The Dark Knight

[Dirt]

http://movies.yahoo.com/mv/news/va/20080727/121719073700.html

Best 2nd weekend ever. Pretty impressive. 98% of all movies would love to hit $75 million on their first weekend.

[Machfive]

The GF and I went to the Henry Ford museum today, which has one of the only 2 IMAX theaters in the Metro area. When we arrived at noon, the 4 Batman shows they had for the whole day, going to 8pm, were already sold out.

I don't know if this is indicative of IMAX sales elsewhere, but it impressed us that a 2nd week movie was selling out shows at least 8 hours ahead of time.

[Andrew Mayer]

I'd heard that two weeks of IMax showings nation wide were sold out before opening day.

[Brandon Clements]

I don't know about that; the one I went to see it at on Wednesday this week was about 80% full. Though for a Wednesday matinee that's pretty much a full house.

Also for IMAX attendees: was the sound badly mixed? I can't tell if it was my theater or not, but the FX and sound track was so loud that much of the dialogue wasn't audible.

[DennyA]

Seattle's IMAX has been sold out. I tried to go last weekend as part of my birthday celebration, no dice. Went today, but only because I bought tickets last weekend. They were sold out by Monday. Insane line to get in.

IMAX sound was just fine in Seattle, Brandon.

And DAMN, that was a dark film. Ledger was amazing, and ick, Two Face's makeup was nasty, particularly when viewed on an 80-foot screen. Technically an awesome film, but so deep into the dark side of things that I didn't enjoy it as much as Iron Man, even if Dark Night was technically better-scripted and shot.

[TimElhajj]

Hans Solo my friend. Hans Solo*.

[DennyA]

Uh, Tim, you might want to take that to the Spoiler Topic (http://www.quartertothree.com/game-talk/showthread.php?p=1409983#post1409983). Nothing major in your message, but this is supposed to be spoiler-free.

Also, "Hans Solo?" Damn, your entire geek cred shot with one typed character. :)

[TimElhajj]

ha, ha. Hans Solo. That's like jacking off with one hand!

[Rimbo]

http://www.shortpacked.com/comics/20080730beetlejuice.png (http://www.shortpacked.com/)

[Equis]

another one?

Dude, you have your own thread for this nonsense!

[Rob_Merritt]

Think Dark knight will be able to be number one next weekend? If it slips 42% again (and it could slip less) then it would have a $25 million weekend. Mummy 3 didn't beat it last weekend and I'm fairly sure its going to flop hard and be really far down on the charts.

Opening next weekend it:
Pineapple Express
The Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants 2 (wut?)

I don't see either one of these taking in more that $25 million. I'm thinking TDK will dominate for a fourth week. After that either Star Wars: The Clone Wars, or Tropic Thunder (which I've been told is the funniest Tom Cruise movie ever????) will beat it on the 15th.

[Bahimiron]

Answer: Yes. It made 43 mill and Mummy made 42 mill.

However, Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants 2 shattered non-holiday weekend records by opening at a staggering 74 million.*

*I made this up.

[Andrew Mayer]

I don't see either one of these taking in more that $25 million. I'm thinking TDK will dominate for a fourth week. After that either Star Wars: The Clone Wars, or Tropic Thunder (which I've been told is the funniest Tom Cruise movie ever????) will beat it on the 15th.

I'd be willing to take a small bet that Pineapple Express can beat it. People are going to be looking for something different, and a good R rated Apatow comedy may be just the ticket.

[Problematique]

ha, ha. Hans Solo. That's like jacking off with one hand!

lol

I had to laugh at that.

[metta]

Sula and I just went to see this and were both underwhelmed. I guess I can't discuss it without spoilers so I'll just say this:

7/10

[Angie Gallant]

http://truemeaningoflife.com/images/bane2.jpg

[Mordrak]

Is that Bane and why does he have a hairy back but not a hairy chest?

[Angie Gallant]

Yes, and because he's Bane, he can have body hair anywhere he damn well feels like it.

[Euri]

http://image.blingee.com/images15/content/output/000/000/000/3fa/243589881_1764788.gif?4

[Mordrak]

Yes, and because he's Bane, he can have body hair anywhere he damn well feels like it.

Well I certainly wouldn't criticize him to his face, good thing he wears a mask. Heh.

[bago]

Oh Snap!

[Nellie]

Went tonight, /fanboi "Best Batman evar"

Brilliant film... just noticed that I'm not in the spoilers thread so going there....

[Rock8man]

I went to see it again this afternoon. I hadn't been able to get a ticket for the IMAX showing, so I took off early from work and went to the afternoon showing.

If anyone here has the opportunity to go see it on IMAX, do it. It was such a huge improvement. I had no idea that large portions of the movie were actually shot with IMAX cameras. That became very clear with the opening shot of the movie though, as most of the opening bank heist scene is in IMAX.

[Wholly Schmidt]

I'm leaving right now to see it in Charlotte's IMAX!

[Wholly Schmidt]

And it was great! Although sitting in that IMAX makes every seat feel like the front row. I'd never recommend an IMAX showing for someone's first (and potentially only) viewing though; you need to know the movie well enough that you can live with some confusion in close or fast scenes.

[John Merva]

Actually, I am booked in to see it on Friday at the Imax - my first viewing and my first ever time at an Imax - can't wait!

[Wholly Schmidt]

If you can't tell what's going on, Batman's hurting people. That's most of what you need to know.

[Bahimiron]

I usually love seeing movies in IMAX.

Though the last Harry Potter had these 3D parts that were just fucking awful. If HBP has 3D scenes, I imagine I'll just be seeing it at the AMC at Boston Common.

[John Merva]

If you can't tell what's going on, Batman's hurting people. That's most of what you need to know.

Thanks for the tip!! :)

[Enduro_Man]

Robert Downey, Jr.: "You know what? Fuck DC Comics." (http://www.moviehole.net/200814729-interview-robert-downey-jr-2)

Warning: Mild spoilers precede the above quote.

[jeansberg]

He sounds like a bit of an ass. ;)

[bago]

Well, he is right about Holmes. He was a costumed bare knuckle fighting coke-head weirdo.

[Rob_Merritt]

Robert Downey, Jr.: "You know what? Fuck DC Comics." (http://www.moviehole.net/200814729-interview-robert-downey-jr-2)

Warning: Mild spoilers precede the above quote.

I loved that quote.

[Justin Fletcher]

Well, he is right about Holmes. He was a costumed bare knuckle fighting coke-head weirdo.
Jeremy Brett (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeremy_Brett) beat him to that interpretation. Still, RDJ should be fun to watch.

[Machfive]

How did RDJ not get Dark Knight? I always had huge respect for Downy, and he always seemed like a pretty intelligent guy, but christ. If you don't get The Dark Knight, you've fried one too many synapses.

[RobotPants]

I suspect he was just being a dick, what with the "fuck DC Comics" part.

[Talisker]

Jeremy Brett (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeremy_Brett) beat him to that interpretation. Still, RDJ should be fun to watch.
Agreed. Downey will be entertaining, but Brett's take on the role is definitive.

[mike]

Part of me wonders if the RDJ comment was just his weird sense of humor, and he really wasn't being serious. If he was, well...it just comes off being sore that his comic movie wasn't the biggest of the summer. I enjoyed Iron Man (mostly because of his performance) - but TDK was just a whole different level of movie, for me.

