Batman: The Dark Knight - Movie Thread - $158.3 Million First Weekend

[quote name='gareman']I don't understand why people say all these villains won't fit into Nolan's movies? I mean Begins had Scarecrow! I would love to see Clayface, Scarface (That's a lot of faces), or the Riddler. Nolan's brother has said that it won't be Cat Women or Penguin. I would love (kinda half joking) to see Rainn Wilson play the Riddler.[/quote]

Scarecrow isn't really an A-list Batman villain, but fine for that film, being that it wasn't really centered on Batman vs. villain(s) as the previous movies were (and even as The Dark Knight is). Nonetheless, Scarecrow is a villain that can be based within the realm of believability, which was a theme of Batman Begins and this series of movies. Scarecrow and Rhas Al-Ghul are recognizable B-List Batman rogues that have believable attributes and back stories.

With that said, there's no way in hell that Clayface will be in this line of movies. That would totally not fit in with the theme/style of Nolan's Batman films, nor would the studio allow Clayface to even be in the discussion - same thing goes for Killer Croc and Man-Bat. Many of the other villains are fine, but just not well-known, fleshed-out, or cared about enough to make it into a major motion picture.
 
[quote name='Deadpool']No one else will be the Joker. There's dozens of Villans in the DC universe that could be used.

Riddler, Madd Hatter, Killer Croc, Bane, Poison Ivy, Harley Quinn (as an obsessed fan maybe), Clayface, Catwoman, Black Mask, Deathstroke (DC's Deadpool :) ), Mr. Freeze, The Penguin, Hugo Strange, Monarch of Menace, Pix, The Clock King, Phantasm, Toymaker, Radiation Roy.

I say go off the beaten path with Hugo Strange as the hidden threat and Toymaker as the immediate one.[/quote]
I think that catwoman will be next. When he gets his new armor, he asks if it will stop a dog, they say probably or something to that affect, and then they say it will definitely stop a cat. Bale gave a little smirk and there you have it. Of the remaining villains from the older movies, I would definitely like to see catwoman first.
 
the pencil scene omfg the pencil

I was confused on the save
dent or Rachael scene. Did he want to save dent or did joker give the wrong address?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='panasonic']I was confused on the save
dent or Rachael scene. Did he want to save dent or did joker give the wrong address?
[/QUOTE]

A lot of people are unsure.

I personally think
he wasn't tricked
, but I could definitely be wrong. I'll pay a lot closer attention to that scene when I watch it in Imax.
 
More deep post now:

It was excellent. Never dragged at all. Heath was excellent. Still hate Bale's Batman voice. Was incredibly surprised they killed Rachel.

However.

There was a terrible, terrible woman a couple rows behind me. Here are some of the questions she asked her male compatriot during the movie:

"Who is he/she?"xAmount of people in the movie
"Is he also Batman?"
"Why are there more than one Batman?"
"What happened to the pencil?"
"What are they doing/why are they doing that/what happened?"xInfinity
"Who is Dent?"
"Is he dead?"
"When did he die?"
"Is she dead?"
"What are those?"
"Is he really dead?"

Shut the fuck up. It's one thing to watch a Batman movie without knowledge of Batman characters; it's another to not be able to follow the fucking film on the screen in front of you.
 
On saving Rachel/Harvey:
About the save Rachel/Harvey scene. Batman clearly says he's going for Rachel, so Gordon goes for Harvey. Joker switched the locations so that Batman would end up saving Harvey instead. This is what set up Harvey losing it, he blamed Batman and Gordon for letting Rachel die. Joker needed something to cause Harvey to get pissed off about, losing Rachel sent him over the edge, he felt betrayed by the two men he trusted most.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
that catwoman observation is interesting i didn't notice that

did anyone else think that two face looked rather lame? there were exposed bones in his face and his eyeball.. everything looked fake. i would have much preferred just a charred flesh/ severe burn victim look that actually appeared real and actually repulsive

the scene with the joker w/o makeup was too quick to really process, you just get a quick flash to know it's him and then it cracks on

edit: see i thought i heard batman say "go FOR rachel".. so i didn't think he was tricked

and god if that woman was talking loud enough to be audible a couple of rows back... god man. you have patience not to say anything
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='Liquid 2']A lot of people are unsure.

I personally think
he wasn't tricked
, but I could definitely be wrong. I'll pay a lot closer attention to that scene when I watch it in Imax.[/quote]


same i saw it in dlp since imax was sold out. I plan on seeing it again next week. :D
 
[quote name='tehweezner']that catwoman observation is interesting i didn't notice that

did anyone else think that two face looked rather lame? there were exposed bones in his face and his eyeball.. everything looked fake. i would have much preferred just a charred flesh/ severe burn victim look that actually appeared real and actually repulsive

the scene with the joker w/o makeup was too quick to really process, you just get a quick flash to know it's him and then it cracks on
[/quote]

i thought it was amazing, all i could think of was terminator the first time i saw it
 
I'm positive now that the joker told Batman the opposite address for each person. As in he said Rachel is at X, Dent's at Y, while in reality Dent's at X & Rachel is at Y
 
