The Dark Knight (GODDAMN SPOILERS)

[Kon_El]

• Harvey's face. He'd have required so much morphine that he wouldn't even be able to move, much less do even a tenth of the shit he did.

Unless there was nerve damage. If the nerves in his "face" are badly damaged he ain't feeling shit.

[CaptainChewbacca]

Telephone junctions are wherever the main line comes in. Depending on your setup it can be on the roof or at ground level. In my years of inspections, I've never seen one in a basement.

Exactly. The telephone line would not come in at the roof of the tall building that housed the bank. It'd probably be underground. The box shown, though, only had pipes running from it into the roof below.

How did you take what I said and interpret that to mean I agree with you? Phone connections NEVER come underground. Fiber-optics, maybe, but not phone.

Even for a money-laundering bank, an entire cubic meter of bills seems over the top.

More over-the-top than a daring daylight robbery by five men in clown masks? Now you're splitting idiotic hairs.

From what I saw, it was four minutes from the time they exited the vehicle to the time that the bus pulled out. Ample time for police to intercept.

If police were called the instant the criminals entered the bank.

In that fall, his cape was not rigid and simply seemed to be flapping in the air. The effect would have been minimal.

Minimal <> 0, and a trained acrobat doesn't need a lot of help to survive things that would kill you or I.

This is a possibility. However, the building security recordings would be thoroughly examined after the incident. The threat of a gun transfer being detected would presumably deter guards or anyone else.

Which is why nobody in prison ever successfully pays a guard to sneak a knife or drugs inside. God you're an idiot.

There are very, very few North Koreans who could afford such services.
The smugglers were stated to be South Korean. Now, why the fuck would these South Korean smugglers even bother to use an aircraft? North Korea can easily bring in whatever it wants, either by ship or through China.
The film implies that the smuggling was not authorized by DPRK authorities, hence the plane, the South Koreans, and the low flight altitude. Evading detection by the military would be impossible.

So, you feel the movie IMPLIES something you don't agree with, and this makes it unrealistic. Idiot.

I can understand there being advanced materials, such as a thin, strong cable. The problem is that the film showed them being jerked very rapidly, implying an unstretchable cable that would result in injury to Batman and/or his hostage.

The cable could have some elastic properties that mitigated the acceleration. People have certainly survived greater incidents without injury. Especially consider that Batman's suit amounts to a harness, and he's supporting his hostage's weight evenly.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=i9DixtwuOsQ
Circa 0:15, fragments can be seen as a result of the shotgun blast.

Paint fragments. If shell fragments had entered the vehicle, there would have been ricochets.

He was a dangerous criminal who had yet to be apprehended, and he somehow managed to execute the bank robbery without capture. He certainly did have an ability to evade the police. Extrapolating this to 'police custody' isn't much of a stretch.

Which is why he was in a locked room without any weapons, in a building full of cops. The only reason he made it out was he'd sewn a large bomb into another guy for a diversion.

Why then would the film even pretend that they're human?

Because in the comic books his name is Harvey Dent and not Kal-El. Idiot.

So because it's a film about BATMAN, it's immune to criticism?

Its not immune to criticism. You can blast the themes, the content, or the acting all you want. Complaining that a movie about the richest man in the world fighting a gripping psychological battle for the soul of a ficticious city against a psychopathic anarchist with a knife fetish isn't realistic... well, that's only something an idiot would do.

Have you even READ a comic book?

Irrelevant. The film tries to be too serious anyway.

I'll take that as a 'no'.

No shit. Except this film spectacularly failed to maintain SoD for longer than three minutes.

If everyone but you seems to think the movie maintained a relatively high level of realism and believability, do you think maybe your standards for the subject material are too high? Or that you're an idiot?

He's a hero/villain. He has special qualities above the average man. Ergo, he was able to survive AND function despite the pain.

And what "special qualities" are those?

For starters, he's batshit crazy.

So I guess you've never heard of the Fulton surface-to-air recovery system.

Dumbass...

That system used a stretchable nylon line, you fucking idiot. Not a motherfucking metal cable. Next time, try reading, imbecile.

The only 'evidence' you have that its a 'metal cable' is that you say it is. As I stated before, we have NO CLUE what space-age-polymer he could've been using.

Are you retarded or something? There hasn't been a big budget Hollywood movie in ages that hasn't relied on tropes, cliches, or bad physics to advance the story.

Just why does the precedent of awful films absolve this one from criticism?

Because your criticism is unjustified and idiotic, and largely based on your OPINION of how things should be, and clashes greatly with most other opinions.

