So, Enig and I went to a preview showing of The Dark Knight tonight. I mean it with the spoilers, all you poor souls who have to wait until Friday should run away right now, because you really do not want this movie spoiled.
There's just so much to say, but most of it boils down to the fact that this movie is incredible. Even knowing going in that it was going to be dark, and being nervous about the possibility that it might be too dark for me, didn't prepare me for how dark it really was. But it was so incredibly well done, that even though I hid behind my hands at least once and was scrunched up in my seat wringing my hands several times, it was not too dark for me. It was perfect.
But that could all go in the non-spoiler thread, neh? I can't boil it down to just best lines and favorite parts, because I'd be quoting half the movie. One of the things I found myself thinking about on the drive home, though, was the batman wanna-bes in the beginning of the movie. They, combined with the ferry passengers at the end, really drove in that the Joker was wrong, about these people will start eating each other if you take away their rules and give them a little push.
In the show don't tell theory of storytelling, Gordan, Batman/Wayne, and Alfred were telling us that there was a sea change going on in Gotham, and that the people were ready for it. The pseudo-bats showed us. After all, if you wanted to make a difference in your city, were willing to put your life on the line, and weren't a billionaire with a research and development genius at your disposal, how would you go about it? With hockey pads and guns? Batman shows disdain for their methods, but the only difference between them and him is a hell of a lot of money. They're probably even braver and crazier than he is, going up against criminals without titanium/Kevlar body armor.
And the prisoners! You knew something was going to happen with the huge dude, but what actually did completely surprised me. When he says he's going to do what the warden should have done ten minutes ago and the warden kinda crumples and gives it to him, the look of disgust on the prisoner's face as he throws the detonator out the window! It was just beautifully done. I didn't think the end game on the other boat was as powerful, but I did love the moment when the sailor pointed out that they were still alive. I can't imagine that taking some of the wind out of the sails of people who were telling themselves that they deserved to live more than the prisoners, because they were better people.
There were so many things they did right. The Joker was 100% right, and I'll leave most of that commentary to Enig. I need to get to bed sometime, after all. But I will say that I haven't always been crazy about the portrayal of Bruce Wayne. I think the playboy bits are frequently too over the top, and they were here too. Even with Rachel knowing it was an act and why, it was hard for me to believe she'd put up with him being such a cad. But there were a couple of Bruce Wayne parts that were awesome, most notably for me when he gets out of the car after driving it between the pickup and the police SUV. Obviously Christian Bale is a great actor, but I was immersed enough int he movie to honestly be surprised at what a good actor Bruce Wayne was. Noble? Trying to make the light? Do you think I should go to a hospital? Wow. And that beautiful, beautiful car. I adored how in the credits it said "Mr. Wayne's car provided by. . ." Very slick. And while it's not something Bruce Wayne did, I thought the blackmail attempt by the accountant really helped build our perception of the character. "You think your client is a billionaire playboy who goes around as a masked vigilante at night beating up people with his bare fists and your reaction is to try to blackmail him?" That made me think more about Bruce Wayne as a person rather than a cover more than I think anything else in the current two movies have.
Finally, for real this time, I do very much hope that Heath Ledger gets an Academy Award for this movie. His portrayal was brilliant, and as I am a selfish movie goer, it breaks my heart that we won't get to see him again and again, kicking drivers out of semis, impaling people on pencils, telling stories about his scars, and having fun playing games with his favorite nemesis. He made a joyful, terrifying, sweet, incredible psychopath, and while I'm sure his family mourns the loss of the man they knew, I can only mourn the fact that he will not keep smiling.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
Okay, I can't leave it at that. There was a continuity error that bugged me, and a set up that I kept waiting for them to come back to and they never did.
The continuity error: The mobster that Batman drops from the building, a few stories up so that he'll survive. You see his ankles break. A couple scenes later, he shows up to tip off Gordan about where the Joker will be that afternoon. I see no casts or crutches. Also, the police don't rush off to the harbor. We do, to see the money burning, and it's a nice segue. But it seems like the police didn't do anything with the tip off.
The set up: When Rachel and Dent were held hostage, and the Joker gave Batman the two addresses. Gordan asked which he was going to, and he said Rachel. I thought he said Rachel, anyway. Maybe he said you get Rachel? I don't know. Anyway, I thought Batman was going to get Rachel, and the Joker switched the addresses, as a, um, joke. If that's the case, why didn't anyone tell Dent? When he was going on about how they didn't save Rachel, why didn't they tell him they were trying to, and it was the Joker's lie that made it so that Batman got to him instead? or at least mention it amongst themselves. . . I felt that piece needed resolution.
Posted by Enigmatic (Member # 7785) on :
It occured to me that if we'd really wanted to be true to the spirit of the movie we'd have put nothing particularly revealling in this thread and all the spoilers in the other one.
I guess the biggest thing I wanted to share which really is one heck of a spoiler, is the crucial Heath Ledger bit after the credits. It's a really amazing interview with Heath about what he wanted to bring to the character of the Joker and how utterly he got into it, even contributing ideas for key plot twists - like how he explains that it was his idea, not Nolan's, for him to fake his own death a few months back so he could screw with people's heads just like the Joker does and then pull off the big surprise coming back (just like the trick Jim Gordon does) and reveal that he's signed on for the next three Batman films. That was truly brilliant!
--Enigmatic
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
I did want to yell "Idiots! Sit back down!" to all the people getting up and leaving before the credits. I mean, really. Who wouldn't expect a stinger at the end of Batman?
Posted by kojabu (Member # 8042) on :
This thread has made me make plans to see it on Sunday. I'm *very* excited.
Posted by Dr Strangelove (Member # 8331) on :
Wow. Just saw it. Wow. That was ... just a different class of movie. I can't even begin ... I'm too tired and have work tomorrow. But I'm blown away.
ElJay: With the mobster, in one of the last scenes you seem him get into his car with a cane or something. I don't remember the scene with Gordon. Why they didn't rush the harbor when the money was burning is (I'm pretty sure) because they wanted everyone available to get people out of the hospitals. As for the Rachel/Dent switch, I definitely heard Batman say that he was going for Rachel, and then I think he yelled "No!" when he saw he actually got Harvey. I think there were several allusions here and there to the switch, but never anything specific. I was confused about that as well.
I can't leave this thread without at least saying one specific thing I thought was brilliant: The entire scene with the Joker in the hospital turning Dent into Two-Face. I mean ... that was just ridiculous. Brilliant brilliant acting and writing. Laughing at the Joker wearing a wig, scratching your head at his logic, feeling your stomach curl when Dent/Two Face flipped the coin ... Ah. I fear to think what dreams I will have tonight.
Posted by neo-dragon (Member # 7168) on :
quote:Batman shows disdain for their methods, but the only difference between them and him is a hell of a lot of money. They're probably even braver and crazier than he is, going up against criminals without titanium/Kevlar body armor.
Actually, I think that the years of dedication and training is the real difference. Bruce Wayne would still be a better Batman than any of them if he did it in his underwear armed with a spoon! picking up a gun and putting on hockey pads doesn't make them anything but stupid and impressionable.
Anyway, some random thoughts immediately after seeing it...
- The Scarecrow cameo was a nice touch. I had no idea he would appear in this one. I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that it wasn't Cillian Murphy under the mask though. - Speaking of that bit, all the Batman copycats made the sequence a bit confusing at times. - And speaking of the copycats, what a wonderful idea! Nolan continues to bring realism to the super hero genre. I'm pretty certain that that's exactly what would happen if Batman was real; a bunch of misguided but well-meaning saps would think that they could be imitate him. Nevermind the lack of high tech equipment and years of training. - As much as I enjoyed it (and I did enjoy it, by the way) that movie felt long. Granted, the discomfort of being just 4 rows back from the screen no doubt made me feel the length more. - Much has been said about the darkness and intensity of TDK, and thus I thought I went into it knowing what to expect. I didn't. There's hardly a minute of that movie when something intense isn't happening. One second the Joker's robbing a bank, then threatening to (and for the most part succeeding at) killing the Mayor, the commissioner, Harvey Dent, etc., then he's blowing up a hospital, then he's threatening to blow up a ferry, then after the last Joker related climax there's the showdown with Two-face. I don't know that this is a bad thing necessarily, but it's a lot to take in. - Rachel's death seemed sudden, and the emotional effect was somewhat lost among all the other stuff that was happening. - Speaking of deaths, they totally had me going with Jim Gordon's death. I know, I shouldn't have fell for it, but I did. - Two-face's appearance: Well done. Funny enough, there was an image released on youtube about a month back which everyone called a fake. I just looked it up. It's actually the real thing. - The ferry scenario: I like the bit with the big scary convict doing the noble thing, but I'm not sure why his buddies didn't tear him apart for it. You can't expect me to believe that more than a few of these dangerous criminals were willing to sacrifice themselves to save others. In fact, I think the whole thing was touching but unrealistic. In real life it's just a matter of which ferry would have gone first. I mean, a lot of the innocent people had their children with them. I don't think that very many people would let their children die rather than kill a boat load of convicts. However, I have a strong suspicion that each detonator was rigged to blow up its own boat. I guess we'll never know though. - The ending was depressing, but powerful. The contrast between a white knight and a dark knight throughout the film really paid off in the end, but how can they leave it at that? Who am I kidding? We know there'll be another sequel.
That's all that comes to mind for now.
Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
quote: I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that it wasn't Cillian Murphy under the mask though.
That's a big limb. They show his face. He ends up tied up with the other crooks and shipped back to Arkham.
Posted by Shanna (Member # 7900) on :
quote:The ferry scenario: I like the bit with the big scary convict doing the noble thing, but I'm not sure why his buddies didn't tear him apart for it. You can't expect me to believe that more than a few of these dangerous criminals were willing to sacrifice themselves to save others. In fact, I think the whole thing was touching but unrealistic. In real life it's just a matter of which ferry would have gone first. I mean, a lot of the innocent people had their children with them. I don't think that very many people would let their children die rather than kill a boat load of convicts. However, I have a strong suspicion that each detonator was rigged to blow up its own boat. I guess we'll never know though.
I had the same sneaky suspicion. And I agree that it was unrealistic. Talking about the movie after, we all agreed that this scene seemed like something out of the "Saw" franchise.
On the whole, I thought the movie was incredible. It did seem alittle long and and could have done with maybe one less ending. There were quite a few climactic movie-ending moments but it just kept on rolling.
I've also decided that I react to the Joker much in the same way that I react to dead-baby jokes. I laugh but then I feel guilty and dirty. Its amazing how much you love and hate him.
I also feel sorry for all the little kids who have parents who will take them to see this. I had my hands over my eyes on several occasions.
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
Oh, man!
I just got back from the movie.
But... I didn't wait until after the credits. Was that thing about Heath Ledger a lie?! That's too cruel a thing to say, and you know it. If it's a lie... well.
Posted by Puffy Treat (Member # 7210) on :
quote:Originally posted by neo-dragon:
- The Scarecrow cameo was a nice touch. I had no idea he would appear in this one. I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that it wasn't Cillian Murphy under the mask though.
- Two-face's appearance: Well done. Funny enough, there was an image released on youtube about a month back which everyone called a fake. I just looked it up. It's actually the real thing.
It was Cillian.
When I posted the image, nearly everyone replied that they -knew- it was a fan-made fake. Heh.
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
Then again... what with the whole "signed on for three sequels!" bit, I have a feeling that wasn't true.
Gah, that statement was too provocative to pass up.
It'd have to be in the news. That is, at minimum tomorrow. That's something too big to keep secret.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
quote:Actually, I think that the years of dedication and training is the real difference.
Which also boils down to . . . money. I know Bruce Wayne wasn't using his money in the years he was off training, but knowing it's there to fall back on makes it a lot easier to throw everything away, ya know?
Posted by Puffy Treat (Member # 7210) on :
quote:Originally posted by 0Megabyte: Oh, man!
I just got back from the movie.
But... I didn't wait until after the credits. Was that thing about Heath Ledger a lie?! That's too cruel a thing to say, and you know it. If it's a lie... well.
Was what thing about Heath Ledger a lie?
There was a dedication to him added to the credits. That was meant to show respect. What struck you as a cruel thing to say?
Posted by Dr Strangelove (Member # 8331) on :
Puffy, I think he's talking about this post:
quote:Originally posted by Enigmatic: It occured to me that if we'd really wanted to be true to the spirit of the movie we'd have put nothing particularly revealling in this thread and all the spoilers in the other one.
I guess the biggest thing I wanted to share which really is one heck of a spoiler, is the crucial Heath Ledger bit after the credits. It's a really amazing interview with Heath about what he wanted to bring to the character of the Joker and how utterly he got into it, even contributing ideas for key plot twists - like how he explains that it was his idea, not Nolan's, for him to fake his own death a few months back so he could screw with people's heads just like the Joker does and then pull off the big surprise coming back (just like the trick Jim Gordon does) and reveal that he's signed on for the next three Batman films. That was truly brilliant!
--Enigmatic
Posted by Puffy Treat (Member # 7210) on :
Oh. He took that seriously? Posted by Dr Strangelove (Member # 8331) on :
It was pretty well done by Enig. When I read "the crucial Heath Ledger bit after the credits" my heart jumped a bit, because I stayed after the credits and was about to be pissed that I didn't see it. I honestly thought they would've had more than just the shared dedication. Especially if it's at all true that Ledger immersion in the character led to depression or whatever. And after seeing it, I could see that being possible.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
It felt closer to Heat than a comic book movie. I think the Departed was closer to a comic book movie than TDK. Ledger was fantastic as the Joker. And the Joker was a compelling character, but Batman was/is too emotionally detached for me to care. I wish he were more sensitive or sensual. I could have used a scene with him training and maybe throwing up at the end or appreciating art or caring about a novel, or lusting after a doughnut, or even enjoying sex, or caring about something other than his abstract fascination with Rachel Dawes(Gyllenhaal is charming, though.) The guy was an alien. I know the emotional detachment is part of what it is to be Batman, but I don't want to watch a movie about an alien. Kind of a neat distinction between guardian and hero, though.
There are good things about the movie. The message that one cannot anticipate political action. Wayne wanted to serve as beckon of strength and hope, and in doing so, he inspired Harvey Dent, dangerously hapless Batman imitators, and drew the Joker to himself. The mob bosses let the Joker go wild, and after that, they couldn't control or predict his next action. I actually think that's the take home message of good drama.
The radical unpredictability of the Joker was what mattered and drove the movie, I think. Even with the dilemma on the boat, my first thought was, "How do you know the Joker is telling the truth about what detonates what?"
I was a little bit curious about the distinction between masked vigilantes and open, court-trying DAs, but I think the issues were muddled. I think the problem was of all five of the characters, Harvey Dent, Joker, Dawes, Gordon and Batman, the Batman was the one whose actions were least interesting. They also needed another woman. I don't know how or why, but if Harvey Dent were changed into a woman or if the judge had had a bigger role, I think the entire drama would have better.
[ July 18, 2008, 05:20 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by neo-dragon (Member # 7168) on :
quote:Originally posted by TL:
quote: I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that it wasn't Cillian Murphy under the mask though.
That's a big limb. They show his face. He ends up tied up with the other crooks and shipped back to Arkham.
Oh, I must have missed that somehow. I just assumed that since his face was covered (almost) the whole time and it was such a small part they could have gotten anyone to do it.
Posted by Enigmatic (Member # 7785) on :
quote:The radical unpredictability of the Joker was what mattered and drove the movie, I think. Even with the dilemma on the boat, my first thought was, "How do you know the Joker is telling the truth about what detonates what?"
Yep. I was fully expecting the civilians to hit their detonator first and blow up their own boat.
--Enigmatic
Posted by Puffy Treat (Member # 7210) on :
Changing Harvey Dent into a woman would not have made the character more interesting. It would have been a change merely for the sake of change.
Personally, I'm rooting for Selina Kyle or Talia Al Ghul for the sequel.
Posted by neo-dragon (Member # 7168) on :
quote:Originally posted by Puffy Treat: Personally, I'm rooting for Selina Kyle or Talia Al Ghul for the sequel.
There was the remark about his new costume holding up against cats...
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:They, combined with the ferry passengers at the end, really drove in that the Joker was wrong, about these people will start eating each other if you take away their rules and give them a little push.
I think it was a clever bit of staging the way the choice between prisoners killing bystanders and bystanders killing prisoners was arranged. Had it simply been a matter of mob rule, i.e. there wasn't iron-clad 'you'll be killed with a shotgun if you try to take the switch' control exerted, I never would've bought it.
However, because it had to come down to one individual asking for it and then going through with becoming a mass murderer at the whim of a madman...that I could buy, though it was a stretch. Strangely I bought it from the prisoner more than the guy who was willing 'to get my hands dirty'. Wasn't that DeVo (sp?) from the movie Friday?
Hell, maybe it says something about me for good or bad that I can identify with the (presumably nasty) convict willing to die rather than submit to the Joker in that respect (and become a mass-murderer in the process) than I would be a stereotypical innocent bystander permitting a bunch of nasty convicts to kill all of them. But again, in this scene, it worked for me.
quote:Batman shows disdain for their methods, but the only difference between them and him is a hell of a lot of money.
Well, not really. That's a huge difference, of course, but the bigger difference is that Batman doesn't kill. Though an excellent case can be made that it's his money and perhaps more importantly the time that money provides for training that permits him to keep that ideal.
quote: There were so many things they did right. The Joker was 100% right, and I'll leave most of that commentary to Enig. I need to get to bed sometime, after all. But I will say that I haven't always been crazy about the portrayal of Bruce Wayne. I think the playboy bits are frequently too over the top, and they were here too. Even with Rachel knowing it was an act and why, it was hard for me to believe she'd put up with him being such a cad.
Heh, in many ways she didn't put up with it. Went from romantic-love for him to 'I'm-your-friend' love for him, after all. Which though not inferior in general is, in this case I think, a step down in the affection department.
The scene with the car and the 'making the light' was indeed awesome:)
quote: Finally, for real this time, I do very much hope that Heath Ledger gets an Academy Award for this movie. His portrayal was brilliant, and as I am a selfish movie goer, it breaks my heart that we won't get to see him again and again, kicking drivers out of semis, impaling people on pencils, telling stories about his scars, and having fun playing games with his favorite nemesis. He made a joyful, terrifying, sweet, incredible psychopath, and while I'm sure his family mourns the loss of the man they knew, I can only mourn the fact that he will not keep smiling.