[Hanacker]

I think it's one of those things where it may come off differently on paper from how he said it orally. It's a weird quote.

[nabeel]

BTW the movie script is finally available to buy and therefore has made its way online. According to it [SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER]. (http://www.mtv.com/movies/news/articles/1593180/20080820/story.jhtml)

[Bahimiron]

but mabbe ras algul wil put him in a lazrus pit D:

[TurinTuramba]

There seems to be a theme with spoilers in this thread.[/URL]

Good to know.

[nabeel]

Ah shit, sincerely sorry about that, I meant to post it in the spoiler thread and I guess I fucked up.
: (

[Machfive]

Just saw it in theaters again. This is the best movie I've seen in years. It was even better the second time through, just like BB was.

[nabeel]

Depp commented on the whole Riddler thing. (http://www.superheroflix.com/news/46/30946.php)


Hey Johnny, a listener called in earlier said you have to ask about the rumors on the internet of you doing the Riddler.

Johnny Depp: Oh yeah, I heard about that. Not that I know of.

You'd be a good choice.

Johnny Depp: It seems like it'd be a fun gig for a while, yeah.

[Andrew Mayer]

It seems like Depp plays things a bit broader than Nolan might want.

[Kaigen]

I don't like Depp because he seems like such an obvious choice. One of the great things about Ledger was that his performance was so unexpected, so unusual. I couldn't see how he was going to play it and was blown away by how he did. Depp I can easily imagine as The Riddler. Though I certainly have faith in his ability to surpass my expectations, I'd rather see someone really surprise me like Ledger did.

Oh, and I don't like the idea of The Riddler for pretty much the same reason. Seems too obvious.

[Machfive]

I don't like Depp because he seems like such an obvious choice. One of the great things about Ledger was that his performance was so unexpected, so unusual. I couldn't see how he was going to play it and was blown away by how he did. Depp I can easily imagine as The Riddler. Though I certainly have faith in his ability to surpass my expectations, I'd rather see someone really surprise me like Ledger did.

Oh, and I don't like the idea of The Riddler for pretty much the same reason. Seems too obvious.

Did anyone see Depp's Jack Sparrow coming? I know I didn't. I think Depp could pull out something interesting under Nolan's direction.

[nabeel]

Michael Caine confirms Johnny Depp and Philip Seymour Hoffman rumour? (http://www.slashfilm.com/2008/09/08/whaaaa-michael-caine-confirms-johnny-depp-up-for-the-riddler-philip-seymour-hoffman-for-the-penguin-in-batman-3/)


“I was with [a Warner Bros.] executive and I said, ‘Are we going to make [a sequel to The Dark Knight]?’ They said yeah. I said, ‘How the hell are we going to top Heath? And he says ‘I’ll tell you how you top Heath — Johnny Depp as The Riddler and Philip Seymour Hoffman as The Penguin.’ I said, ‘Shit, they’ve done it again!’” [Laughs]

I doubt the roles have been finalized anyway, if we have Depp saying stuff like in that interview. Just because they're talking about it internally doesn't really confirm much.

[Prodigy]

Did anyone see Depp's Jack Sparrow coming? I know I didn't. I think Depp could pull out something interesting under Nolan's direction.

Actually I think Jack Sparrow's is one of Depp's weakest performances (not counting Nick of Time or crap like that). He's doing what he's expected to do : crazy wacky Depp with rolling eyes and that's not interesting at all, to me at least. But to agree with you on one point, yeah he could really surprise us in a new Batman by Nolan.

[Kareem]

Wait, so Johnny Depp wouldn't be a great pick because he would be expectedly awesome?

[Dirt]

Why would Nolan want anyone that would tie his Batman to Tim Burton? Even tangentially.

[Andrew Mayer]

Why would Nolan want anyone that would tie his Batman to Tim Burton? Even tangentially.

To show his total domination and utter superiority in every way.

[Machfive]

To show his total domination and utter superiority in every way.

This.

Sorry Burton, I love you, but you're Nolan's kid brother when it comes to the level of talent possessed.

But Willy Wonka was fucking awesome, so you're still cool in my book.

[Funkula]

Actually I think Jack Sparrow's is one of Depp's weakest performances (not counting Nick of Time or crap like that). He's doing what he's expected to do : crazy wacky Depp with rolling eyes and that's not interesting at all, to me at least.

Correct me if I'm wrong (as I haven't seen his entire catalog) but Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas was his only big crazy role prior to POTC. It was the back-to-back performances in POTC and Once Upon a Time in Mexico that really cemented him in my mind as doing that kind of manic role well. Prior to that, the stuff I'd seen him in (Ed Wood, The Ninth Gate, What's Eating Gilbert Grape, Edward Scissorhands) had him playing much less colorful caricatures. I guess Ed Wood was pretty crazy, but not flamboyant like his recent stereotype.

[Andrew Mayer]

I think I've changed my mind on Depp.

I have to admit the idea of Depp creating a darker, and more nuanced, version of that manical characters would be appealing.

He's certainly capable of great performances, and I doubt Nolan will let him just clown his way through one of his films.

[DrCrypt]

Did Funkula just say that Depp's manic, wide-eyed portrayal of a schlock director who preferred to walk around in lace panties, high heels and pink angora wasn't flamboyant?

[Bahimiron]

Nolan should pull a swerve and his next movie should be a shot for shot remake of Batman & Robin, but with Arnold as Poison Ivy.

[Eric T Cheng]

I'm holding off any excitement for possible casts until the Nolan brothers sign on for a third movie. I'm sure Christopher Nolan is going to negotiate a bigger slice of the pie after the $500 million plus The Dark Knight has raked in for Warner Bros.

[Funkula]

Did Funkula just say that Depp's manic, wide-eyed portrayal of a schlock director who preferred to walk around in lace panties, high heels and pink angora wasn't flamboyant?

I did. It's been a while since I've seen it, but I don't remember him chewing the scenery at all, just being unreasonably confident and smug.

[Rob_Merritt]

This is all assuming if Nolan even returns for a third movie.

[Hudson]

I did. It's been a while since I've seen it, but I don't remember him chewing the scenery at all, just being unreasonably confident and smug.


Yeah, watch it again.

[Andrew Mayer]

I did. It's been a while since I've seen it, but I don't remember him chewing the scenery at all, just being unreasonably confident and smug.

Much like the Joker's theme in the Dark Knight, Depp's performance as Ed Wood is all about finding one disturbing note and holding onto it until it becomes something nuanced.

Thinking about that movie made me realize what an awesome Batman villain Bill Murray could make. Just not sure who he would play...

[Alan Dunkin]

This is all assuming if Nolan even returns for a third movie.

I think he would, but I know he also wants to do something else in the meantime.

This might have been stated earlier in the thread, but it took until just the other day for me to realize one of the reasons why there isn't a lot of that hand-held jerky camera motion for action may not be because fans from Batman Begins complained about it as much as the fact that a lot (maybe all) of those sequences are done in IMAX, and you can't hand-held action/jerky that stuff really well, if at all. It's a hellacious platform to film with--obtuse, heavy, with limited film usage.

You could do it digitally but it doesn't look right.

--- Alan

[Anaxagoras]

You could do it digitally but it doesn't look right.


Has this been tried unsuccessfully in a movie? I would think the "shaky cam" algorithm would be very easy to simulate. Of course, I've thought that about a lot of algorithms.

[russellmz00]

I think he would, but I know he also wants to do something else in the meantime.