I make no comment on the drama, themes, acting, score, etc. For me, the poor execution as outlined above ruined the entire film.

You might have noticed the twenty other items in my list. Doubtless there were more that I can't remember offhand. It wasn't just a single transgression that led to my conclusion.

Cry to your mama, you pansy whiner. Batman has been praised not just for its content, themes, and acting, but also its BELIEVABILITY. It is by FAR one of, if not the most, believable superhero movie of all time. The fact that you find it so incredibly unbelievable makes you an idiot unable to grasp the nuance of genre in film and to adjust your expectations accordingly.

Idiot.

[ray245]

What kind of fucking idiot goes to a comic-book movie expecting realism?

The film consistently fails to adhere to basic rules of logic, physics, human behavior, etc.

Why wasn't it just a cartoon?

Do you also hate star wars, or star trek? How about Spiderman? How about the Bourne series? Do you also hate and revile every other single action or suspense film ever released?

I won't be surprise if he argued that even a love movie can be unrealistic...

[2000AD]

From what I saw, it was four minutes from the time they exited the vehicle to the time that the bus pulled out. Ample time for police to intercept.

If police were called the instant the criminals entered the bank.

Which they probably weren't, at least from one of the regular people in the street. There's several well documented psychological behaviours:
Bystander Effect
Diffusion of Responsibility
Pluralistic Ignorance

that can easily explain that. If a dozen people can drive past some one laying in the middle of the road it's hardly a stretch to assume no one would ring the police after seeing 3 people run in to a bank, especially since banks are meant to be protected against this sort of thing and have all sorts of systems to alert the police themselves.
And that's the real world, in Gotham City where it's widely known the police are corrupt and the mob have lots of power the chances are reduced even more.

[Publius]

Why then would the film even pretend that they're human?

Because in the comic books his name is Harvey Dent and not Kal-El. Idiot.

As it happens, Two-Face's real name was given in his first appearance as Harvey Kent. It was subsequently changed to Dent to avoid confusion with Superman.

[CaptainChewbacca]

Why then would the film even pretend that they're human?

Because in the comic books his name is Harvey Dent and not Kal-El. Idiot.

As it happens, Two-Face's real name was given in his first appearance as Harvey Kent. It was subsequently changed to Dent to avoid confusion with Superman.

That is an interesting comic-book fact I did not know. Would've been interesting if they'd been cousins or something. Oh well.

[Shroom Man 777]

I just rewatched The Dark Knight and goddamn, it was... mang.

It had emotional resonance.

That's how fucking awesome it is. It destroys all other superhero comic book movies. I mean, those with pretensions of depth, faux drama and characterization, those that aspire to be more but end up being less. Stuff like Spidermang and Stupormang Returns and maybe even the Bulk - they don't come close. (Ironmang gets a pass because it was just all in the name of Good Fun.)

This is as good as it gets, gentlemens.

I mean, damn it. The scenes with the culmination of Harvey Dent's degeneration was just... well, I got a little teary. Goddamn it, man. They made the character so goddamn heart-wrenching. Poor guy.

And, damn. The Joker is the epitome of the movie antagonist. He's pure fucking evil, that's what. There's no rhyme, no reason. Everything he does is directed to cause more human suffering and everything he utters is a lie - he says nothing but lies, nothing but deceit, to further his ultimate goal of perpetuating human suffering. There's no nobility in him, no humor, no tragedy (like, say, being driven mad by a vat of acid). There's no origin, no beginning, no causation. He's just... there. He's just fucking evil.

In Batmang Begins we had Ra's Al Ghul and his goal was to destroy Gotham because he saw that it had become a crime-infested cesspool of human degeneration. He wanted to drown Gotham in the very same excrement it has festered in. He had some misguided and warped sense of justice - a counterpoint to the Dark Knight, the opposite side of the same coin.

In The Dark Knight, the Joker does the exact opposite. He wants to destroy Gotham because he sees that things are changing for the better. He doesn't just want to destroy Gotham, but his goals are the exact opposite of Ra's. He doesn't want justice, there's nothing in him. He's not even out to destroy Gotham. He's out to destroy humanity. He wants to turn people into animals - he wants to warp and erase everything and anything that is good in a person. He did it to Harvey Dent, he nearly did it to the rest of Gotham. He is is inhumanity made manifest.