Very well put indeed. Loved him in Four Feathers(that one especially), Patriot, and Brothers Grimm as well, the only films of his I've seen. I definitely think his performance was Oscar-worthy at the least. I can't really imagine someone surpassing that performance-certainly not Jack as Joker in Burton's film, for that matter.
quote: The continuity error: The mobster that Batman drops from the building, a few stories up so that he'll survive. You see his ankles break. A couple scenes later, he shows up to tip off Gordan about where the Joker will be that afternoon. I see no casts or crutches. Also, the police don't rush off to the harbor. We do, to see the money burning, and it's a nice segue. But it seems like the police didn't do anything with the tip off.
I noticed the ankle thing too (though Maroni did have a cane), but it wasn't entirely clear how much time had passed. Not enough though, I think. As for the money, it was torched within the hold of a ship at night.
One noteworthy thing for me about the movie was that, despite staying within its PG-13 rating, the content in what happens to the characters involved...*shudder*...much darker and more unpleasant than I would've associated with a PG-13 film. Very artfully done.
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
I saw the midnight showing and it was fantastic. The Joker conveyed an air of complete insanity and evil that I have never seen in any other film.
Posted by T:man (Member # 11614) on :
Migod that was awesome my favorite line "How about a magic trick, I'll make this pencil dissapear hoo ho hee hee ho haha ha ho."
Joker was perfect so was Two-Face.
I'm crossing my fingers for Edward Nigma and Selina Kyle. hee hee hee Wanna hear a riddle?
May he rest in peace.
[ July 19, 2008, 03:52 PM: Message edited by: T:man ]
Posted by neo-dragon (Member # 7168) on :
quote:Originally posted by T:man: Is Ledger really dead? I didn't wait till after the credits.
Just take some time and think about that.
Posted by Earendil18 (Member # 3180) on :
quote:Originally posted by Enigmatic: It occured to me that if we'd really wanted to be true to the spirit of the movie we'd have put nothing particularly revealling in this thread and all the spoilers in the other one.
I guess the biggest thing I wanted to share which really is one heck of a spoiler, is the crucial Heath Ledger bit after the credits. It's a really amazing interview with Heath about what he wanted to bring to the character of the Joker and how utterly he got into it, even contributing ideas for key plot twists - like how he explains that it was his idea, not Nolan's, for him to fake his own death a few months back so he could screw with people's heads just like the Joker does and then pull off the big surprise coming back (just like the trick Jim Gordon does) and reveal that he's signed on for the next three Batman films. That was truly brilliant!
--Enigmatic
*adds to list*
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Excellent. This is the first scary Joker to appear on screen, big or small.
I think it also demonstrates why DC's making a definitive backstory for the Joker was dumb. He's much scarier giving different answers to where he got his scars and the audience having no idea which, if any, is true.
Posted by neo-dragon (Member # 7168) on :
I wasn't aware that DC ever made a definitive backstory.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Edit: And another.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:I wasn't aware that DC ever made a definitive backstory.
There have been multiple backstories given for Joker, though I'm not sure if the Joker currently in Batman runnings has one. I like either not having one, or having multiple different possibilities-some or all of which are likely to be lies. After all, why would Joker tell?
Having Joker be the one who murdered the Waynes is especially dumb, though I thought it worked in Batman.
This Joker was much scarier than any of the other Batman movie villains we've seen.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
Put me in the camp who believes that the Joker's origin doesn't matter. I like the multiple origins. It's not like he has an army of followers. There isn't a Joker epidemic to be stopped. What matters is that he is free and dangerous. You can't trace the trajectory of his wants or aims; you can't anticipate his goals. There isn't a need to try. You just have to deal with the fact of him.
I guess in a vague sense, he wants to bring out the worst in people and break people, but short of that, I like that his situation doesn't admit a linear progression.
Edit:
And how cool was it to depict the Prisoner's Dilemma, with prisoners, but not in the usual way.
[ July 19, 2008, 11:44 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by Enigmatic (Member # 7785) on :
quote:Originally posted by Earendil18: *adds to list*
Is it a good list, or a bad list?
--Enigmatic (is off to see the wizard.)
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Originally posted by Enigmatic:
quote:The radical unpredictability of the Joker was what mattered and drove the movie, I think. Even with the dilemma on the boat, my first thought was, "How do you know the Joker is telling the truth about what detonates what?"
Yep. I was fully expecting the civilians to hit their detonator first and blow up their own boat.
I was expecting each detonator to blow up both boats.
Posted by Humean316 (Member # 8175) on :
I just saw it, and I can't really think straight. Wow. Just wow. I was talking to my friends about it, and the best comparison I have is being in a boxing match and receiving body-blow after body-blow.
I echo everyone else's sentiments, but the final scene of the movie, for me, was the most poignant and nearly made me cry. Batman declaring that he is not the hero and that Harvey Dent had to be the hero for the city was simply painful to watch, and when he began to run from the police, knowing that he would be hunted down like the criminals he fights against, I simply wished for five minutes. After basically two hours of torture for Bruce Wayne, he continued to fight, continued to give Gotham what it needs even at the cost of himself, and in that moment, I just wanted five minutes for him to breathe. I wanted peace for him beyond anything else. Just five minutes of peace after having saved Gotham is all I wanted, and yet, neither he nor I could have them.
Simply a great movie. Wow is all I can say. Cheers all.
Posted by Earendil18 (Member # 3180) on :
quote:Originally posted by Enigmatic:
quote:Originally posted by Earendil18: *adds to list*
Is it a good list, or a bad list?
--Enigmatic (is off to see the wizard.)
I believed you. You broke my heart man. Posted by MEC (Member # 2968) on :
I don't know if it's been mentioned, I don't have time to read all the posts right now (I will though), but I was completely in disbelief when joker took out the helicopter and made it hit the SWAT van, it was so improbable that it didn't seem like it would fit in with the Joker's overall plan.
Posted by neo-dragon (Member # 7168) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:Originally posted by Enigmatic:
quote:The radical unpredictability of the Joker was what mattered and drove the movie, I think. Even with the dilemma on the boat, my first thought was, "How do you know the Joker is telling the truth about what detonates what?"
Yep. I was fully expecting the civilians to hit their detonator first and blow up their own boat.
I was expecting each detonator to blow up both boats.
Somehow I think that the Joker would have been more amused if only the ones who proved his point by trying to blow up the others got killed. Everyone dying seems less funny. Or maybe that's just me.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
A few thoughts:
Does the Joker ever break his word? He says that trying to get out of Gotham by the tunnels or roads would be a bad idea (which is obviously the set up for his ferry stunt,) but we don't know that he hasn't booby trapped the other ways out of Gotham as well. I don't know what to believe about the detonators (the "blowing up your own boat" idea does have a certain appeal, especially given the Joker's sense of humor). I do like the scene with the convict, though, and I can even believe it. Some people do find their conscience and accept responsibility for their past actions in jail. And there would be no point in attacking him after the deed was done. The grimmer point in the ferry scene is about the willingness of people- even people who are normally in authority themselves- to turn responsibility for "necessary evils" over to others.
I'm just as glad that Joker wasn't more "sensual", especially if they ever decide to introduce Harley Quinn. The completely unrequited nature of her feelings for Joker give her character its poignance. Though of course figuring out who could possibly replace Ledger after this performance is a whole other question.
Rachel's death took me by surpsise. It was a fairly bold choice, and one I didn't expect. (And, yes, I heard that Batman was going after Rachel as well...)
It bothered me a bit that they kind of quietly forgot (perhaps intentionally) that the accountant was on top of that pile of bills that Joker set on fire.
It also occurred to me that (Ramirez?), the cop Two-Face allows to live, must know that the story Wayne and Gordon put forward about Dent is a lie. I don't know if this is a loose end or an intentional choice to allow for Batman's future redemption.
A good movie. They definitely made some brave and uncompromising choices. It's going to be very hard for a third movie to measure up... And, frankly, I don't know that they've left themselves in the best place for a sequel, at least from a conventional standpoint. We shall see.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:I don't know if it's been mentioned, I don't have time to read all the posts right now (I will though), but I was completely in disbelief when joker took out the helicopter and made it hit the SWAT van, it was so improbable that it didn't seem like it would fit in with the Joker's overall plan.[
Really? Because it wasn't as if there were many places for the wreck to go besides down to the street...where the police vehicles were driving. Wasn't too improbable that it would happen. But who said that it was part of the plan? He had other ways to take out that other SWAT van, I'm sure.
quote: Does the Joker ever break his word? He says that trying to get out of Gotham by the tunnels or roads would be a bad idea (which is obviously the set up for his ferry stunt,) but we don't know that he hasn't booby trapped the other ways out of Gotham as well.
Does the Joker ever lie? Of course. He lied to Batman about which address had which captive, and he lied to Dent about the whole mutilation and murder being 'nothing personal' (it was a part of his plan all along).
quote:It also occurred to me that (Ramirez?), the cop Two-Face allows to live, must know that the story Wayne and Gordon put forward about Dent is a lie. I don't know if this is a loose end or an intentional choice to allow for Batman's future redemption.
Actually, I think that was among the most poignant demonstrations of Two Face's illness, that he would let her live at the flip of a coin. Ramirez was possibly the worst traitor in the entire film: she didn't say that the mob was threatening her mother, just that they were paying her so she could afford medical treatment.
And for that she helped turn over Dent and Dawes for torture and murder.
Posted by kojabu (Member # 8042) on :
quote:Originally posted by Enigmatic: It occured to me that if we'd really wanted to be true to the spirit of the movie we'd have put nothing particularly revealling in this thread and all the spoilers in the other one.