This might have been stated earlier in the thread, but it took until just the other day for me to realize one of the reasons why there isn't a lot of that hand-held jerky camera motion for action may not be because fans from Batman Begins complained about it as much as the fact that a lot (maybe all) of those sequences are done in IMAX, and you can't hand-held action/jerky that stuff really well, if at all. It's a hellacious platform to film with--obtuse, heavy, with limited film usage.

You could do it digitally but it doesn't look right.
--- Alan

huh, that does sound like a likely explanation. i am one of those who liked batman begin's jerky hard to see batman fights better than the one guy beaten up at a time fight scenes in dark knight.

[Rimbo]

Thinking about that movie made me realize what an awesome Batman villain Bill Murray could make. Just not sure who he would play...

Kingpin.

[Machfive]

Kingpin.

Ummm....Kingpin = Marvel.

[Bahimiron]

He's suggesting a crossover.

Batman can have a titanic team up with Daredevil.

Christian Bale. Ben Affleck. TOGETHER AT LAST!

Also, he was making a joke referencing the Woody Harrelson/Randy Quaid movie.

[Rimbo]

Ummm....Kingpin = Marvel.

goddammit for some reason i thought we were talking about spider-man...

Lex Luthor, then.

[J. Matthew Zoss]

goddammit for some reason i thought we were talking about spider-man...

Lex Luthor, then.
Sigh. Oh Rimbo. Your comic book knowledge is so woefully limited.

*pushes up nerd glasses*

[BobJustBob]

Kingpin.

http://i34.tinypic.com/2v0k80h.jpg

[DrCrypt]

Much like the Joker's theme in the Dark Knight, Depp's performance as Ed Wood is all about finding one disturbing note and holding onto it until it becomes something nuanced.

No it isn't, he just bounces off the walls. It's about as nuanced as his portrayal of Willy Wonka. Depp doesn't do nuance.

[Funkula]

OK, I'm bumping Ed Wood to the top of my Netflix queue because I don't think any two of us watched the same movie.

Regardless of his performance in that one movie, I still stand by my statement that it was his back-to-back performances in 2003 that made him a household name for manic crazy.

[Andrew Mayer]

So... I saw this again tonight on the Imax. It's really an excellent film, with a little dip during the ferry boat sequence near the end.

But Ledger's performance is even stronger the second time around.

[Eric T Cheng]

I read that WB wants to re-release The Dark Knight in theatres at the end of the year when the Oscar nominations roll around. Even with the extended shelf life in the theatres, I don't think the movie will come anywhere close to Titanic's $1.84 billion worldwide ticket receipts.

[Dirt]

Taking into account the price increases for tickets and inflation, The Dark Knight would have to make $900 million domestically to match Titanic.

[seventimessix]

I watched this again and enjoyed it just as much at home as in the theaters. I did wonder about something though, didn't see it mentioned in the thread, and thought someone might know. What is Alfred's history before he became the Waynes' butler. He tells Bruce the story about the jewel thief in Burma, so he was obviously involved with the government or military, but I've never read much of the comics and don't know if it was explored at all.

[Derek Meister]

Like most comic characters, his history has evolved over time, but his wiki entry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Pennyworth) should give you what you're looking for.

[Wholly Schmidt]

Did anyone else think the DVD was a pretty terrible transfer in places? It might just be me; all I've watched in the last few weeks is 30 Rock in HD via Netflix. So maybe the difference in quality between HD and an upscaled DVD is just more obvious than the last time I watched a DVD, but there were really some bad looking scenes, particularly around the time Fox is at the "bat computer".

Other than that, the movie still gets better every time I see it, this being the fourth. At first I thought I might not have the patience to sit through it all tonight, remembering that it is pretty long. But once I was watching, I was hooked.

[Enduro_Man]

I picked up the DVDs yesterday, and it's still very good after multiple viewings. With the subtitles on, I realized there were a couple of lines that I'd misheard in the theatre, so some of the plot details were easier to follow this time.

The extras are a bit underwhelming, though. The IMAX scenes look great on BluRay, but are pointless in ordinary DVD resolution. There's several episodes of phony news show "Gotham Tonight" that I can't quite bring myself to watch. The rest are good-but-brief segments narrated by Nolan and other crew members, but focused mostly on stunts, effects and filming in IMAX. There is almost no background info on the actors or the story's development. I really enjoyed listening to Nolan and Goyer talking about their distillation of Batman in the BB extras, and it's a shame there's no similar discussion here.

Wholly Schmidt: It's not just you. It really looks like they struggled to squeeze this onto one DVD, and the artefacting can get pretty bad even in daylight scenes (esp. with the Lamborghini).

[Funkula]

Like most comic characters, his history has evolved over time, but his wiki entry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Pennyworth) should give you what you're looking for.


His first night at Wayne Manor, Alfred awoke to moaning and followed the sound to the secret door to the staircase to the Batcave

Hahahahahaha. Wish I could find that sequence from the original comic to post in the "Robin...what have I done to you?" thread.

[seventimessix]

I thought it was just that the 360 isn't the best dvd player but you're right, there are definitely some issues with the picture quality. Fortunately it isn't too distracting, and the movie is still brilliant.

[alexlitel]

Am I the anyone who found this to be mediocre at best?

[Wholly Schmidt]

Maybe after Christmas I'll finally pull the trigger on a PS3 for Blu-ray. I'm assuming there aren't any quality issues with that version, right?

[Funkula]

Am I the anyone who found this to be mediocre at best?

No, there was someone else, and we yelled at him. Don't remember now who it was.

[Enduro_Man]

There is another anyone.

[Gendal]

Am I the anyone who found this to be mediocre at best?
I don't know, are you?

I watched it again since seeing it in IMAX. Still a fantastic movie but for different reasons, most of which were easy enough to pass over in the theater. The bluray transfer is fantastic, especially when it switches over to IMAX.

[RobotPants]

Am I the anyone who found this to be mediocre at best?

You may in fact be "the anyone", but what sort of response were you expecting from this post? This whole thread is a discussion about the movie, full of comments from people who liked it and those who didn't and all shades in between. Your post might as well just be "LOL THIS SUCKED!".

Anyhow, we got this on BluRay at the midnight Best Buy sale thinger. It looks and sounds fantastic. I can't bring myself to buy normal DVDs anymore because I'm spoiled to the point where even the slightest bit of artifacting bothers me. DVDs still look good for the most part, but after being used to watching mostly HD, going back to a DVD is almost as jarring as watching VHS tapes or SD television stations through rabbit ears.

[Brendan]

Am I the anyone who found this to be mediocre at best?

Care to elaborate?

I thought it was a film that managed to be very good despite issues with pacing and story telling that felt clunky at times, as if the editing let it down.

[alexlitel]

Care to elaborate?

I thought it was a film that managed to be very good despite issues with pacing and story telling that felt clunky at times, as if the editing let it down.A city in peril in not a Philosophy 101 course, stupid and loud, too expensive for its own good, tells you the thematic material of the movie in the most specific and banal terms, Bale's bat-voice and general performance, Maggie Gyllenhaal's performance, Nolan's signature transparent gimmickry, overtly long, derivative, and what it is in deep contrast to what it wants to be.

[Andrew Mayer]

A city in peril in not a Philosophy 101 course, stupid and loud, too expensive for its own good, tells you the thematic material of the movie in the most specific and banal terms, Bale's bat-voice and general performance, Maggie Gyllenhaal's performance, Nolan's signature transparent gimmickry, overtly long, derivative, and what it is in deep contrast to what it wants to be.