[quote name='JolietJake']On saving Rachel/Harvey:
About the save Rachel/Harvey scene. Batman clearly says he's going for Rachel, so Gordon goes for Harvey. Joker switched the locations so that Batman would end up saving Harvey instead. This is what set up Harvey losing it, he blamed Batman and Gordon for letting Rachel die. Joker needed something to cause Harvey to get pissed off about, losing Rachel sent him over the edge, he felt betrayed by the two men he trusted most.
[/quote]
Yep, I clearly remember Batman telling Gordon he was going for Rachael.
[quote name='Rocko']Shouldn't be makeup in the first place, damnit. :lol:[/quote]
#-o
From the Joker wiki:
Though many have been related, a definitive backstory has never been established for the Joker in the comics, and his real name has never been confirmed. He has been portrayed as lying so often about his former life that he himself is confused as to what actually happened.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
This movie was clearly about making hard choices and sacrifices. If Bruce had to make the choice, he would have saved Rachael , but as Batman he had to do what was best for Gotham because they needed Dent more than Rachael.

Btw did anyone catch what she said just as the bomb went off? I didn't catch it.
 
[quote name='JohnnyFoxDarko']#-o
From the Joker wiki:[/quote]
As I said earlier in this thread, and it also happens to be in the same article you cited:

The most widely cited backstory can be seen in The Killing Joke... Terrified, the engineer leaps over a rail and plummets into a vat of chemicals. When he surfaces in the nearby reservoir, he removes the hood and sees his reflection: bleached chalk-white skin, ruby-red lips, and green hair. These events, coupled with his other misfortunes that day, drive the engineer completely insane, resulting in the birth of the Joker.
Click to expand...

As well as:

The first origin account, Detective Comics #168 (February 1951), revealed that... After committing the theft, which Batman thwarts, Red Hood falls into a vat of chemical waste. He emerges with bleached white skin, red lips, green hair, and a permanent grin.
Click to expand...

And:
The second arc of Batman Confidential (#7-12)... (states that he) falls into an empty vat. Wild gunfire punctures the chemical tanks above him, and the resultant flood of toxins alters his appearance to that of the Joker.
Click to expand...

Each one has varying details about many aspects of his origin: His lifestyle, his sanity, and his reasons for being near a chemical plant. There is no definitive backstory, but each agrees that he is permanently disfigured by chemicals, one of which is the comic written specifically about the Joker.
 
I'm glad they didn't do a back story for the Joker.

All of the "falling into a vat of chemicals" origins are incredibly cliche and was already done in the original Batman movie - which I'm sure Nolan and co. were rightfully and understandably trying to distance themselves from.

Once again, this line of movies is going for realism and seriousness, which any silly and too "comic-bookey" origin for the Joker would have undermined; as well as effectively diminish the mystique of Nolan's Joker.
 
Those transformations due to exposure to chemicals don't work in these Batman movies like they do in many other superhero movies though.


I definitely prefer the came-out-of-nowhere/response-to-Batman Joker since he seems more like a force of nature and the exact antithesis to Batman.
 
I don't think he should've had an origin presented, I just think that the whole makeup thing was a little much, especially the scene with absolutely no makeup.
 
The make-up is just part of his persona and character. You wouldn't like the Joker as much if he didn't have his make-up, would you?
 
[quote name='Rocko']Each one has varying details about many aspects of his origin: His lifestyle, his sanity, and his reasons for being near a chemical plant. There is no definitive backstory, but each agrees that he is permanently disfigured by chemicals, one of which is the comic written specifically about the Joker.[/quote]
Yeah, but it seems you think the vat origin is the only one, or better yet, the right one.

[quote name='2Fast']I'm glad they didn't do a back story for the Joker.

All of the "falling into a vat of chemicals" origins are incredibly cliche and was already done in the original Batman movie - which I'm sure Nolan and co. were rightfully and understandably trying to distance themselves from.

Once again, this line of movies is going for realism and seriousness, which any silly and too "comic-bookey" origin for the Joker would have undermined; as well as effectively diminish the mystique of Nolan's Joker.[/quote]

[quote name='Liquid 2']Those transformations due to exposure to chemicals don't work in these Batman movies like they do in many other superhero movies though.


I definitely prefer the came-out-of-nowhere/response-to-Batman Joker since he seems more like a force of nature and the exact antithesis to Batman.[/quote]
Yep.

[quote name='Rocko']I don't think he should've had an origin presented, I just think that the whole makeup thing was a little much, especially the scene with absolutely no makeup.[/quote]
I don't see how it could have been done any other way without looking ridiculous. The make-up gave him a very gritty look that went very well with the ambiance of the movie.
 
[quote name='Liquid 2']The make-up is just part of his persona and character. You wouldn't like the Joker as much if he didn't have his make-up, would you?[/quote]

I'm discussing the idea of makeup vs. bleached skin, as in his origin, not having white skin or normal skin.

[quote name='JohnnyFoxDarko']Yeah, but it seems you think the vat origin is the only one, or better yet, the right one.[/quote]
The most widely used, in this case.