I guess the biggest thing I wanted to share which really is one heck of a spoiler, is the crucial Heath Ledger bit after the credits. It's a really amazing interview with Heath about what he wanted to bring to the character of the Joker and how utterly he got into it, even contributing ideas for key plot twists - like how he explains that it was his idea, not Nolan's, for him to fake his own death a few months back so he could screw with people's heads just like the Joker does and then pull off the big surprise coming back (just like the trick Jim Gordon does) and reveal that he's signed on for the next three Batman films. That was truly brilliant!
--Enigmatic
I stayed until the end and there was nothing. Did it come a minute or so after the final PG-13 rating screen?
Posted by MEC (Member # 2968) on :
quote:Originally posted by kojabu:
quote:Originally posted by Enigmatic: It occured to me that if we'd really wanted to be true to the spirit of the movie we'd have put nothing particularly revealling in this thread and all the spoilers in the other one.
I guess the biggest thing I wanted to share which really is one heck of a spoiler, is the crucial Heath Ledger bit after the credits. It's a really amazing interview with Heath about what he wanted to bring to the character of the Joker and how utterly he got into it, even contributing ideas for key plot twists - like how he explains that it was his idea, not Nolan's, for him to fake his own death a few months back so he could screw with people's heads just like the Joker does and then pull off the big surprise coming back (just like the trick Jim Gordon does) and reveal that he's signed on for the next three Batman films. That was truly brilliant!
--Enigmatic
I stayed until the end and there was nothing. Did it come a minute or so after the final PG-13 rating screen?
No, Enigmatic is just a liar.
Posted by Enigmatic (Member # 7785) on :
Not just a liar. Also a horrible, horrible person.
--Enigmatic
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
quote:In real life it's just a matter of which ferry would have gone first. I mean, a lot of the innocent people had their children with them. I don't think that very many people would let their children die rather than kill a boat load of convicts.
The ferry dilemma was probably my favorite part of the movie and I think I can buy it as realistic. When given anonymity, the innocent people voted 3 to 1 to kill the prisoners. But when the authority on the boat falters in executing the popular opinion, somebody else would have to taken it upon themselves to be personally responsible for pressing the button and having everybody else know that they pushed the button. I'm sure that there are many people in the world that could do it, but I think the majority likely would not, and I can buy that nobody on that boat was capable of it.
While the prisoner boat easily could have gone a different way, I don't have a problem accepting the way it happened.
I really enjoyed the film.
Posted by neo-dragon (Member # 7168) on :
Don't get me wrong, the ferry scenario didn't detract from my enjoyment of the film. I just don't think that it would have played out like that in real life. But the fact that this is a comic book movie and that's what jumped out at me for lack of realism really says something.
quote:It also occurred to me that (Ramirez?), the cop Two-Face allows to live, must know that the story Wayne and Gordon put forward about Dent is a lie. I don't know if this is a loose end or an intentional choice to allow for Batman's future redemption.
There's no doubt going to be a few cops who figure out that something's fishy, but there's no reason to blab about it. All that matters is that the general public doesn't know the truth.
Posted by Enigmatic (Member # 7785) on :
The thing that I wondered about the "Dent was pure and good, Batman killed the cops" ending is why the blame really had to go to Batman, in the midst of all that chaos. The Joker was very publically killing people all over and had plenty of henchmen at that point, so if you're going to cover up for Two-Face why not just blame the extra deaths on the Joker? It's at least as plausible as saying Batman did it.
Except that it doesn't set up as tragic of an ending for Batman that way, of course.
--Enigmatic
Posted by Dr Strangelove (Member # 8331) on :
The way I figure the ferry scenario is that in real life it would be a toss-up between whether someone got the trigger and threw it out the window or got the trigger and turned the key (I liked that it was a key and not a button so as to prevent accidents). I personally would be gunning for control over the trigger to throw it out the window. One of my friends I saw the movie with said he would be the one to turn the key. I figure in a group of people (families or convicts) there are a number of people like and and like my friend, so it's just a matter of who's assertive first. I think the most unrealistic thing was that it took so long for there to be resolution. I guess 15 minutes isn't that long, but it seems a stretch. I'd say it'd be closer to 5 minutes before there was resolution. But that's just a guess.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
quote:Originally posted by Enigmatic: The thing that I wondered about the "Dent was pure and good, Batman killed the cops" ending is why the blame really had to go to Batman, in the midst of all that chaos. The Joker was very publically killing people all over and had plenty of henchmen at that point, so if you're going to cover up for Two-Face why not just blame the extra deaths on the Joker? It's at least as plausible as saying Batman did it.
Except that it doesn't set up as tragic of an ending for Batman that way, of course.
--Enigmatic
The story has the odd side-benefit of helping Batman with the growing understanding among the criminal underworld that he doesn't kill people.
Posted by Lime (Member # 1707) on :
Well, the cops were already on the scene when Gordon showed up, and they knew that Batman was already there. Someone that was known to be at the scene had to have killed Dent, and it wasn't going to be Gordon.
The whole scene feels a bit rushed now that I'm remembering it; didn't it boil down to Batman saying that they could blame Dent's death (as well as the ones that Dent perpetrated) on him?
Posted by neo-dragon (Member # 7168) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dr Strangelove: I personally would be gunning for control over the trigger to throw it out the window. One of my friends I saw the movie with said he would be the one to turn the key.
Just wondering: would taking it upon yourself to presumably doom at least one boat load of people against the wishes of the majority not have weighed heavily on your conscience?
Posted by Dr Strangelove (Member # 8331) on :
quote:Originally posted by neo-dragon:
quote:Originally posted by Dr Strangelove: I personally would be gunning for control over the trigger to throw it out the window. One of my friends I saw the movie with said he would be the one to turn the key.
Just wondering: would taking it upon yourself to presumably doom at least one boat load of people against the wishes of the majority not have weighed heavily on your conscience?
I don't want to turn this into a moral debate or anything like it, but heck yes it would. However, given the option to either turn the key myself, sit by while someone else turned the key, or throw the key overboard, I'm reasonably confident now, sitting in my comfy chair in an office, that throwing the key overboard would weigh on my conscious less than the other two. For the short amount of my time my conscience existed before being blown to bits that is .
Edit: Woot! ToPP!
Posted by T:man (Member # 11614) on :
Although I'm ashamed to say it I would be able to turn the key and It wouldn't way me down too much. Though from the starting I had the suspicion that the key blew their own boat.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
This is akin to saying "if terrorists came to my school I would grab the gun out of their hands if presented the opportunity" in reality the fight or flight response we will almost certainly never know.
I have a sneaking suspicion I would turn the key though, I'm like Achilles, I can't stand the thought of my fate resting in other people's hands.
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
I wouldn't compare myself to Achilles if I were, well, anybody.
Not that Achilles, anyway.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
I like to think most of us wouldn't turn the key ourselves; the bigger question is, would you accept giving someone else the responsibility for doing so if you could do so annonymously?
Posted by Saephon (Member # 9623) on :
I'd like to know why so many people are ready to believe something a known lunatic/terrorist says will happen. No idea what I'd really do in that situation, but I'd like to believe I'd toss it out the window as well.
Posted by neo-dragon (Member # 7168) on :
What's the real difference between turning the key yourself and letting someone else do it with your blessing? For that matter, I don't see much of a difference between turning the key and tossing it out the window. If you look at it objectively both actions doom at least one boat. The latter only appears more noble because you happen to be among the people who you decide to kill, so no one can say you did it just for self-preservation. But assuming the Joker was telling the truth, turning a key at least saves one boat while tossing it doubles the chances that BOTH will be destroyed.
Ignoring the chance of rescue, every choice results in at least one ferry being destroyed, and turning a key is the only choice that guarantees that ONLY one is destroyed. So I think I would have turned the key and slept soundly.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
I suppose the difference is whether you choose to accept the situation at your killer's level or refuse. The discussion seems to make a strong case that one can't take it as a given that throwing the switch will do what the Joker says it will, but putting that aside, there's the argument that the only person who can really judge the value of a life and whether it is acceptable under the circumstances to end it is the person who has lived it.
If you reduce it to a simpler level: "Here's a knife. Your friend has a knife. You have one minute to kill your friend, or have your friend kill you, or I'll kill you both", on a realistic level you have no reason to believe the person offering you such terms intends to let you live no matter what occurs. But on a moral level, even if you can accept the situation at face value, you still arguably have a moral directive not to kill- to refuse to accept responsibility for taking another human life, and refusing to accept that the killer's willingness to take both lives is tantamount to your unwillingness being complicity in both murders.
The difference between mass complicity in a murder and direct responsibility may be more psychological than real, but human nature seems to drive home again and again that people would rather be indirectly responsible for death- or be willing to believe themselves responsible for 1/128th of a death, or some such, than the striker of the killing blow. I'm told that real-world firing squads often have a large number of the shooters firing blanks, and gas chambers, hanging posts, and electric chairs are often rigged with multiple switches so none of the switch-pullers or shooters necessarily knows on whom the actual responsibility falls.
Posted by Seatarsprayan (Member # 7634) on :
quote:Just wondering: would taking it upon yourself to presumably doom at least one boat load of people against the wishes of the majority not have weighed heavily on your conscience?