Why so serious?

[alexlitel]

Why so serious?I wondered why the film was too. Simply put, it doesn't deserve the acclaim it has received - aside from Ledger's performance.

[WarrenM]

Where's BillD when we need him. Someone needs to hear Bill's rant about internet cool kid syndrome.

[Andrew Mayer]

I wondered why the film was too. Simply put, it doesn't deserve the acclaim it has received - aside from Ledger's performance.

I think you're looking at it from a top-down, rather than a bottom-up, perspective.

The point is that the film is a far better comic book movie than many people ever thought a comic book movie could be.

No, it's not perfect, but it has significantly raised the bar, and shown that the power of comic book storytelling can be translated to film. A big part of that is mixing the ridiculous and the sublime in a way that lofts the metaphor.

[nabeel]

I watched this again and enjoyed it just as much at home as in the theaters. I did wonder about something though, didn't see it mentioned in the thread, and thought someone might know. What is Alfred's history before he became the Waynes' butler. He tells Bruce the story about the jewel thief in Burma, so he was obviously involved with the government or military, but I've never read much of the comics and don't know if it was explored at all.
I'm not sure if they had some backstory explained to Caine when he was given the role, but he has mentioned a history for Alfred that he had in his mind, anyway - something to do with him having served in some war or military service or something.

[Ergo]

Haha. That's exactly what I thought when I read Alex's posts.

[Talisker]

This (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w2yv8aT0UFc) (repost alert) is still my favorite commentary on the Dark Knight.

"Are you speaking Bat? Is that what Bat sounds like?"

[WarrenM]

"There's nothing in the English language that sounds anything like that."

Hahahaha

[Mordrak]

This (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w2yv8aT0UFc) (repost alert) is still my favorite commentary on the Dark Knight.

"Are you speaking Bat? Is that what Bat sounds like?"

Actually, his joker impression at the beginning is very good. He generally nails the physicality of Ledger's performance, well until he gets frustrated with Batman. :)

[CommunistWalrus]

I'm not sure if they had some backstory explained to Caine when he was given the role, but he has mentioned a history for Alfred that he had in his mind, anyway - something to do with him having served in some war or military service or something.

In the animated series I think he used to be ex-SAS or something. Kind of an odd career shift, going from special forces operative to doting butler.

[Enduro_Man]

In the animated series I think he used to be ex-SAS or something. Kind of an odd career shift, going from special forces operative to doting butler.
I'm pretty sure they never once mentioned Alfred's backstory in the animated series. Unless you're talking about that OTHER Batman animated series, which I've only watched for a pained couple of minutes.

[Crispus]

I'm pretty sure they never once mentioned Alfred's backstory in the animated series. Unless you're talking about that OTHER Batman animated series, which I've only watched for a pained couple of minutes.

Nope, one of the last pre-WB episodes was an episode specifically built around Alfred's backstory, with the terrorist "Red Claw" as the villain : The Lion and the Unicorn (http://www.batmantas.com/cmp/episode.htm#TLATU)

[Enduro_Man]

Ah crap. I'll never be pretty sure of anything again.

[Mike O'Malley]

You seem pretty sure about that.

[Dave Markell]

Ah crap. I'll never be pretty sure of anything again.

But you'll still be pretty. Or sure. You pick.

[Enduro_Man]

Pretty, please!

[WarrenM]

Sure.

[Wobbo]

Fantastic film, enjoyed every minute.

Only a few negative points:

- I agree with Mark Kermode's criticism that the movie spends too much time telling you what it's about (he thought the boat scene in particular should have been cut). Of course, complaining about that is like complaining about the lack of realistic violence (almost all deaths occur off camera, no blood etc.) - its valid, but unavoidable in a PG-13 blockbuster. Some people really are too dumb to watch a movie and just "figure it out."
- More scarecrow needed.
- Not enough Two-face

But yeah this is the best superhero movie ever made, and one of the only films that lived up to its pre-release hype. Also, nice camera work.

[WarrenM]

- Not enough Two-face
Pardon?

[Wobbo]

Pardon?

I'm serious, the movie didn't have enough of two-face's badassery, mostly because the movie didn't have room with all the Joker's awesomeness. I mean, there was plenty of Harvey Dent, but not enough two-face.

[Staff Sergeant]

Where's BillD when we need him. Someone needs to hear Bill's rant about internet cool kid syndrome.

Do you have a link to a previous internet cool kid syndrome rant?

[russellmz00]

Do you have a link to a previous internet cool kid syndrome rant?


No see, Superbad, it's like this:

Ledger gave what can be accepted by an overwhelming majority of fans and critics (both amateur, journalistic, and professional to the art) as a solid, even superlative performance. To be the internet cliche of the contrary opinion (and judging by the fact you waited this long to see the film, you clearly went in prepared to reject the film as a whole and Ledger's performance in particular because both carried so much hype, and as an internet cliche, you aren't allowed to let yourself like things that a lot of people like, even if and when they're good) doesn't make you anything more than that, an internet cliche. It was only a matter of time before someone like you went for the gold (The Bitter Cynic beat you out anyway, sort of) just like someone invariably always does no matter how arguably good something is.

In short: it's a "You" problem.

he also posted a pic.

[Staff Sergeant]

Hmm, that wasn't all that impressive given Bill's track record when it comes to insulting posts.

[Jeff Fries]

- I agree with Mark Kermode's criticism that the movie spends too much time telling you what it's about (he thought the boat scene in particular should have been cut).

This commentary (http://www.davekehr.com/?p=92) goes a few steps further on that same point (the first and most relevant part is posted below, though I recommend reading the whole thing):

I’m surprised, now that I’ve seen TDK, that no one (or virtually no one) has mentioned what to me is clearly the most expressive (as in “oppressive”) aspect of the movie: The swooping, “circle the principals” camera work and the similarly obtrusive, “Look schmuck, this is linked to that!” editing, all of which is designed to give the film an air of perpetual stress and emergency, as well as to reassure both the audience and the studio heads that one is seeing much money being well spent in ways that are designed to allow no room for any response by the audience that deviates from a stress-and-emergency state of being. (These latter two points may in effect be one: What better proof that the air of stress and emergency is in some fundamental sense “real” within the context of the film-making than to display one’s ability and willingness to blow up, say, an entire genuine hospital (or to convincingly simulate that event; it amounts to the same thing, an act of weight and stature; if they took the trouble to do this … well, it’s like being faced with a large angry man-like being with flexed muscles and gritted teeth).

[Andrew Mayer]

That's really the kind of deconstruction that can be used against any film though. In the end it's all artifice and decisions.

I do think the boat scene is the weakest part of the film though. It doesn't involve any of the principle characters, and after you've seen it once it gets a bit interminable on repeat viewings since there isn't much depth or motivation to anyone involved, and once once you know "you can't judge a book by its cover" you don't really need to know it again.

