Jump to content

Anyone who didn't like The Dark Knight is a tool.


EHK for Darwin

Recommended Posts

[quote]He doesn't totally win, because Gotham's chosen savior is either dead or a monster, and he's hated by all for it, but it's not a total defeat.[/quote]

But the only way they could avert that total defeat was with the 'comforting lie', the manipulating of the huddled masses. That in itself is a partial defeat. Both for batman and the people of the city. There really wasn't too much positive at the end of this film.

[quote]People are saying the Joker switched addresses, but that doesn't make sense to me. I thought the Joker's ultimate goal was to break Harvey and have the people see Harvey fall from grace. So, to me, I thought he'd know that Batman would save Harvey over Rachel. The Joker would have no reason to know Batman has any personal connection to Rachel.[/quote]

As others have mentioned, Batman flat out said he was going after Rachael. The Joker commented that he genuinely believed Dent was Batman at first (interrogation room talk) because of Bat's reaction to the Joker threatening Rachael at the party. The Joker could and did infer from that that Batman had something for Rachael and that given the choice, that's where he'd most likely go.

[quote]No body on the scene that we saw, no shot of her getting blown up, just a voice cut off on a radio.

Dents got a body thats not breathing, dents got a very visible fall, dents got lots of cops hanging about to confirm it, dents got a memorial.

If people want their conspiracy cake and think its valid then they should have to deal with all comers.[/quote]

If you look at it from a film perspective, there's simply no reason for Rachael to be alive. She's not a canon character. There's no real need for her in future films. It would be an incredibly cheap horseshit copout if she did live, essentially compromising all of the 'oh shit, anything might happen here!' credibility the film had previously built up.

Dent's character very likely could fill an essential role in future films. (going by the last thread, the two most acceptable villains for this particular Batman franchise would be the Riddler or Dent) He's already established and there's every reason to believe he could be a quality villain. It'd be a bit of a copout, but they could always pull the 'well he died metaphorically' Star Wars/ESB bullshit and say Dent is gone, but Two-face lives. Yeah its a tad cheap, but he was a good character. i'd deal. The mobster being shoved from 2-3 stories and living could very well be foreshadowing of Dent's own fall, which didn't appear that high either.

Considering this, I think its perfectly reasonable to take the position that Rachael is dead but Two-face isn't. Honestly, I think the status of Two-face isn't set in stone. Its a film-maker call. There's wiggle-room to bring him back. Whether they do or not is up to them. But I don't think anyone can say right now with full certainty whether the character is alive or dead atm.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[url="http://cdn2.libsyn.com/creativescreenwritingmag/TheDarkKnightQandA.mp3?nvb=20080723044214&nva=20080724044214&t=03dd78f338786a873affe"]An interview with Nolan[/url] about the film. Really interesting. And I think puts to rest the whole "He's not dead" thing. And definitely puts to rest the "Batman doesn't kill people" thing.

A good quote:
[quote]He's attempting to fight the most hostile criminals without taking life. This is close to a fool's errand but it's why we love him. It's one of the reasons his character is so enduring because of this kind of insane choice he's made, to be so good at what he does that he can save everyone. And to me, and everyone has a different take on how to do this, but the best way to explore that idea is to challenge it. It's too easy to say 'I don't kill people.' We have to see that in action. And to me the paradox is he can't kill the Joker and he isn't trying to kill Harvey Dent, but of course if you're out here doing this, kind of what Alfred says to him in code, if you want to be out here doing this invariably something is going to go wrong. And the paradox at the end, the biting part is that he has to save the Joker because he has a chance to, and Harvey Dent pays the price because he's going to kill an innocent. And it's a conundrum.[/quote]
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll agree with the thread title, with a small caveat: one of my wifes ditzy friends didn't like the movie because "you find out much about Batman". She went to see the movie as a standalone, and basically forgot everything that happened in Batman Begins.

Doesn't make her less of a tool, but it seems like some people I've met don't think of this as another installment of Nolan's set of Batman movies, and want it to be a self-encapsulated story in the movie.

Which is complete crap, especially considering that comics are typically in a serial format across a story arc, and I felt forced to point out that if she wanted more of Batman, she should have watched the first Nolan movie before seeing this one.

Now, I'm going to be hypocritical here, and say no matter what the next movie is going to involve, I will go see it. It could be titled "Batman Punches Aquaman for Two Hours", and I'd still pay $10. TDK was that good.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='CarpathianTheVigo' post='1452442' date='Jul 23 2008, 11.15']I'll agree with the thread title, with a small caveat: one of my wifes ditzy friends didn't like the movie because "you find out much about Batman". She went to see the movie as a standalone, and basically forgot everything that happened in Batman Begins.