I don't see how it could have been done any other way without looking ridiculous. The make-up gave him a very gritty look that went very well with the ambiance of the movie.
Click to expand...
I just think some fanservice was in order here. Of course it didn't make the movie bad or anything, but I feel as if it would've been nice not to do things like show his makeup rubbing off in the interrogation scene or, worse, show him completely without it, as a nod to the original comic.

I'm not saying make him look like Nicholson with the 100% white face, I think his look was fine.
 
[quote name='Rocko']I just think some fanservice was in order here. Of course it didn't make the movie bad or anything, but I feel as if it would've been nice not to do things like show his makeup rubbing off in the interrogation scene or, worse, show him completely without it, as a nod to the original comic.

I'm not saying make him look like Nicholson with the 100% white face, I think his look was fine.[/quote]
Ok, say they did have that origin story in the movie.
How would you feel about 20-30 minutes of the movie being replaced with the clichè vat origin? It would just feel too tacked on.
 
...Except I already said I don't think they should've had an origin story for him. It was perfect the way it was, with him just appearing.
 
So, what are you saying?
[quote name='Rocko']I'm not saying make him look like Nicholson with the 100% white face, I think his look was fine.[/quote]


[quote name='Rocko']Shouldn't be makeup in the first place, damnit. :lol:[/quote]

[quote name='Rocko']I don't think he should've had an origin presented, I just think that the whole makeup thing was a little much, especially the scene with absolutely no makeup.[/quote]

[quote name='Rocko']
The Joker doesn't wear makeup, and Two Face wasn't burned.

It was fantastic, though.[/quote]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='JohnnyFoxDarko']No, I just phrased it wrong.
I just really don't know what you're defending anymore.[/quote]

Then you're just not paying attention and it isn't worth the time to explain it to you. I've presented myself and my opinions quite clearly.

[quote name='ITDEFX']Does anyone think it would have been more personal to batman if Dent and Bruce were long time good friends?[/quote]
That's a good question.
Looking at it from a dual-personality side of things, Dent was the best friend Batman could have, as he was relieving him from duty. However, as Bruce Wayne, Rachael was the most important. The choice certainly would have been more difficult.
 
Just got back from the theater, The Dark Knight was simply stunning...I'm speechless. I can't wait to see it again tomorrow.
 
[quote name='ITDEFX']
This movie was clearly about making hard choices and sacrifices. If Bruce had to make the choice, he would have saved Rachael , but as Batman he had to do what was best for Gotham because they needed Dent more than Rachael.
[/quote]

That's what I think as well. I certainly can get why people would think he went for Rachael, but to be honest because of the damn voice Bale uses as Batman I didn't clearly make out who he says he's going for. Hopefully I'll be able to make out clearly next time I see it, but until I can actually hear it and actually make out what he says I don't buy the whole Joker switched the addresses story.
 
[quote name='Mid Boss']
That's what I think as well. I certainly can get why people would think he went for Rachael, but to be honest because of the damn voice Bale uses as Batman I didn't clearly make out who he says he's going for. Hopefully I'll be able to make out clearly next time I see it, but until I can actually hear it and actually make out what he says I don't buy the whole Joker switched the addresses story.
[/quote]

He said "I'm going for Rachael". Something like that. He never meant to go for Dent.
 
Does it really matter about the Joker's origin?

The movie was awesome either way, easily best comic book movie ever
 
[quote name='Theduck']
He said "I'm going for Rachael". Something like that. He never meant to go for Dent.
[/quote]

Something like that? So you have some doubt as to what he actually said? Like I said, I get why people think the Joker switched addresses, but no one is going to convince me until I can hear this line myself. And because of that stupid voice Bale has to use as Batman I'm not entirely clear on what was actually said. I just think it's more in line with his character to ultimately choose Dent over Rachael.
 
[quote name='Mid Boss']
Something like that? So you have some doubt as to what he actually said? Like I said, I get why people think the Joker switched addresses, but no one is going to convince me until I can hear this line myself. And because of that stupid voice Bale has to use as Batman I'm not entirely clear on what was actually said. I just think it's more in line with his character to ultimately choose Dent over Rachael.
[/quote]
but...
isn't it more in line with Joker's character to know that Bruce would choose Rachael over Harvey, so by telling him the wrong locations, he gets to play with his mind and he gets Batman to rescue the person that he really wants him to rescue in Harvey? I'm 99.99% sure this is how it went down, but as others have said, with Bale's lion voice, I missed a lot of what he said during the movie.
 
[quote name='Michael Scott']but...
isn't it more in line with Joker's character to know that Bruce would choose Rachael over Harvey, so by telling him the wrong locations, he gets to play with his mind and he gets Batman to rescue the person that he really wants him to rescue in Harvey? I'm 99.99% sure this is how it went down, but as others have said, with Bale's lion voice, I missed a lot of what he said during the movie.
[/QUOTE]

I was at a theater with an awesome sound system, he 100 percent said i'm going for Rachel as he ran out. So unless he changed his mind 1.2 seconds later I think the Joker gave the wrong address
 
From what I remember, The line was
Gordon: Who are you going for? (Something along that context)
Batman: Racheal!
It was pretty clear in my head as when he saw kent in the building, everyone in the theater was a bit confused.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top