[Bill Dungsroman]

I’m surprised, now that I’ve seen TDK, that no one (or virtually no one) has mentioned what to me is clearly the most expressive (as in “oppressive”) aspect of the movie: The swooping, “circle the principals” camera work and the similarly obtrusive, “Look schmuck, this is linked to that!” editing, all of which is designed to give the film an air of perpetual stress and emergency, as well as to reassure both the audience and the studio heads that one is seeing much money being well spent in ways that are designed to allow no room for any response by the audience that deviates from a stress-and-emergency state of being. (These latter two points may in effect be one: What better proof that the air of stress and emergency is in some fundamental sense “real” within the context of the film-making than to display one’s ability and willingness to blow up, say, an entire genuine hospital (or to convincingly simulate that event; it amounts to the same thing, an act of weight and stature; if they took the trouble to do this … well, it’s like being faced with a large angry man-like being with flexed muscles and gritted teeth).

I'm surprised nobody has told this guy what a humorless funsucking loser he is. I'm sorry, but if you're put off by the hospital demolition scene ("It's practically the same as blowing up an actual hospital with patients in it and stuff!")...you're lame, and nobody cares what you think. Oh my God the film is stressful! Are you for fucking real? It's The Joker. He's supposed to rile you up, and by the way people who aren't on the verge of sobbing breakdowns refer to it as "tension" or perhaps "suspense," not stress. Wimp.

[Enduro_Man]

Now, now, Bill. There's no need to act like an angry man-like being.

Maybe after Christmas I'll finally pull the trigger on a PS3 for Blu-ray. I'm assuming there aren't any quality issues with that version, right?
I watched the BluRay version of TDK last night on my computer and it is a stunning transfer. For example, I never realized how much flying spit was generated by Christian Bale's wrestling voice. Also, the interrogation scene is much more fascinating when you can make out the expressions under Batman's mask. Of course, the IMAX scenes are a real treat, and it's great how many of them there are. I just wish I could have seen the movie while sitting on a couch.

[Wobbo]

That's really the kind of deconstruction that can be used against any film though. In the end it's all artifice and decisions.


No, I don't think that's fair. If you want a perfect example of film that makes an artistic statement without shoving it in your face throughout the piece, look at another piece of classic American Pop Culture: The Sopranos. The writers of the Sopranos had many important pieces of social commentary to say through the story, but they didn't constantly shove the themes in your face. It's perfectly possible to enjoy The Sopranos as an interesting TV show and not "get it", and then come to it later in life and realize what an episode actually means- ie what the writers were trying to say. It's impossible for someone to watch The Dark Knight and not "get" the major themes of the film, mostly because characters blatantly state them in the dialogue.

I can't give examples without spoilars, but let me stress that I loved this movie, and so did the critic I agreed with. Mark Kermode even admitted to liking the scene he wanted cut! I'm conflicted about the boat scene, personally. I mean, I loved it just as much of the rest of the movie, but it really is endemic of the same problem I wrote about before - "this is where the writer tells you what the movie is about."

[Andrew Mayer]

No, I don't think that's fair. If you want a perfect example of film that makes an artistic statement without shoving it in your face throughout the piece, look at another piece of classic American Pop Culture: The Sopranos. The writers of the Sopranos had many important pieces of social commentary to say through the story, but they didn't constantly shove the themes in your face.

Yeah, they'd never do anything obvious like, let's say, having the main character visit a shrink where he discusses the actual secondary meanings of his dreams, or having a fish talk to him and tell him who to kill or anything.

That would be waaaaay over the top



It's impossible for someone to watch The Dark Knight and not "get" the major themes of the film, mostly because characters blatantly state them in the dialogue.


But meanwhile you have the main characters running around in makeup and costumes...

I've had this argument with someone I'm currently co-writing a story with. Effective mainstream entertainment does need to spell things out from time to time. If you don't you're giving more entertainment, but limiting the potential size of your audience. And that's cool, but not if you're setting out to make something for the masses.

I'd say the Sopranos lives on the edge of that. Come for the mob violence, stay for the edgy secondary undertones.

[Wobbo]

Yeah, they'd never do anything obvious like, let's say, having the main character visit a shrink where he discusses the actual secondary meanings of his dreams, or having a fish talk to him and tell him who to kill or anything.

That would be waaaaay over the top

It would be absurd to point to the psychiatry scenes in the Sopranos as "the writers explaining the story to the viewer" since they constantly feature Tony having to deliberately miscommunicate and lie all the time - starting from the very first 10 minutes of the very first episode. Did you even watch the Sopranos? Tony is constantly getting bad advice and totally missing the point of his shrink's work.The whole point of those scenes are dramatic irony - the viewer is expected to put together and figure out exactly what the characters can't say. This is something that the Dark Knight lacks, and would have made it an even better and smarter film than it already was.



I've had this argument with someone I'm currently co-writing a story with. Effective mainstream entertainment does need to spell things out from time to time. If you don't you're giving more entertainment, but limiting the potential size of your audience. And that's cool, but not if you're setting out to make something for the masses.

I'd say the Sopranos lives on the edge of that. Come for the mob violence, stay for the edgy secondary undertones.

Yes, that's pretty much exactly what I said in my first post:
"Some people really are too dumb to watch a movie and just "figure it out.""

[Andrew Mayer]

It would be absurd to point to the psychiatry scenes in the Sopranos as "the writers explaining the story to the viewer" since they constantly feature Tony having to deliberately miscommunicate and lie all the time - starting from the very first 10 minutes of the very first episode.

I may be arguing too fine a point here, but one of my problems with the Soprano's is I felt like I was being hammered with the meta-story. I liked the story, but I wasn't as big a fan as some folks. The whole shrink thing came off as very arch to me. "See how deep we are!"

I dunno. It's been a while. Maybe I should go back and watch again.


Did you even watch the Sopranos? Tony is constantly getting bad advice and totally missing the point of his shrink's work.The whole point of those scenes are dramatic irony - the viewer is expected to put together and figure out exactly what the characters can't say. This is something that the Dark Knight lacks, and would have made it an even better and smarter film than it already was.

You're probably right, but it could also have cost them millions.


That's pretty much exactly what I said in my first post:
"Some people really are too dumb to watch a movie and just "figure it out.""

Let's unpack the superiority a little bit. Different people "get" different things, and like different things. Being a bit more obvious means that more people will like it, but fewer may love it.

[bago]

Let's unpack the superiority a little bit. Different people "get" different things, and like different things. Being a bit more obvious means that more people will like it, but fewer may love it.

Much like herpes.

[Derek Meister]

I wonder if the complaints about the boat scenes would be less if they occurred earlier in the movie. It's a long movie, and does it's best to wear you out well before they get to them.

[Rock8man]

I watched the extras on The Dark Knight Blu ray disc tonight. And they're well worth seeing. The most interesting ones focused on the challenges they faced by filming all the action sequences with IMAX cameras, the discussion of the soundtrack of the movie (in particular the theme of the Joker), and the various stunt scenes. Recommended.

Also: the movie was much better when seen on an IMAX theater. If they re-released it on IMAX screens again, I'd definitely go see it again. It's kind of a shame that it came off the IMAX screens so quickly. Early movies in that format would stay on for three months or more sometimes.

[Jazar]

I believe they're showing it on IMAX right now. Check yours.

[Rock8man]

I believe they're showing it on IMAX right now. Check yours.

You, sir, are a saint! My closest IMAX screen is still showing The Day The Earth Stood Still, but the one close to where I work is showing The Dark Knight! Woohoo!

[Chris Nahr]

Hey, the Blu-ray version was on sale for €15! Heath Ledger is fantastic, a delicious psychopath who pretty much carries the film on his own, much like Peter Ustinov in Quo Vadis*. Which he has to, because Batman with his stupid Batvoice and his annoying coterie of righteous friends is once again rather tiresome.