Doesn't make her less of a tool, but it seems like some people I've met don't think of this as another installment of Nolan's set of Batman movies, and want it to be a self-encapsulated story in the movie.

Which is complete crap, especially considering that comics are typically in a serial format across a story arc, and I felt forced to point out that if she wanted more of Batman, she should have watched the first Nolan movie before seeing this one.[/quote]

I've read people complaining about that as well and I agree with you 100%. I wouldn't have minded seeing more Wayne/Batman but I don't think there was any need to go into more characterization of Batman since the whole last movie was about him. I do think a stronger scene about him being upset after Rachel died wouldn't have been a bad thing.

But these are all very minor issues.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't like Batman therefore I am a tool. What the hell does that mean, anyway? The more I hear about this movie, the more I'm glad I didn't bother to see it. I was in the theater Friday, the time was right but the inclination was not there. The main problem? I saw Batman Begins. To say I wasn't impressed would be an understatement. I've been trying to figure out the exact why for years...

[quote]He's attempting to fight the most hostile criminals without taking life. This is close to a fool's errand but it's why we love him. It's one of the reasons his character is so enduring because of this kind of insane choice he's made, to be so good at what he does that he can save everyone. And to me, and everyone has a different take on how to do this, but the best way to explore that idea is to challenge it. It's too easy to say 'I don't kill people.' We have to see that in action. And to me the paradox is he can't kill the Joker and he isn't trying to kill Harvey Dent, but of course if you're out here doing this, kind of what Alfred says to him in code, if you want to be out here doing this invariably something is going to go wrong. And the paradox at the end, the biting part is that he has to save the Joker because he has a chance to, and Harvey Dent pays the price because he's going to kill an innocent. And it's a conundrum.[/quote]

Nolan hasn't a clue on Bruce Wayne's vigilantism, huh? Sometimes it takes a criminal to stop a criminal but sometimes you have to stop them dead as it's the only way. It's the reason I prefer Batman and Batman Returns over Batman Begins. Rocket packing penguins because Oswald Cobblepot is crazy freak or just freaking crazy? I'd still take that over Ras Al Ghul and Stephen Crane {Wow, an integral part of the Scarecrow is that he's a professor who pulls a loaded gun on his class in order to scare the crap out of them and the filmmakers elect not to use that aspect of him. Daring, they are not}.

Hell, even Raimi's Peter Parker let the Green Goblin, Doc Ock and Venom die and that's suppose to be a pussy, sunny series compared to the darker Batman.

Sad statement on the classic vigilante character. "He's attempting to fight the most hostile criminals without taking life." Well, in the comic, there is such a thing a reoccuring characters. I had this argument before about the original Batman using a gun. His gun eventually became a far less lethal "batarang" because you just can't keep killing all of the characters you introduce unless you're as inventive as Dick Tracy's Chester Gould but the best Batman stories always kept a bit of this edge to the character. Yes, he could just kill his "arch enemies" but as that would make him like them, Wayne doesn't. But he should never go out of his way to save them over someone else if called upon because they are murderers and such. What paradox is there? Nolan should have just gave Wayne a badge if he wanted to go this way.

And there's my problem with Nolan's Batman. When your friendly neighborhood Spider-Man is more Batman than Batman is, you've got trouble.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Saw it last night and I have to say it was awesome. The 2.5 hours went by in a flash and I was upset when it was over. All the praise for Ledger's performance it completely and totally deserved. It is always good when you are laughing at something that you KNOW you should not be laughing at.

Gordon's little speech at the end is the only real thing I didn't much care for.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Fatuous' post='1452517' date='Jul 23 2008, 11.51']I don't like Batman therefore I am a tool.[/quote]

You really didn't need to bother with the rest.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Fatuous' post='1452517' date='Jul 23 2008, 11.51']Sad statement on the classic vigilante character. "He's attempting to fight the most hostile criminals without taking life." Well, in the comic, there is such a thing a reoccuring characters. I had this argument before about the original Batman using a gun. His gun eventually became a far less lethal "batarang" because you just can't keep killing all of the characters you introduce unless you're as inventive as Dick Tracy's Chester Gould but the best Batman stories always kept a bit of this edge to the character. Yes, he could just kill his "arch enemies" but as that would make him like them, Wayne doesn't. But he should never go out of his way to save them over someone else if called upon because they are murderers and such. What paradox is there? Nolan should have just gave Wayne a badge if he wanted to go this way.

And there's my problem with Nolan's Batman. When your friendly neighborhood Spider-Man is more Batman than Batman is, you've got trouble.[/quote]

Maybe I'm missing something but when did he go out of his way to save them over someone else?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote]I don't like Batman therefore I am a tool. What the hell does that mean, anyway? The more I hear about this movie, the more I'm glad I didn't bother to see it.[/quote]

Yeah, this is about as far as anyone needs to go. You're talking shit but haven't seen the film. You apparently think seeing Begins tells you everything you need to know about TDK and lets you dismiss it out of hand. Utter horseshit. I liked Begins. This was 10 times the film that was.