But see, throwing the detonator out the window isn't what dooms anyone. The Joker putting explosives on the boat with the intent of murdering people is what dooms everyone. NOT turning the key and murdering the other boat is not the same as dooming your own boat. The Joker is doing that.
Personally if the other boat was *only* fully of convicts, I might be able to buy the "they're criminals anyway, let's just blow 'em up" argument, but since there are cops and crew there that point becomes moot. Turning the key is killing those people.
Is not turning the key killing everyone, when the Joker blows them up at midnight? No. Because that responsbility rests with the Joker.
I guess it depends if you believe in maximizing moral behavior (people die, but at least we aren't murderers) or lives (we should blow up one boat, to save the other, no sense both boats blowing up).
The former decision is actually easier in this case because the latter decision might result in one boat blowing up only to have the Joker blow up the other anyway. So you have multiplication of murderers and no lives saved anyway, a complete failure.
Personally I figure there's no point in playing the games of people that setup the "you kill this person or I'll kill both of you" scenarios. If they are setting that up anyway, they are already evil murderers so why believe anything they say about the outcome? I wouldn't murder someone if I *knew* it would save my own butt so I'm certainly not going to murder someone based on the *chance* of surviving.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I haven't seen the film yet, mind, but is there any particular reason why everyone stayed on the boats?
Posted by Godric 2.0 (Member # 11443) on :
Shark infested waters?
(I haven't seen it yet either)
Posted by manji (Member # 11600) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: I haven't seen the film yet, mind, but is there any particular reason why everyone stayed on the boats?
I forget, but Joker was watching the boats pretty closely, from a pretty high vantage point. He might have mentioned a stipulation that if anyone thinks of escaping, he'll blow both boats. But, I forget.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by manji:
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: I haven't seen the film yet, mind, but is there any particular reason why everyone stayed on the boats?
I forget, but Joker was watching the boats pretty closely, from a pretty high vantage point. He might have mentioned a stipulation that if anyone thinks of escaping, he'll blow both boats. But, I forget.
He did indeed say that. Or at least, that's what I remember. It might have been "Anyone tries to escape, I blow both boats." Something like that.
Posted by neo-dragon (Member # 7168) on :
I'm starting to think that this discussion needs its own thread. Anyway...
quote:Originally posted by Seatarsprayan:
quote:Just wondering: would taking it upon yourself to presumably doom at least one boat load of people against the wishes of the majority not have weighed heavily on your conscience?
But see, throwing the detonator out the window isn't what dooms anyone. The Joker putting explosives on the boat with the intent of murdering people is what dooms everyone. NOT turning the key and murdering the other boat is not the same as dooming your own boat. The Joker is doing that.
I think the difference between how I see this and how you see it is that you're thinking primarily of responsibility and I'm just thinking of results. No matter who dies or who does what with what key it's the Joker's responsibility. Nobody in either boat asked to be in the situation. But the fact remains that eliminating one switch increases the odds of everyone dying for the sake of somebody's clear conscience.
Objectively, I think that blame and responsibility shouldn't be considered. The best choice is the one that minimizes lives lost. Throwing the detonator away is like saying "I don't care who dies so long as it's the Joker's fault, not mine".
However, my views are based on the assumptions that the Joker is telling the truth and there is no chance of outside intervention. I wouldn't make either assumption in reality.
quote:If you reduce it to a simpler level: "Here's a knife. Your friend has a knife. You have one minute to kill your friend, or have your friend kill you, or I'll kill you both", on a realistic level you have no reason to believe the person offering you such terms intends to let you live no matter what occurs. But on a moral level, even if you can accept the situation at face value, you still arguably have a moral directive not to kill- to refuse to accept responsibility for taking another human life, and refusing to accept that the killer's willingness to take both lives is tantamount to your unwillingness being complicity in both murders.
In this situation if you throw you knife away then you've decided to forfeit your own life. That's fine. With the ferries, if you throw the key away you've chosen to forfeit the lives of hundreds of people without their consent. I think there's a difference.
Posted by Elmer's Glue (Member # 9313) on :
I think all the detonators went to both boats.
Posted by Puffy Treat (Member # 7210) on :
Watched it again today. The Joker definitely says that if anyone tries to jump ship, he'll just up and destroy both boats.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I'm sure everything that can be said has been said, so I'll just say this:
Wow!
Posted by Elmer's Glue (Member # 9313) on :
That was already said.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
So I saw the movie, and thought it was excellent. But I'm not quite at the level of fanboy love that the rest of the world seems to be at.
I thought it was very cool. But I think I liked Batman Begins better.
I'll probably see it again, so maybe seeing it knowing what's going to happen and not having whatever expectations i had coming in will change things. We'll see.
Though I will say the magic trick was brilliant.
Posted by aragorn64 (Member # 4204) on :
This isn't just me jumping on a hype train, but this was one of the best movies I've ever seen.
I was tense for about half of the movie. I didn't breathe for the last fifteen minutes. When the movie was over I just sat there, dumbfounded. I didn't know what to say. That has never happened to me.
I know some of you will just regard that as stupid fanboyish hyperbole, but it's not. I've never really liked Batman (besides Batman Begins). I didn't have great hopes for the movie. This wasn't confirmation bias.
Honestly, after watching the Dark Knight, other forms of entertainment seem flat by comparison. It'll wear off eventually, I know, but right now it's about all I can think about. But still, there were certain scenes and themes of the movie that are pretty much permanently burned into my mind.
Posted by Carrie (Member # 394) on :
quote:Originally posted by 0Megabyte: I wouldn't compare myself to Achilles if I were, well, anybody.
Not that Achilles, anyway.
Because, you know, the other Achilles is not at all morally questionable... Posted by Nick (Member # 4311) on :
I saw the movie tonight, I have to say I was enthralled. Other than that, everything I can say would pretty much echo what Strider said.
I would definitely say the last two movies have been excellent, where as the previous two have been horrible. Arnold as Dr. Freeze? Clooney as Batman? What was hollywood thinking?
Apparently somebody got their crap together with these movies.
Posted by aragorn64 (Member # 4204) on :
Also, was I the only person who didn't laugh at the "magic trick"? Maybe I didn't catch what really happened, but from what I saw it looked like the Joker slammed the guys head right into the top of the pencil, probably entering his brain and killing him. That seemed more grotesque than funny, and I just couldn't bring myself to laugh.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
So I really liked the movie. Bale and Oldman were really good, Gyllenhaal and Eckhart were even better, and Ledger just stole the show.
Here's my question - did anyone else find the themes in the last half of the movie unsettling? Particularly the "if you really need to, it's just fine to lie to people" and "people are sheep whose spirits are easily crushed without handsome, charismatic leaders" bits. It was disheartening, in retrospect, to see them spend all that time with the two ferries, leading up to the idea that the people of Gotham are ready to stand up for themselves in terrible times and make the right choice, only to have the good guys so severely underestimate thems.
In terms of story telling, it was all masterfully done, and the decisions the characters make are all very believable. I just disagreed with those decisions.
Posted by Puffy Treat (Member # 7210) on :
Gordon and Batman's lines at the end pointed more towards them worrying that all those criminals Dent charged would be released if word of his post-explosion activities got out. Yes, they were worried about what the people would think, but more about what this would do to Harvey's legacy. I did not find their words gave the impression that they thought it was fine to lie, or that they felt the people of Gotham were stupid...more that having all Dent's works undone would have been far worse than having Batman seen as an outlaw.
Whether or not they were right (I think) is left neutral. The film is left on an open note, no conclusive "This was the right choice!" given. Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
Was Dent corrupt at all before the explosion? I don't remember exactly, but when Dent was talking to the mob guy in the car after the explosion I thought I heard something that suggested they had already been doing business.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
quote:all those criminals Dent charged would be released if word of his post-explosion activities got out.
Can anyone expand on this for me? I understand that they were worried about it, but it seemed like very little explanation was provided about why. I took it as demeaning to the citizens of Gotham because they spoke about it like the entire criminal justice system died when Dent became Two-Face.
quote:Was Dent corrupt at all before the explosion? I don't remember exactly, but when Dent was talking to the mob guy in the car after the explosion I thought I heard something that suggested they had already been doing business.
I don't think so. Dent and Meroni would have been pretty familiar with each other though. Dent was prosecuting Meroni at the beginning of the movie.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
"I took it as demeaning to the citizens of Gotham because they spoke about it like the entire criminal justice system died when Dent became Two-Face."
Nor was it realistic. All the cases that Mike Nifong prosecuted didn't automatically get reversed just because he got fired for his behavior in the Duke lacrosse scandal. It would be like saying that because a prosecutor, out of nowhere, rapes and kills a child, that all of the cases he prosecuted will automatically be overturned. That's not realistic. Those cases might be more vigorously appealed, maybe.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
That movie was so good. I hope Watchmen is 1/4 as good. Now to decide if I will see it again today.
Posted by The Reader (Member # 3636) on :
quote:Originally posted by Juxtapose: So I really liked the movie. Bale and Oldman were really good, Gyllenhaal and Eckhart were even better, and Ledger just stole the show.
Here's my question - did anyone else find the themes in the last half of the movie unsettling? Particularly the "if you really need to, it's just fine to lie to people" and "people are sheep whose spirits are easily crushed without handsome, charismatic leaders" bits. It was disheartening, in retrospect, to see them spend all that time with the two ferries, leading up to the idea that the people of Gotham are ready to stand up for themselves in terrible times and make the right choice, only to have the good guys so severely underestimate thems.