I had no problems with the fight scenes -- I actually thought they were clearer than in Batman Begins. Also, Maggie Gyllenhaal is 31 according to hear biography but looks like 60. What's up with those deep wrinkles and huge shadows under the eyes?

* Recently re-released as a digitally remastered edition, with very nice extras!

[Robert Sharp]

I don't know. I don't find her attractive in the least, and I'm baffled that she was asked to play that part. She's a decent actress, but to me superhero movies need to start getting the women right (more like the comics, I guess). Spiderman is equally guilty of this. Mary Jane is supposed to be a model in the comic, and not a hand model either.

I don't mean to be all sexist "chicks need to be hawt" about this. It's just hard to buy these romantic triangles when these women are neither attractive nor particularly interesting (in personality). Either write them better or get someone more attractive, so we can believe that they would cause so much heartache.

[Eric T Cheng]

I think the problem with Maggie's looks is the way her eyelids are slanted, making her look half asleep.

[Enduro_Man]

They picked the wrong Gyllenhaal to play Rachel.

[Tom Chick]

I think I've said this elsewhere, but I'll just roll it out again: Maggie Gyllenhaal was one of the things I *really* liked about the movie. She looked like a real person and not a celebrity. You got the sense that Bruce and Harvey loved her because of their history, and whatever chemistry they shared, and her intelligence, and not simply because she was TEH HAWT. I couldn't disagree with Robert more when he says she wasn't interesting. Her scenes with Bale and Eckhart seemed heartfelt and genuine.

It's just another reason that I'm proud Dark Knight has done so well.

-Tom

P.S. You must at least agree it could have been worse. Katie Holmes could have been back.

[Khelavaster]

Maggie is a gifted actress and has spunk to spare but here I found she was too odd looking. Maybe it was the lighting (in some scenes, particularly the one when she last sees Harvey, she actually looks very pretty) but sometimes it was distracting. Kinda ruined my suspension of disbelief during the feral "You *are* beautiful" Joker scene.


I don't mean to be all sexist "chicks need to be hawt" about this. It's just hard to buy these romantic triangles when these women are neither attractive nor particularly interesting (in personality).

Man, you have to watch Appaloosa. Eek.

[Brad Grenz]

You guys are crazy. It wasn't a glamor role, but her talking to Harvey through the radio was the most powerful part of the movie. I'm not sure how piling on "teh hawtness" would improve anything.

[Rimbo]

Dissing Maggie?

I've now read it all.

[Rock8man]

Dissing Maggie?

I've now read it all.

So true. Maybe it's because I first saw her in Secretary (which my friends still refer to as "Sex-etary", a really great movie by the way), but I just think she's one of the sexiest actresses in Hollywood.

[Chris Nahr]

I wasn't actually thinking in terms of Hawt or Nawt but simply health. She looks absolutely horrible in some scenes, as if she had some genetic condition of premature aging, or at least a really bad cold combined with way too much time at the solarium. Might be a case of poor make-up and lighting, though.

[Kirian]

I think anyone who approaches The Dark Knight from the perspective of comic books is looking at the film the wrong way.

To a greater extent than Batman Begins, it's a film first and foremost. The characters are familiar ones in the same way that classical stories might use familiar heroes. I don't think it's like a Greek tragedy, as it feels more like something Elizabethan to me, but it's best approached as if you've never read a comic book. I've read bits of Maus, and that's it, so the characters were only familiar from Batman: The Animated Series, which I used to watch as a child.

They're nothing like the characters in the film. That's why I think the characters are just wrappers, the setting just a vehicle to tell an interesting story. Maggie Gyllenhaal is absolutely perfect because she plays the role. She's not eye or arm candy for either character, and she pitches the character brilliantly.

I heard complaints that Two-Face was just tacked on, was one character too many. That's wrong- to the film, he's absolutely necessary. He's not Two Face, he's Harvey Dent but fallen. The character needs that end and the film does too.

I almost hope that they don't make a third Batman film, but if the Nolans do, I only hope they stick to their principles and make a film that lives up to this one.

[Tom Chick]

The characters are familiar ones in the same way that classical stories might use familiar heroes. I don't think it's like a Greek tragedy, as it feels more like something Elizabethan to me, but it's best approached as if you've never read a comic book.

Say more about this, Kirian. The reason I think Greek is because I can't shake how the citizens of Gotham are their own character, like a chorus*. And there's something weirdly divine about the Joker, like a god come down to earth to test mortals (e.g. Dionysus with a bunch of Maenads).

-Tom

* Kelly Wand had a great point in her review (http://www.sprocketholed.com/a-killing-joke-indeed/) that the Joker is ultimately defeated not by the hero, but by the citizens of the town who the hero usually saves.

[Mordrak]

* Kelly Wand had a great point in her review (http://www.sprocketholed.com/a-killing-joke-indeed/) that the Joker is ultimately defeated not by the hero, but by the citizens of the town who the hero usually saves.

While that's a reasonable argument, I hate the boat stuff and Batman's little monologue. It's way too schmaltzy for me (after what the rest of the film had established). I watched it again recently and stopped basically before that started. Blech. The film definitely works better on a second viewing, but not because it's particularly deep. Once you have the gist of the plot, the film's rapid pace and ultimately compressed narrative is less trying. I don't have to waste time trying to just pick up what's happening. Instead, I can focus on the little moments that at first impression seemed to be tossed aside after 30-40 minutes.

[Khelavaster]

Stuff I agree with

The film definitely rewards multiple viewings and to a large extent it's because of what Mordrak points out. And the boat stuff rubs me the same way; I watched the movie thrice (three different groups of people), and the third time I excused myself just before the final act.

I found the boat scene distinctly weaker and more politically correct than what had come before. Part of it may be that the Joker's plan is so over the top anyway, the moral dilemma so evident. But I keep thinking the whole idea of the citizenship's values as the reason for the Joker's ultimate defeat could have been conveyed in a more believable way.

[Bahimiron]

Anyone mentioning the Elizabethan themes of Batman should probably be punched in the ear.

[metta]

Anyone mentioning the Elizabethan themes of Batman should probably be punched in the ear.

...or has only a vague notion of what Elizabethan drama is.

[Bahimiron]

That doesn't excuse them from an ear-punch.

[Chris Nahr]

To a greater extent than Batman Begins, it's a film first and foremost. The characters are familiar ones in the same way that classical stories might use familiar heroes. I don't think it's like a Greek tragedy, as it feels more like something Elizabethan to me, but it's best approached as if you've never read a comic book.

Who is reading comic books? I don't.

Also, if The Dark Knight was a Greek tragedy, Batman would accidentally destroy Gotham while fighting the Joker, because that's his destiny. Then he would go mad and kill himself.

I'm not sure what you mean by Elizabethan but if the movie was like a drama set in that period, the main characters would constantly try to backstab each other in order to gain control of the city, with Batman probably featuring as a useful idiot for one or more sides.

Either variant would be much more interesting than the plain old superhero movie we got.


They're nothing like the characters in the film. That's why I think the characters are just wrappers, the setting just a vehicle to tell an interesting story.

The Joker's plans are delightfully devious but I'm not sure what else is interesting about the story.


Maggie Gyllenhaal is absolutely perfect because she plays the role. She's not eye or arm candy for either character, and she pitches the character brilliantly.