[quote]And there's my problem with Nolan's Batman. When your friendly neighborhood Spider-Man is more Batman than Batman is, you've got trouble.[/quote]

Spidey occasionally wacking a fool doesn't necessarily make him any more or less edgy than Batman. Its simply not something Spidey is preoccupied with. For Batman its one of the centerpieces of his character and ideology. That he never takes that extra step, that he avoids it whenever possible, is how he makes the internal moral distinction between himself and the criminals he's unlawfully hunting. Its not present in all incarnations of Batman, but there have been dozens of takes on Batman through the years and the film just happened to pick up on this one.

And the quote called it a 'fool's errand' and it is to some extent treated as such. Its no secret that violating this 'code' once or twice could save lives and be in the best interests of everyone. The film doesn't try to hide that. And there are consequences for those tendencies that are made clear at the end where the Joker alludes to them playing this game 'again and again'. Of course everytime through, innocent people will die. And they'll die because Batman didn't kill the Joker. The code is in no way portrayed as an absolute positive, quite the opposite at times really. And his struggle with it could be an interesting side theme for the third film.

Also if you'd seen the film, you'd know that it pulled almost no punches. By the end you were perfectly willing to believe that this film could, might, and would violate every Hollywood taboo. (happy endings? out. Wacking love interests! why not? Killing kids? Yessir!)

Seriously...watch the fricken movie than comment.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am a tool. I hated Batman. Completely overhyped and stretched the credibility of all the characters involved. I mean, come on. Nipples on a bat suit?




Oh, you mean the Dark Knight? I haven't seen it yet. Next week, when we can get a babysitter.

/skips out of the thread before he reads a spoiler.

ETA: You all suck for being able to see this the first week it's out. :P

:)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Il Chiarimento' post='1452620' date='Jul 23 2008, 12.30']Seriously...watch the fricken movie than comment.[/quote]


Or better yet, dont write 4 paragraph responses to someone who hasnt seen the movie and thinks differently about it than you do.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Il Chiarimento' post='1452309' date='Jul 23 2008, 10.00']As others have mentioned, Batman flat out said he was going after Rachael. The Joker commented that he genuinely believed Dent was Batman at first (interrogation room talk) because of Bat's reaction to the Joker threatening Rachael at the party. The Joker could and did infer from that that Batman had something for Rachael and that given the choice, that's where he'd most likely go.[/quote]

That kind of makes sense, but why would joker assume that Batman would rescue his person but Gordon and police couldn't theirs? Is the bat-motorcycles that much faster than a squad car?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Ericxihn' post='1452856' date='Jul 23 2008, 14.00']That kind of makes sense, but why would joker assume that Batman would rescue his person but Gordon and police couldn't theirs? Is the bat-motorcycles that much faster than a squad car?[/quote]

The Joker didn't care. Whichever one he went to save, they would die cause he'd go to the wrong place.

And wasn't something rigged so that if you moved one, the other blew up? I don't remember.

[quote]Or better yet, dont write 4 paragraph responses to someone who hasnt seen the movie and thinks differently about it than you do.[/quote]

Heaven forbid you be required to know wtf your talking about before commenting on how much the movie sucks.

PS - I hear ADWD is complete and utter shite.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Shryke' post='1452862' date='Jul 23 2008, 14.02']Heaven forbid you be required to know wtf your talking about before commenting on how much the movie sucks.

PS - I hear ADWD is complete and utter shite.[/quote]


Nerd rage FTW.

And i wouldnt be surprised bout aDwD.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Fatuous' post='1452517' date='Jul 23 2008, 11.51']I'd still take that over Ras Al Ghul....Hell, even Raimi's Peter Parker let the Green Goblin, Doc Ock and Venom die and that's suppose to be a pussy, sunny series compared to the darker Batman.[/quote]


Batman had no problem letting Ghul die. He could have saved him if he really wanted to but didnt. Peter Parker didnt really have a choice in any of those deaths....well at least GG and Doc Ock. Both technically killed themselves. The 3rd one was so convuluted I cant remember how Venom bit it in the end. So to say Spiderman out-batmans Batman doesnt really hold up.

I think you should check out this movie though. You might find that its better than you expect
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote]That kind of makes sense, but why would joker assume that Batman would rescue his person but Gordon and police couldn't theirs? Is the bat-motorcycles that much faster than a squad car?[/quote]

Batman >>>>> Incompetent cops. Best explanation I got.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...