In terms of story telling, it was all masterfully done, and the decisions the characters make are all very believable. I just disagreed with those decisions.
I think the theme about Harvey Dent is that he is only the beginning of a reformation in Gotham. It's not as if he is the only person in Gotham capable of doing what hwe has done (There was Batman, after all).
Now that you mention it, I do find it troubling that Dent is the only person expected to be the reformer. If Gordon had said something simple near the end along the lines of "Dent is only the beginning. Gothamites can win if we keep fighting." then I would feel different. And you're right about the lying. Gothamites deserved to know the truth, and also why Dent went mad.
IMO, Dent was on the edge of madness anyway. His devotion was becoming an obsession, as shown by his kidnapping of a criminal and flipping a coin to decide that man's fate.
Harvey Dent's decent into madness is amazing. Someone who was once a golden boy has his faith in the law crushed, and his reaction is to become a vigilante. Unlike Bruce Wayne, Dent (as Two-Face) has no code of honor. We get to see how dark and corrupted human nature can become when it is unconstrained by morality.
I don't believe that Batman could really exist, but I do believe the Joker could. He is a rational psychopath interested only in chaos, not money. That's why he is so terrifying. We all understand the desire for money, but not the desire to cause chaos for it's own purpose.
This is the best movie I have seen in a long time. Heath Ledger deserves an Oscar nom and Aaron Eckhart deserves one for best supporting.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I imagine the public would feel sympathetic towards him if they knew, at least some of them. The rest of them would be like, *Gasp* how terrible.
Should i see the Dark Knight on IMAX even if it means going all the way to reading and having to pay 11 dollars?
Posted by SteveRogers (Member # 7130) on :
I've seen it twice now. And I wouldn't mind seeing it again. Because I had just as many chills go down my spine the second time as the first. I felt emotions more powerfully. I jumped. I laughed. And, at times, was sincerely scared.
I think the cast was definitely stellar. Bale did, in my opinion, a great job playing the emotionally tortured yet restrained Batman/Bruce Wayne. Especially at the end when he confronted Dent after Rachel's death.
Eckhart was really quite good as the shining beacon that slowly began shining more dimly. I found his descent into insanity totally realistic.
However, I agree with most who said that Ledger stole the show. Best Actor material no doubt about it. He was barely recognizable. A number of his scenes were just chilling.
And I absolutely loved The Joker's final line. Something like: "Madness is like gravity. It just takes one little push." And then he swayed back and forth on the rope and laughed. That shot. That fade out. The line, the laugh, the shot. One of the finest moments of the movie for me. It's burned into my memory.
I also was continously impressed by the musical score. It built intensity and tension so thoroughly. And seemed to be a key part of the film.
I can honestly say that it is one of the best movies I've seen in a very long time. And I will be buying it the day it is released.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
quote:IMO, Dent was on the edge of madness anyway. His devotion was becoming an obsession, as shown by his kidnapping of a criminal and flipping a coin to decide that man's fate.
Not quite.
"Heads you live, Tails I shoot you."
When both sides are heads, the criminal was safe.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Reader: Heath Ledger deserves an Oscar nom
I don't know; that sounds like a good way to break a tooth.
Posted by aragorn64 (Member # 4204) on :
Re: the Dent conversation.
I think what they worried about was not that Dent's fall would somehow cause the chaos that the Joker desired, or that all people would somehow lose hope. What they didn't want was the message to leak out that the Joker had proved what he believed. That any man can be corrupted and brought down to the depths of despair and depravity.
Are people stupid? No...they aren't going to all lose faith in everything because Dent went mad and killed people. But then they might begin to realize that the Joker DID win. He proved his point. That's not an idea that they wanted infiltrating Gotham.
Also, I think there was also more to it. Wayne didn't want to be Gotham's symbol any longer. He felt that his way of inspiring people was not what Gotham needed right now (see his reaction to the fake Batmen). He wanted them to look up to a real MAN and not some superhero. Somebody that they could aspire to be. Somebody that was human, like them. Batman isn't a man. Dent is a man. He's somebody they can look up to, have faith in.
Like he said at the end, sometimes people deserve to have their faith rewarded. I think it might have been less "what happens if we let the truth out?" than "how might it help if we don't?"
But...whatever it is, the ending still hit me like a ton of bricks. Gordon's monologue at the end of the movie pierced right through, and put tears in my eyes. They certainly weren't happy tears. Bittersweet, maybe, but that isn't even an adequate description. They didn't feel good, but they felt right.
You know, the more I think about it, the more I realize that the Dark Knight is probably the best movie I've ever seen. Now, granted, that certainly doesn't mean it's the greatest movie ever made! It has a lot of flaws. But the (subjective, naturally) experience I received from this movie is unlike any other I've ever had. I'm not kidding here, and I'm not exaggerating. I'll probably be ridiculed for saying that. But the way in which this movie hit me was unlike any other.
Maybe "best movie I've ever seen" isn't a good descriptor, then. Something more like, "movie that has affected me like no other".
[ July 29, 2008, 01:52 AM: Message edited by: aragorn64 ]
Posted by The Reader (Member # 3636) on :
quote:Originally posted by Xavier:
quote:IMO, Dent was on the edge of madness anyway. His devotion was becoming an obsession, as shown by his kidnapping of a criminal and flipping a coin to decide that man's fate.
Not quite.
"Heads you live, Tails I shoot you."
When both sides are heads, the criminal was safe.
I didn't catch that. I must be used to coins having two sides.
Still, he did have the man tied (or was it handcuffed?) to a chair.
Posted by The Reader (Member # 3636) on :
quote:Originally posted by Noemon:
quote:Originally posted by The Reader: Heath Ledger deserves an Oscar nom
I don't know; that sounds like a good way to break a tooth.
Hey, I was tired and didn't feel like spelling nomination. Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
quote:Originally posted by aragorn64: Also, was I the only person who didn't laugh at the "magic trick"? Maybe I didn't catch what really happened, but from what I saw it looked like the Joker slammed the guys head right into the top of the pencil, probably entering his brain and killing him. That seemed more grotesque than funny, and I just couldn't bring myself to laugh.
About half the theater did a sort of gasping laugh when I saw the movie last night. I was one who did laugh. I think we laughed because it was really unexpected and shocking, yet an extremely clever, although brutal, way to get the attention and respect of the mob bosses in the room. And a great demonstration of the Joker's character, too.
There were a few flaws in the movie - Bale's surprising ability to make his rasping Batman voice completely nasal sounding and annoying is one of them - and the logistical impossibilities of the Joker's schemes another - but the movie was highly impactful and one of the best I've seen in a while. Probably the best action movie I've ever seen.
I didn't see "Batman Begins" until last week, and I thought it far better than any preceding movie about Batman, but not great (the ninja thing was dumb, IMO). However, "The Dark Knight" was a great movie. Although it was long I was engaged and tense throughout most of the movie, and I even kind of liked the bat pod thing even though it was the most impractical looking motorcycle ever conceived.
Ledger's performance will be legendary and I'm deeply regretting that he won't be around to do any more creepy characters.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
So ya wanna be a Batman?
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
Did anyone besides me feel sympathy for the Joker when Batman is beating the hell out of him in police custody, and the joker doesn't react as if he's in pain? The whole scene was structured to simulate a child being abused by a parent, which is one of the stories Joker had told about where he got his scars. The Joker had to have come from somewhere, and regardless how evil he is now, I found sympathy for his origins in that scene.
Posted by Elmer's Glue (Member # 9313) on :
...but he was lying.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
about what? My point isn't whether he was telling the truth, it was about the behavior in that scene. Batman is acting like an abusive parent, becoming violent because he has a need to be in control of his situation, while the Joker was responding by not showing any reaction to Batman's violence, which is a standard defense mechanism for victims of abuse.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Well.. Maybe not in the case of the Joker. he can't be bullied, he can't be bribed. He's not like normal men who would be intimidated by something like that, so that's why he's laughing and amused. Plus he sort of WANTS Batman to beat him up. Then he can get a shard of glass to threaten the next person with. So I don't really agree with that point of view. Especially since the only reason Batman is beating him up is because two of his friends have been kidnapped and he has no idea how to find them before they die.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote:Maybe not in the case of the Joker. he can't be bullied, he can't be bribed. He's not like normal men who would be intimidated by something like that, so that's why he's laughing and amused.
The question is why is he not like normal men? Do you simply assign the label of "Evil" without recognizing that it has a cause?
Posted by Sean Monahan (Member # 9334) on :
quote:Originally posted by Synesthesia: Plus he sort of WANTS Batman to beat him up.
This is the idea I got too. The first time I saw it, I noticed the little part in the middle of that scene where Gordon says, "He's losing control." The second time I saw it, I thought I heard Gordon say, "Who's in control?", which I think is a better line. Even though he's getting the crap kicked out of him, the Joker's in control.
When the Joker was getting beaten up, did anyone else think of Tyler Durden getting beaten up by Lou the mafioso?
Posted by aragorn64 (Member # 4204) on :
quote:Originally posted by Glenn Arnold:
quote:Maybe not in the case of the Joker. he can't be bullied, he can't be bribed. He's not like normal men who would be intimidated by something like that, so that's why he's laughing and amused.
The question is why is he not like normal men? Do you simply assign the label of "Evil" without recognizing that it has a cause?