Did you guys somehow miss who those two male characters were? Bruce Wayne is a multi-billionaire playboy, Harvey Dent is a star politician and likely also rather wealthy, both are extremely good-looking. Now I don't exactly have personal experience with this rung of society but judging by our celebrity press, neither of them is likely to hook up with someone as plain-looking as Maggie Gyllenhaal, let alone both of them. It's like a mirror image of the romantic comedy staple where supermodels swoon over unseemly impoverished nerds, and makes as little sense. She's simply miscast here -- this particular role does call for glamorous eye candy.

[Jazar]

I wasn't actually thinking in terms of Hawt or Nawt but simply health. She looks absolutely horrible in some scenes, as if she had some genetic condition of premature aging, or at least a really bad cold combined with way too much time at the solarium. Might be a case of poor make-up and lighting, though.

Agreed.
Maggie Gyllenhaal can look gorgeous in a very non-bimbo way (http://images.askmen.com/galleries/actress/maggie-gyllenhaal/pictures/maggie-gyllenhaal-picture-1.jpg) but the way she was portrayed in this film made her look tired and a little too old for her age. I don't know if that was the director's intent but she definitely can look a lot better then she did in The Dark Knight.

[Kirian]

Anyone mentioning the Elizabethan themes of Batman should probably be punched in the ear.
Maybe I should clarify. There are no Elizabethan themes in Batman. There is nothing like Elizabethan drama in Batman. You can talk about violence all you want, that helps no-one.

Tom: what I meant comes from a [very] little experience with Greek and Elizabethan stuff. More the former, really. I'm perfectly happy to be wrong, but it feels like this. I sort of agree with the point about the chorus, by the way.

Okay, here's where I embarass myself with pretentiousness. Forgive me, please, I will sound terrible. Classical tragedies, for me at least, painted epic pictures. They were often colossal in scale, but they dealt with big issues in a simple fashion. That is, the characters were not complex because they had no need to be, and were perfectly designed to represent the archetypes they portrayed. The points and the principles displayed were boldly on display and had no need to be hidden, and so the entire piece could have an epic, timeless feel. The complexity comes more from the questions that come up than any resolution, the interest from the story that is told. Of course, as Chris says, a tragedy is usually a tragedy in Greek plays.

Batman certainly has this idea- it takes a large issue or ideal (the balance between chaos and order, our fight to maintain civilization and so on) and rather than making a grand temple, it builds an intricate minature. It reminds me of Faustus, in tone- and understand when I say it reminds me of Elizabethan drama, I mean in tone and action. The characters are drawn with a little subtlety, and the complexity and emotion comes not from the story but from the characters. The characters are drawn to life and set in motion, and this is what brings about the story. The fact that the characters represent some idea is only a facet of them- think of Othello, where the idea represented in each character is a part but certainly not the whole of them. It's little bits like The Joker's response to being told that he is crazy that makes me feel that it's more like a tale of personal (and political, if you wish) intruige. The sort of tale I have seen in much later works, maybe Victorian (but Elizabethan is earlier and feels right to me). It plays more on ideas within people and acted out 'through them. I hope this makes sense.

I may have just made a complete fool of myself, and I'm not sure Batman stands up to what I've said. It comes a distant second to There Will Be Blood in my list, by the way. The only reason I haven't looked at the latter is out of fear. I fear that I don't understand it yet, that I need to really look at it again before I can say anything.

Chris: Rachel is an old friend of Bruce. She works for the DA. There is every reason for both of them to fall for her, and they have nothing to do with how she looks (for the record, I think she's pretty. Attainably so). Also, Bruce is seen with plenty of attractive women, but Rachel is the one he goes to for personal things.

Addendum: I wanted to say something about the rise, temptation and fall of a man, but I think that's probably a story as old as story itself. I've also been reminded that I'e got Dionysus and Diomedes mixed up before...

[Bahimiron]

Okay, here's where I embarass myself with pretentiousness.

Cue the ear-punches.

[dermot]

Maggie Gyllenhaal is lovely.

[Pogue Mahone]

Aw hell, ear punches for everyone!

[Tom Chick]

Kirian, thanks for the post. I see where you're going, and it just seems you and I have different ways of describing the theatricality of Dark Knight. I wish more genre movies were smart enough to support these sorts of discussions.

BTW, I wonder if you see a distinction between Elizabethan and Shakespearean? Because once it comes down to mentioning particular monarchs, I get lost. And I would certainly agree there's something Shakespearean about the script.

-Tom

[Kirian]

Yes, I think theatricality and tone are interchangeable here. I wouldn't initially put Dark Knight as genre, but then my favourite piece of praise for Batman Begins ran somewhat as follows: it's a summer blockbuster, based on a comic book, but it's not afraid to be a film.

Multiple viewpoints are much better when it comes to culture. I think you're right- the big ideas and such that I describe classical theatre with are definitely in the picture. So, you're correct too. If you could help me with There Will Be Blood, now... I need to watch it again, really.

Shakespearean is definitely a way to describe it, but I didn't think the script is as good as the Shakespeare I have read. Certainly that style, but I thought I saw a little of Marlowe in there, and I think I wrote Faust instead of Dr. Faustus. Damn. I read a couple more, so long ago I forget what the plays were even about, but I thought I would go with the period (as it is the first I have studied where they broke out of the classical mould.) There's a distinction, but I couldn't explain it properly because I don't know it well enough- I was being careful. Maybe trying to snake out of it.

P.S. Elizabeth is the one Cate Blanchett plays. [tongue smiley goes here].

Addendum: The song that came up as I typed this? "We Call Upon the Author", Nick Cave and the Bad Seeds (Dig!!! Lazarus Dig!!!) Wonderfully ironic in this case (coincidence perhaps).

[HUMBY50]

It's way too schmaltzy for me.

I was going to agree with this and then i remembered the subway car scene from spider-man 2 which permanently rearranged my schmaltz barometer.

[Jonathan Crane]

And there's something weirdly divine about the Joker, like a god come down to earth to test mortals (e.g. Dionysus with a bunch of Maenads).
.

This struck me as well - there's an atmosphere of chaos that surrounds the Joker, in which he seems to suspend reality. Some of this is about the performance, which is inspired, but for a movie that works really carefully to ground itself in a semblance of reality, this spark of unreal chaos doesn't seem accidental. I like the Dionysus thought a lot - there's a nice loop back to the pagan villain in first Thief, who was apparently inspired by the Joker.

[Mordrak]

There's an interview with one (http://cdn2.libsyn.com/creativescreenwritingmag/TheDarkKnightQandA.mp3?nvb=20090127043747&nva=20090128044747&t=0db8e7b0b631051f756bf) of the writers--Jonathon Nolan--where he describes the Joker as an "elemental force" and says that in his "imagination there's beginning or end to this character [Joker]. He's kind of always existed. In that first frame in IMAX where you see him from behind and you see him holding a mask, to me, the moment before that shot he was just conjured out of thin air."

If you can get past a lot of the spooging on the film at the beginning, and some of the logical slip ups and wanking Jonathon does, it's a pretty interesting interview.

[Andrew Mayer]

I found the boat scene distinctly weaker and more politically correct than what had come before. Part of it may be that the Joker's plan is so over the top anyway, the moral dilemma so evident. But I keep thinking the whole idea of the citizenship's values as the reason for the Joker's ultimate defeat could have been conveyed in a more believable way.

Totally agree. I found the boat stuff unwatchable after the second viewing.