And, in The Dark Knight - we just see how selfish Batman is. We see an examination of what it is to be a hero - and to be more than a hero. To sacrifice yourself for that purpose. He's lost everyone. Rachel, his childhood friend and his love, the thing that makes him not want to remain Batman. Harvey Dent, his best hope of achieving that goal. He loses friends and allies, Commissioner Gordon has to hunt him down now, and Lucius Fox may abandon him for going too far... But he does it all for Gotham, for the people of Gotham. They might not have the best hero, they might not even have a hero - but someone has to make a stand for them in light of all the madness and inhumanity. He is the goddamn Batman.


Goddamn it.

See, this is what makes a fantastic movie. Chris Nolan didn't render the Batmobile in CGI - enlisting Industrial Light and Magic to do some Transformer/Ironmangy effects for it. He actually paid for a C-130 to fly over the Hong Kong skyline. In Begins, they built parts of Gotham inside a movie set.

Oh no, someone is going to rant about how CGI is inferior to other forms of special effects/miniatures/claymation.

Wrong.

What I am saying is that it's so easy to create spectacles with methods like CGI. You see it in Transformers, you see it in Ironmang, you see it most blatantly in the Spidermang movies. You see it in other three hour spectacles like Lord of the Rings and King Kong. Sam Raimi, Peter Jackson, Micheal Bay, they do it and they do it good and it IS a spectacle.

But it takes true talent, true effort, true skill and true greatness to create a spectacle without these tricks - without light and magic. The means of these effects don't even matter, computer or claymation or models or miniatures.

What we saw in The Dark Knight was a spectacle entirely different from any contemporary summer blockbuster. It was a cerebral spectacle, one brought together not by effects of sights or sounds, but by plot. By actors and actresses. By direction. By interaction. By drama. By character. By talent and skill and sweat and blood and effort.

By goddamn emotional resonance.


Goddamn!

[Bounty]

I've seen TDK two days ago, and I still don't really have an opinion of it. I'm not going to deny that it's a finely-crafted piece of cinema, but I also can't deny that I spent nearly three-quarters of it trying desperately to care and failing.

Ledger and Eckhart, those two were the movie. That's at the same time its draw and its curse: this is a movie that could easily have been made without Batman. If it wasn't for the light-dark knight theme, he'd be little more than an occasional plot device. I'm hard-pressed to think of even one Batman scene that couldn't have been rewritten for a SWAT team, or left out completely; it doesn't help that Bale's Batman is two-dimensional and almost entirely unsympathetic. It's perhaps not Bale's fault as much as the script's, but it's still a serious flaw.

What saves it are the villains, and they're terrific - at the very least, the performances are. I think it's a shame that Dent's story was rushed and that he was written out to soon, but it just about worked. The Joker, meanwhile, was perfectly portrayed and Ledger's Oscar should be a given; if there's anything negative to say about the character it's that he wasn't played off of Batman enough. The Joker's target was the city, Batman was just a tool and foil, not an arch-enemy.

In the end though, I'm not about to go see this movie again. It fails as a Batman movie and if it wasn't for some of the cast I doubt it would have gotten this much praise. In terms of, as Shroom puts it, "emotional resonance", I'd rank this below Iron Man; silly as that movie was, at least you could sympathise with Stark, while Wayne is just... there... doing stuff sometimes. In that respect it's more than a bit like Batman Returns: darker, decent villain, but not much of a superhero movie.

I'd rank it as a solid 6 out of 10, maybe edging towards a 7.

[Stark]

Exploring character and demanding massive sacrifices to better world = fails as a Batman movie? There are whole scenes devoted to nothing but the nature and costs of heroism, Wayne's needs as a person, and the way he does what he does for the city, and not for revenge like other Batman(s). It's the only interesting Batman story for YEARS. While I personally find his outragous outfit jarring in such a low-level, normal film, he's absolutely CENTRAL to events, and the whole plot is deeply personal to him.

[Rye]

Saw it, loved it. Only the Sonar thing really broke it for me, I think that stuff could've been rewritten somehow.

As for Harvey's face putting him so out of it he couldn't do anything, perhaps you missed what happened to him? He underwent such severe psychological trauma that he went nuts and likely "broke in two" internally (as this is the whole basis of the character). People have sawn through their own arms to survive, some people can be hypnotised instead of anaesthetised. It seems within the realms of believability that such a character could undergo tremendous pain and block it off somewhere due to his immense psychological breakdown.

[Shroom Man 777]

Everything that happened in the movie had consequences to Batman, Bounty. The tragedies that happened and all that, they were all his fault (in his POV).

Besides, a lot of shit was happening. Spiderman-style sequences focusing on the emo of the protagonist wouldn't do TDK justice.

As for Harvey's face and pain... his nerve receptors were gone. Those were third-fucking-degree burns. All he'd feel would be... cold.