Honestly, the Joker has gone beyond having a cause. Everybody has "causes". I don't know what the Joker went through to get where he was in the movie, but that certainly doesn't excuse him. A reason != an excuse (and I know you weren't saying that).
Anyway, yeah, I think the Joker most definitely wanted Batman to lose control. He's not afraid of pain, clearly. One of the Joker's main objectives is to show people that by pushing in just the right spot he can make them forget all of their "principles" and essentially become animals. The Joker showed a really sick pleasure while Batman was beating up on him. In his mind, the worst that he could do would be to kill him, which would accomplish his purpose anyway. (Remember the scene with Batman speeding towards him in the Batpod yelling "hit me!".) The Joker thrived in seeing Batman begin to lose control.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote:Everybody has "causes".
Not everybody is evil, though. To me, this is sort of related to the idea of empathizing with terrorists, because unless we are capable of understanding them, we can't stop them. Likewise, you hear police detectives saying "you've got to think like a criminal to catch a criminal."
It seems to me that this is why villains are so interesting in the first place.
Posted by aragorn64 (Member # 4204) on :
Yeah, that's my point. People can -- in general -- choose what to do with their lives despite their circumstances and their lives experiences. The Joker is evil because he choose to take those things and become what he did.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote:I don't know what the Joker went through to get where he was in the movie
quote:The Joker is evil because he choose to take those things and become what he did.
How can you claim it's just a matter of personal choice if you don't even know what he went through?
Regardless of which story Joker tells, he indicates that he was wronged and abused. We do know that he does bear the scars, we just don't know where they came from.
And BTW, I don't agree that people can choose what to do with their lives despite their experiences. That's just too similar to the myth that anyone can rise from poverty if they just make the right choices. It's not that simple.
Posted by Elmer's Glue (Member # 9313) on :
quote: Regardless of which story Joker tells, he indicates that he was wronged and abused. We do know that he does bear the scars, we just don't know where they came from.
...but he was lying. I don't know why you are so eager to make the Joker a victim.
Posted by Tarabon (Member # 11710) on :
Because he thinks that by understanding evil, and why someone is evil, we can fix it. This is better than punishing and destroying evil to him. He probabably thinks that because the Joker might have been abused as a kid, he should be rehabilitated for his crimes instead of being prevented from commiting them again. Like all those poor child molesters who were molested when they were kids. lets just let them run about and keep molesting kids, because they sure don't belong in jail, since it isn't their fault! Right?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Somehow I seriously doubt that he thinks child molesters who were themselves molested as children should be permitted to "run about and keep molesting kids." I know it's a pain to perceive nuance, but you might want to try. Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote:And BTW, I don't agree that people can choose what to do with their lives despite their experiences. That's just too similar to the myth that anyone can rise from poverty if they just make the right choices. It's not that simple.
Anyone can rise from poverty if they just make the right choices. Making the right choices is not simple. Even after a right choice is made things are not simple. People can sabotage themselves for many reasons. I have helped many people try to lose weight. Losing weight at its simplest means consuming less calories than you burn. The actual logistics and lifestyle changes needed to make weight loss occur can be monumental. Anyone can do it, but most people will not.
Posted by Tarabon (Member # 11710) on :
I guess no, TOm Davidson. But he probably doesn't think they belong in jail, especially if hey can prove they were molested when they were kids too.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
Pretty sure not, dude. And you might want to hang around a bit longer before making accusations like that about other members?
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote:I guess no, TOm Davidson. But he probably doesn't think they belong in jail, especially if hey can prove they were molested when they were kids too.
Thanks for reading my mind. You are absolutely right!
quote:Anyone can do it, but most people will not.
That's like saying that anyone can invent nuclear fusion but most people will not.
One thing I learned as a math teacher is that people who can't do math really don't understand the idea that money follows the rules of addition and subtraction. It's not a matter of making bad choices, it's a matter of not being capable of understanding how to make good choices.
As to the Joker, it's pretty clear he's a lost cause. The point isn't to "fix" him, nor is it to exonerate him, but to prevent more of him.
And yes, even though (if he actually existed) he clearly is evil, I still feel sympathy for whatever caused him to be the way he is.
Returning to my original point: The writers must have put this in for a reason. The fact that he keeps referring to how he got his scars is intended to make us wonder: How did he get his scars? And what else might have happened that could create such a monster? The whole point was to make a complex villain. I think the scene was filmed with this in mind. The purpose of the Joker (especially in this movie) is not merely to drive the plot forward, but to get the audience thinking.
Posted by Elmer's Glue (Member # 9313) on :
So every time you see violence, you think of an abused child? I don't think the Joker was abused by his father, but apparently you were.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I don't think the Joker was abused by his father, but apparently you were.
Not acceptable.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
One has no way of knowing that, either way.
Posted by lem (Member # 6914) on :
quote:
quote:I don't think the Joker was abused by his father, but apparently you were.
Not acceptable.
Correct me if I am wrong, but I think Elmer was saying "apparently you were (thinking the joker was abused by his father)."
At least I sure hope he wasn't throwing around allegations of child abuse for having a different opinion.
Posted by Elmer's Glue (Member # 9313) on :
Now that I read it it sounds much more offensive than I meant it. But really. Did anyone else think of child abuse during that scene? I don't see any other reason you would, unless there was child abuse in your life. I would delete it since you think it is unacceptable, but it's quoted now so...
Posted by lem (Member # 6914) on :
My understanding from my undergraduate studies is that the majority of people who were abused as children do NOT abuse others when they are adults. HOWEVER, the vast majority of those who abuse as adults were abused as children.
Posted by Elmer's Glue (Member # 9313) on :
So, the Batman was abused? Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote:So every time you see violence, you think of an abused child?
There was quite a bit of violence in The Dark Knight that didn't make me think of an abused child. Likewise in many other violent movies. But the scene between Batman and Joker in police lock-up did, specifically because Batman was trying so hard to exert control, and becoming violent when the Joker made his efforts ineffectual. But it was both characters' behavior that got me thinking about it. Joker refusing to give in to pain, and goading Batman to lose control are characteristic of the coping mechanisms of abused children.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote:So, the Batman was abused? [Confused]
Batman's origin is not in question, but you bring up an important point. The whole Batman story is about the effect a traumatic experience had on a child. It should be a natural counterpoint to show someone whose reaction is similar, but with a different moral orientation. Striking contrast there.
Posted by Elmer's Glue (Member # 9313) on :
See, what I got from that scene was like when cops are abusive, or prison guards are. That coping mechanism isn't just for children.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
There were a couple of points in the movie where the Joker reminded me of a child putting on an act. I'm not going to be able to give the specific lines now, it's been too long since I saw it, but they're the points where something's not going his way, or he doesn't agree with something someone says, and he suddenly scowls for a moment and kinda mutters something under his breath. I want to say one of them was "Not funny," but I could be thinking of a different version. Anyway, I can totally see what Glenn's getting at in that scene.
Posted by Ginol_Enam (Member # 7070) on :
Perhaps you are thinking of when he first appears to the mob bosses and makes his proposal. One of them calls him crazy. He says, "No, I'm not. I'm not crazy."
Ish.
Posted by Tarabon (Member # 11710) on :
The Joker tells the story about how his father abused him, so a person can be excused for having that image in his head even though it's obvious all the joker does is lie about his past.
How come I need to wait to start making comments about what other people say? Glen Arnold said something stupid, and I made an analogy about it. I came here after reading Orson Scott Cards review of the movie, which is my favorite movie right now, and I saw a forum about the movie, and then I see someone say something about the Joker that I hear others in politics about criminals and child molestors in particular. BUt I can't say anything because I haven't been around long enought? Can someone please explain this to me?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:How come I need to wait to start making comments about what other people say?
It makes you look both less hostile and less ridiculously ignorant. If you knew Glenn better, you would know that suggesting that he's in favor of letting child molesters roam free is more than a little histronic.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:How come I need to wait to start making comments about what other people say?
You don't need to. I think ElJay was working from the belief that if you were more familiar with the forum and the people on it, than you would be less likely to make comments that make you look as foolish as the ones you made did.
You should feel free to make whatever comments you want to, within the bounds of the TOS. But be aware that the ones you've made so far have reflected poorly on you.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
You didn't make an analogy about it. You took something he said and used it to jump to conclusions about what else he "probably" believes.
You don't have to wait at all before you make comments about what other people say, but when you're joining a discussion with a bunch of people you don't know, it's considered good manners to stick to a certain level of formality. Speculating about how they want to treat child molestors is beyond that. Plus, this forum in general tends to be more polite than the wider Internet. Calling other people's ideas stupid is generally frowned at. You're welcome to disagree, but you'll get a lot further if you do it without disparaging people or their ideas.
Glenn Arnold got something different out of that scene in the movie than you did. It's certainly up for interpretation, and this thread is for discussion what different people thought about the movie. You can say you didn't get the same thing out of the scene without calling his idea stupid.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
Or, you know, what they said.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
Also, welcome to Hatrack. Are you a fan of OSC, or did you just come across his review because you were looking for stuff about The Dark Knight?
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote:Perhaps you are thinking of when he first appears to the mob bosses and makes his proposal. One of them calls him crazy. He says, "No, I'm not. I'm not crazy."
Yeah, it's not like he's defensively saying "I'm NOT crazy." And he doesn't say the line as if he minds being called crazy. It's like he's saying "there's something about me you don't know, but crazy isn't it."