It's painfully obvious and melodramatic compared to the rest of the movie, and once you know how it's going to turn out there's very little worth watching. The twist doesn't add any real depth, and the idea that convict 22B is somehow more honorable than businessman 66C just doesn't work for me.

My other problem with that sequence is that the setup killed my suspension of disbelief a bit. I could buy a lot of what goes on in the film, but for some reason I felt like the movie didn't really earn the idea that he'd be able to rig the ferry boats.

[dermot]

My other problem with that sequence is that the setup killed my suspension of disbelief a bit. I could buy a lot of what goes on in the film, but for some reason I felt like the movie didn't really earn the idea that he'd be able to rig the ferry boats.
I haven't watched it a second time so I may not be remembering how it went down but isn't it possible that he hadn't rigged the boats at all and that it was all just a scam?

Edit: Hang on, I have a vision in my head of Joker sneering something along the lines of 'if you want something done you have to do it yourself' or similar. I guess that would suggest that he has actually rigged them.

[Eric T Cheng]

I loved The Dark Knight but it needed to be edited down because the third act was way too long with the threat of hospitals being blown up, the rescue of the hospital staff and patients, the Mexican ferry standoff, AND the final confrontation between Two-Face, Commissioner Gordon and Batman.

All in all, the movie worked well considering that there were two major villains (even though one of the villains was actually a tragic fallen hero). But unlike previous Batman movies with multiple villains, The Dark Knight didn't concentrate on the origins and development of the villains but used them as catalysts to pit the hero against hard moral choices. The Joker had given a few explanations of his scars but because he was, in his own words, an agent of chaos, one could never tell if he was telling the truth or not. Even the comics' Joker (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joker_(comics))'s origin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joker_(comics)#Origin) is not firmly established. In The Killing Joke, the Joker says, "Sometimes I remember it one way, sometimes another... if I'm going to have a past, I prefer it to be multiple choice!"

[Jazar]

This struck me as well - there's an atmosphere of chaos that surrounds the Joker, in which he seems to suspend reality. Some of this is about the performance, which is inspired, but for a movie that works really carefully to ground itself in a semblance of reality, this spark of unreal chaos doesn't seem accidental. I like the Dionysus thought a lot - there's a nice loop back to the pagan villain in first Thief, who was apparently inspired by the Joker.

LOL "an atmostphere of chaos"? The dude IS chaos incarnate. The joker has zero backstory, zero motivations other then causing chaos. I'm not saying its a bad thing in this case but the Joker in TDK lays it on a lot thicker then just an atmosphere. :)

Tom is right only Joker = Loki.

[Anaxagoras]

It's painfully obvious and melodramatic compared to the rest of the movie, and once you know how it's going to turn out there's very little worth watching. The twist doesn't add any real depth, and the idea that convict 22B is somehow more honorable than businessman 66C just doesn't work for me.


After multiple viewings, I've come to the conclusion that convict 22B being more honorable than businessman 66C is almost beside the point. The point is that the Joker was right, and batman was wrong. The people would have "eaten themselves", had they been given a chance. It was only through two flukes (the lack of courage by the businessman & the fact that a good apple happened to take control on the convict boat) that disaster didn't strike.

When it was put to a vote, evil won. The people merely lacked the courage to follow evil. That's why I still find the boat scenes interesting. Still, I agree that those scenes are the weakest in the movie.

[Pogue Mahone]

When it was put to a vote, evil won. The people merely lacked the courage to follow evil.

I don't agree with your conclusion. The Joker definitely had stacked the odds in his favor -- after all, his plan only required one person to crack or just lack the moral courage to find it worthwhile to destroy the other ferry to save the one that person was on. I don't think it's a stretch to understand how the average person would be sorely tempted to look to save his own skin in this situation, nor do I think that inclination is necessarily evil. Was the ferry captain evil in abdicating his authority to hand off the detonator to the random inmate guy? Well, maybe. I don't know. But in the end no boat was destroyed, and one person who did actually have the moral courage to make the decision not to destroy the other boat prevailed.

[Andrew Mayer]

Well, maybe. I don't know. But in the end no boat was destroyed, and one person who did actually have the moral courage to make the decision not to destroy the other boat prevailed.

I can see this argument. The problem is that it isn't about moral authority or courage. It's really about pure dramatic badassery. Because if it would have been more badass for him to blow up the other boat he would have done that instead.

[Sidd_Budd]

I've only seen the movie once, & while I didn't have a problem with the boat scene at the time, folks are making good points. It veered dangerously close to Lifetime-Movie-of-the-Week-melodrama to show viewers that the citizens of Gotham really were decent & worth protecting.

I think the scene works best if you remember the previous dilemma set by the Joker -- should Batman save Rachel or Harvey? Batman was screwed regardless, because Joker is Loki, & doesn't play by any rules, including ones he establishes.

To me, it's a given that the boat dilemma also would have a twist. Maybe the boat that does push the button explodes, rather than the other, or perhaps both boats would explode if either button was pressed. Obviously, he had a remote detonator as a backup. But IMO, the feeling that the Joker is relentless in adding chaos, regardless of what actions are taken to retain order, helps me to view the sequence as adding atmosphere, rather than simply adding schmaltzy sentimentality.

Even with the flaw, Dark Knight is still my favorite film of 2008 (of the five or so I saw).

[ElGuapo]

I just watched this ... as in 10 minutes ago, and have a comment on the boat scene.

First, there is no vote in the convict ferry. Zeus just walks up and throws the detonator out of the window. On the civilian ship, there is the vote to blow the other ship up and much discussion (and no dissents) about how the convicts had their chance, etc. But in the end the most vocal character doesn't blow up the convict ship, so the movie attempts to redeem the "innocent" civilians.

Now when midnight strikes and they don't blow anyone up, the Joker pulls out one detonator with one switch and gives his line about "If you want something done right do it yourself". This is either an oversight by the writer, or, I would like to think, attention to detail. This implies that there is one signal to be sent and if either one of the boats had pulled the trigger they both would have blown up. Which would fit perfectly in with the Joker's chaos plan.

Also, The Joker lies throughout much of the film, even about people he's killed. For instance his story about how he got his scars, the number of cops he's killed and personally been able to torture (he describes killing all of them with a knife, slowly to the cop guarding him . . . this is clearly a lie as he didn't have time to do this), his conversation with Harvey in the hospital, etc. He lies and manipulates so I find it very likely he was lying with respect to the prisoner's dilemma on the ferries.

As for the end scene with Harvey, it's absolute essential to the film. Harvey's corruption is a take on The Killing Joke, which I read was one of the seminal works that Ledger studied to create his version of the Joker. In that story the Joker is not successful at corrupting Gordon, just as he isn't successful at corrupting the ferry passengers (but IS successful at corruption Dent). It's an extension of that story and Dent's downfall is key to the Joker's point that all roads lead to chaos. The fact that Batman sacrifices himself in order to protect Dent's reputation and in effect foil the Joker's plan makes Two-Face not just another villain but essential to the plot. Given this, Two-Face doesn't exactly accomplish a whole lot in this film ... in fact he has about exactly the screen presence required to make him effective. If they would have developed him more . . . made him recruit gang members, pull off some heist . . . it would have made the character far less effective.

All in all The Dark Knight is just about exactly how comic books movies should be at their most sophisticated. It shows that something originally meant to entertain kids can evolve dramatically into a thought provoking film that encourages debate.