[Bounty]

Everything that happened in the movie had consequences to Batman, Bounty. The tragedies that happened and all that, they were all his fault (in his POV).

Fair enough. I know that stuff was in the movie, it just didn't come across very well for me. Maybe it's because I never saw Begins; to me, it looked like Batman was just a spoiled playboy beating up small-time crooks and crumbling emotionally the moment someone tried to deconstruct his "good guy" persona. It's all fun and games until people die, that sort of thing... I just couldn't see Batman as either an integral part of what makes Gotham work (thus undermining the whole idea of "Gotham needs a hero, be it Bats or Dent") or as a persona worth protecting in the face of the Joker's ultimatum; when Dent says it's not about protecting a vigilante but about not giving in to terrorists, I could understand his reasoning, but not when Wayne was hemming and hawing about giving up his secret identity. Dude, it's a rubber mask and a cape, not something worth letting other people die for...

There are whole scenes devoted to nothing but the nature and costs of heroism, Wayne's needs as a person, and the way he does what he does for the city, and not for revenge like other Batman(s). It's the only interesting Batman story for YEARS. While I personally find his outragous outfit jarring in such a low-level, normal film, he's absolutely CENTRAL to events, and the whole plot is deeply personal to him.

Again, that's nice and all, but while he's knee-deep in the plot I had a hard time understanding why. He can't walk away, he says; but why can't he, except for his own hangups? The city needs him, they say; but why, when this "need" reeks of informed attribute? He's not a hero in this film, he's a vigilante on the brink of obsolescence, and if it wasn't for him the Joker would not have risen to do the things he did.

Just look at the supposed "grand chase scene": Batman causes massive property damage, endangers dozens of lives, yet in the end he is the one that ends up needing to be saved by Gordon... who would have caught the Joker anyway. Batmans' contribution? Net negative. Well, unless you count losing the Tumbler in that retarded manoeuvre.

[JLTucker]

Do you also hate star wars, or star trek? How about Spiderman? How about the Bourne series? Do you also hate and revile every other single action or suspense film ever released?

He likes Star Wars and the Bourne series. Hates Spiderman.

[Shroom Man 777]

Well... I guess that's the problem then. You didn't see Begins, which dealt with Bats' origins and Bruce Wayne's stuff. I mean, a lot of stuff happens in TDK, so they obviously couldn't retread the stuff in Begins. It's like watching TESB before ANH, you're already in the middle of the story.

[ray245]

In this film...he is already considering of retiring just after ONE year...the whole point of having batman around is to ensure things are better...in a city so corrupt that a terrorist orgainsation can easily infilrate every level of its infrastructure.

The gotham in the BB is a much worse place to be in, but thanks to batman taking down the mob one by one...the city is improving.

In some sense...the whole point for batman to exist in this version of gotham city...to be someone who cannot be touched by the mob. This version of batman did not become batman to beat up criminals like scarecrow and etc...having to take down the crazies is a side effect of his actions.

Moreover, batman is willingly to give himself in, before Dent announced to other people that he is the batman. However, the terrorist we are talking about here is the JOKER ...what makes you think the joker will just stop when batman take off his mask?


Also, if he take of his mask...what makes you think his friends and etc will be safe? He have to consider the safety of the people he cared about, like rachel, alfred and etc.

To most people it is hard to put your loved ones into danger, as compared to people you don't really know.


And the reason why the city needs batman? Simple, because even gordon's own PERSONAL squad is full of corrupt cops.

And did you even watch the chase sequence? The joker is carrying a freaking RPG...without the batman to take the hit, gordon will be blown to hell.


Although this is the first batman film that is a real sequel to the previous film...where alot of backstory has been developed in the previous film.

[Anguirus]

It fails as a Batman movie

Compared to what? You didn't see Begins, so you aren't comparing it to that...so are you comparing it to Burton's Batman? Mask of the Phantasm perhaps?

[Admiral Valdemar]

Fair enough. I know that stuff was in the movie, it just didn't come across very well for me. Maybe it's because I never saw Begins; to me, it looked like Batman was just a spoiled playboy beating up small-time crooks and crumbling emotionally the moment someone tried to deconstruct his "good guy" persona. It's all fun and games until people die, that sort of thing... I just couldn't see Batman as either an integral part of what makes Gotham work (thus undermining the whole idea of "Gotham needs a hero, be it Bats or Dent") or as a persona worth protecting in the face of the Joker's ultimatum; when Dent says it's not about protecting a vigilante but about not giving in to terrorists, I could understand his reasoning, but not when Wayne was hemming and hawing about giving up his secret identity. Dude, it's a rubber mask and a cape, not something worth letting other people die for...

