking awesome and I think Phillip Seymour Hoffman would make a great penguin. I'd also like to see Christina Hendricks as Catwoman, but that's just because she'd look fabulous in a vinyl suit.

(It's not sexist if I say it. HA!)

[Darryl]

To me this is like saying "If anyone can punch themselves in the nuts without hurting themselves, it's Christopher Nolan".


Ha! Yeah, that's a fair comparison.

[Popinjay-Z]

I'd just like to say that this movie was fucking awesome and I think Phillip Seymour Hoffman would make a great penguin. I'd also like to see Christina Hendricks as Catwoman, but that's just because she'd look fabulous in a vinyl suit.

(It's not sexist if I say it. HA!)

It's probably sexist if I agree, but it doesn't make the statement any less true. Christina Hendricks as Catwoman would be awesome. If her work on "Mad Men" doesn't convince you, check out her guest role on "Firefly."

Also, "The Dark Knight" is the most R-rated PG-13 movie I've ever seen. Burton's "Batman" came out when I was 12, and I loved every dumb, meaningless second of it. But if I saw "Knight" when I was 12, I'd probably spend the next few years cowered in a corner, terrified by the bleakness of human existence.

[Joker]

I'd just like to say that this movie was fucking awesome and I think Phillip Seymour Hoffman would make a great penguin. I'd also like to see Christina Hendricks as Catwoman, but that's just because she'd look fabulous in a vinyl suit.

(It's not sexist if I say it. HA!)

Christopher Nolan has already said that he never wants to do a movie with the Penguin because he isn't really a believable villain. And I think Halle Berry has killed any sort of chance of Catwoman being in a Nolan movie.

[Jawa]

I needed something loud and fantastical to scratch the movie nerd itch properly.

[...snip...]

(Though don't you think his burnline in his hair was a bit too symettrical?!)


Dan, with regards to this movie scratching your movie nerd itch, I would say mission accomplished.



-I thought the boat stuff was awesome. One of the most powerful moments in the film is that convict tossing the detenator out the window.

I'm probably just a knucklehead, but I really didn't know how the boat scene was going to play out. It was nice not knowing -- I think the well-executed unpredictability of the Joker probably factored into my uncertainty.



-The next/final villains would ideally not be in a Burton or Schumacher film

I think it would actually be kinda cool to have Ra's Al Ghul return, maybe with Clayface as the primary villain.