You need to see BB before you can make such comments. It's really not good form to critique something you've only half the story to.

Again, that's nice and all, but while he's knee-deep in the plot I had a hard time understanding why. He can't walk away, he says; but why can't he, except for his own hangups? The city needs him, they say; but why, when this "need" reeks of informed attribute? He's not a hero in this film, he's a vigilante on the brink of obsolescence, and if it wasn't for him the Joker would not have risen to do the things he did.

Just look at the supposed "grand chase scene": Batman causes massive property damage, endangers dozens of lives, yet in the end he is the one that ends up needing to be saved by Gordon... who would have caught the Joker anyway. Batmans' contribution? Net negative. Well, unless you count losing the Tumbler in that retarded manoeuvre.

Already addressed above, but I don't see how the loss of the Tumbler was retarded. You'd rather The Joker blew Dent to itty pieces with an RPG-7 instead? I can imagine Jeremy Clarkson thinking the same with the Lambo incident, yet it served a purpose, namely saving someone's bacon.

If anything, The Joker's ability to really put up a fight speaks more of his devotion to the cause and ruthless efficiency rather than Batman's inability to do anything. I wonder how any of this would have transpired when Lau was well out of Gordon's jurisdiction. That single incident alone justifies the persona of Batman, even if his war against the mob bosses escalated things out-of-control.

[Bounty]

You need to see BB before you can make such comments. It's really not good form to critique something you've only half the story to.

I guess. The last few Batman movies were pretty much stand-alone, or at least got you up to speed quick enough.

[Bounty]

I don't see how the loss of the Tumbler was retarded.

You have a fast tank with rockets and machine guns. The villain has a truck. You have more than enough time to catch up to him and make a jump to intercept an RPG (one, mind; heaven forbid the Joker brought spares)... but you don't have enough time to take a few potshots at the truck, which will at the very least throw off the Joker's aim and very likely make him crash? Naah, that's just too sensible.

You didn't see Begins, so you aren't comparing it to that...so are you comparing it to Burton's Batman?

Yes, mainly. Say what you want about the Burton films, but they at least portrayed a credible Batman.

[Shroom Man 777]

Bounty, dude, what are you on about? I'm totally confused as to why you think it 'fails as a Batman movie'.

I mean, I love the Schumacher films as much as anyone (I LOVE them!), but The Dark Knight is just the fucking raddest thing out there! So far, there's nothing quite like it this movie season - or for the last year's, either!

[Bounty]

Bounty, dude, what are you on about? I'm totally confused as to why you think it 'fails as a Batman movie'.

I mean, I love the Schumacher films as much as anyone (I LOVE them!), but The Dark Knight is just the fucking raddest thing out there! So far, there's nothing quite like it this movie season - or for the last year's, either!

You liked Speed Racer, so your opinion is suspect at best.

And I honestly don't think it's a bad movie, I'm just saying it didn't work for me. I knew what was going on and what message they were trying to convey, but I didn't feel it.

[Shroom Man 777]

I can totally dissonance my guilty pleasure for silly movies and my love for awesome movies.

I can appreciate fun guilt-free silly escapism and time-wasting and differentiate it from cinematic masterpieces of binillion-ball-breaking ass-kicking awesomery.

Have you even SEEN Speed Racer?

[Admiral Valdemar]

You have a fast tank with rockets and machine guns. The villain has a truck. You have more than enough time to catch up to him and make a jump to intercept an RPG (one, mind; heaven forbid the Joker brought spares)... but you don't have enough time to take a few potshots at the truck, which will at the very least throw off the Joker's aim and very likely make him crash? Naah, that's just too sensible.

Given the confined nature of the road, that potshot could have made the juggernaut plough into the truck and take out Harvey anyway. They also wanted The Joker alive, which was a good thing given he had back-up plans in place with his goons. Had he been killed, then anything else he had ready as a back-up would go ahead without his hints (helpful or not). The Tumbler was not in the best of positions for a shot anyway and has no turret capability.

[General Zod]

Star Wars for the most part has consistent rules for the Force and FTL.

Take your backpedaling and shove it up your ass. That sure as fuck isn't what you said you were criticizing, retard. So I'll reiterate my earlier point, why the fuck did you go into a comic-book movie knowing full well what to expect only to nitpick almost every inconsequential aspect of it?

[Rye]

As for Harvey's face and pain... his nerve receptors were gone. Those were third-fucking-degree burns. All he'd feel would be... cold.

No, he was in constant agony, he rejected pain medication. Stated flat out.