Makes me really wish that Ledger hadn't died (for selfish reasons, as opposed to the other reasons I wish he hadn't died), because I doubt anyone with the acting chops to take over the role will be willing to be measured against Ledger's performance, but I really want to see the movie where the Joker's backstory is told.
Which brings me to the next question: Who (if anybody) would be capable of taking over the role? The one that comes to mind is Brad Pitt (think 12 monkeys).
Posted by Enigmatic (Member # 7785) on :
quote: but I really want to see the movie where the Joker's backstory is told.
I don't. Oh, how I don't. I would have loved to see a dozen more Batman movies with Ledger playing the Joker, but that would not be one of them.
One of my favorite moments is when he tells Rachel the 2nd version of how he got the scars, which completely contradicts the first.
"Something like that happened to ME, you know. I... I'm not exactly sure what it was. Sometimes I remember it one way, sometimes another..." - The Killing Joke
--Enigmatic
Posted by Shanna (Member # 7900) on :
He's not built like Ledger at all, but my other favorite Hollywood-chameleon is Ryan Gosling.
Brad Pitt could be okay but I don't think they could pile on enough makeup to make me forget that it was him.
Posted by sanacero (Member # 11711) on :
I think OSC missed the mark on moral choices in this film. There was never any morality in letting the joker lieve and capturing him to bring him to justice. The Joker announced he would kill. killed many, and they just locked him up. There is a simple solution. Kill him the second you see him. By not killing him, the so called good guys did in fact allow more people to die. Had he just been run down by a bat cycle, everyone would have been better off, but then you wouldn't get to the whole convoluted one bad day story line.
Terrorists of this sort do not need to be brought to trial. They should be hunted and killed mercilessly.
Posted by Tarabon (Member # 11710) on :
I read a few other threads in the forum and this seems like a more polite place than the rest of the internet, but then again it seems like there is a lot of disrespect too. Ok, I'm new here, but did I look foolish, or was I just being ignorant, because that I can accept. Everyone has ignorance. All I knew about Glenn Arnold was just that he said a stupid thing. I am ignorant of anything else about him and thats not my fault.
I like Orson Scott Card and so when someone sent me a link to his review of Batman I came here. I'm reading some of his older reviews now.
Posted by Leonide (Member # 4157) on :
I like having moral gray areas white-washed for me -- thanks, sanacero!
Posted by Tarabon (Member # 11710) on :
You guys aren't very welcoming to new people. I wonder how the advertisers feel about that?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote: I wonder how the advertisers feel about that?
I am fascinated by the desire to "tell on" people when they are behaving in ways we don't like.
A few months ago I had a disagreement with a roommate over, oh, I don't even remember what. The temperature, I imagine, but other things were thrown in there.
My roommate threatened that if I did not follow what she had decided, she would tell the landlord.
I would pay real money to listen in to that phone call. The appeal to the interest of the advertisers strikes me as being in the same vein.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:You guys aren't very welcoming to new people. I wonder how the advertisers feel about that?
Okay, that made me smile.
---
quote:All I knew about Glenn Arnold was just that he said a stupid thing. I am ignorant of anything else about him and thats not my fault.
A few things make you look foolish.
First, someone disagreeing with you doesn't make what they say stupid. And, by and large, we're not really impressed or influenced by unbacked up assertions of this.
Second, in this particular case, what Glenn said clearly isn't what you are trying to extrapolate it to.
Third, ignorance doesn't make you look foolish. Talking about what you don't know about as if you do or making wild, perjorative assumptions about someone, especially to people who actually know that person pretty well, does.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
quote:All I knew about Glenn Arnold was just that he said a stupid thing. I am ignorant of anything else about him and thats not my fault.
It's not you fault, but it is my whole point. Making assumptions about people you don't know anything about looks foolish. When you're ignorant about someone's views on something, it's better to ask polite questions or wait and learn more about them, instead of immediately attacking.
There is quite a bit of disrespect here, you're right, but most of it is between people you've been here for years and know that they don't agree and don't respect each other's opinions. An excellent case in point is the everyone against King of Men discussion currently going on in the Dialisys thread. The weight of battles and grudges behind that one is practically crushing. So why come in trying to make enemies straight off the bat? Wait until you get to know people a little, and then you can pick who really deserves your scorn.
Oh, yeah, and I don't think google ads really cares about how welcoming we are. We've had giant arguments about how we treat newbies, too, though, if that makes you feel better.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:We've had giant arguments about how we treat newbies, too, though, if that makes you feel better.
At the risk of starting them up again, I'm still glad that we stopped the policy of sending newbies gift baskets when they joined and I don't care who knows it. That was getting really expensive and most of the little buggers didn't even send back thank you cards.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
Plus it was a total waste with the ones who didn't stay more than a week. What's the point of making them feel welcome if they're just gonna run off in a few days anyway?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
To think of the nights I stayed up, weaving.
I can just see them, skipping through their Facebooks and their YouTubes, happily swinging their baskets to and fro, not knowing and not caring of my pain.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
Didn't you do it underwater, too? I mean, the cost of scuba equipment alone I would think warrents at least a nice bottle of wine sent back in appreciation.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Oh, the newbies sent back plenty of Whine.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Didn't you do it underwater, too? I mean, the cost of scuba equipment alone I would think warrents at least a nice bottle of wine sent back in appreciation.
Unfortunately, I flunked out of my UWBW program, so I never got to the point where we were using scuba. I'm only comfortable weaving while using a stiff reed or some sort of plastic hose or, failing that, holding my breath for a really long time.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
Wouldn't you know it Squick, the things are collectible now.
Posted by Tarabon (Member # 11710) on :
I'm glad I made yo smile Mr Squicky. Your name kinda makes me smile, buy I dont know exactly why. Too bad that othe person thought I was gonna tell on this place to the google ads. But he wasn't disagreeing with me, I was the one disagreeing with him. But even though you say that someone disagreeing with you doesnt make that person foolish, yyou tell me I'm foolish for saying something you disagree with. I was willing to admit that I'm ignorant about some things, but it looks like none of you will rest until I admit that I am foolish too. Not a very welcoming bunch. I just wanted to talk about the Batman movie. I should go make friends with that Jesus guy who everyone is against. If no one wants to back him up, I guess I will since already I'm not welcome in this weird group of people.
Posted by Tarabon (Member # 11710) on :
Glenn arnold was the one not diasagreeing wit me. That was confusing how I wrote it.
Posted by Enigmatic (Member # 7785) on :
quote:But even though you say that someone disagreeing with you doesnt make that person foolish, yyou tell me I'm foolish for saying something you disagree with.
Squicky and ElJay were both pretty specific in saying that it was the wild assumptions that made you look foolish, not that they disagreed with you. There is also an important difference between "It makes you look foolish when you do X" which people have said and "You are a fool" which people have not.
And, while I can't speak for everyone of course, I don't think anyone wants you to admit that you were foolish. I'd say an apology to Glenn would be nice though. Oh, and a few people pointing out how you could better interact with the community is not an unwelcoming act, btw.
quote:I just wanted to talk about the Batman movie.
Please do. For myself, I have not yet gone back to see it the second time. I really want to, but things have been hectic and there have been other movies I wanted to see too. I really do want to catch it at least once more on the big screen.
--Enigmatic
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
(edit: Darnnit, there was a post that made this make sense that got deleted.)
And you might get a gift basket.
---
Tara, I don't think anyone involved in this cares if you admit to us that you were foolish or wrong. We'd just like for you to understand why what you wrote makes it difficult for us to take it seriously, and, in the best case, adjust your approach here. For example, calling us all Jesus haters might be a less than optimal way to go about things.
There's no need for any public acknowledgement. If you want to talk about the Batman movie, go ahead. If you want to talk about how and why you disagree with the notion of the utility of understanding what experiences people have had that may have influenced their evil actions, I don't think anyone will have a problem with that.
If you want to keep on as you have been, people are probably not going to take you seriously. Some of them, myself included, are just going to find you amusing. Others are likely not to consider you worth their time.
[ August 07, 2008, 09:50 AM: Message edited by: MrSquicky ]
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
Sorry. I saw that Enig had said it better, and I didn't want to be piling on too hard. I'm not against newbies, you know. I'm just not sending them flowers anymore. No matter what you say, you temptress.
Posted by manji (Member # 11600) on :
So... I thought Batman's white eyes sonar technology looked pretty ridiculous. Granted, now Batman looks more like he does in the comic books. But still, it does not translate well across mediums. Media? Whatever.
Plus, all the gadgetry to allow his head to swivel around looked kind of weird. I don't know, his costume looked slightly cooler when his cowl was attached to his shoulders. Slightly impractical, though.
I thought the electric shock against anyone trying to unmask him was a bit unrealistic. You have to be pretty foolhardy to discharge electricity so close to your unprotected face. Then again, it's Batman.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
I thought the electric shock was awesome! I was happy to suspend disbelief for it. Posted by Enigmatic (Member # 7785) on :
I thought the sonar-vision was pretty cool despite being absolutely horrible to have as your entire field of vision. "It's a good thing Batman doesn't have epilepsy" was my first response. And the pseudo-science behind it was much more tolerable than the microwave thingy from the last movie.
I liked the electric shock on the mask thing because it is straight out of the comics, from the Hush storyline.
--Enigmatic
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
I absolutely hated the sonar thing. It really detracted from my enjoyment of the climax scene. If I was in charge, that (along with the whole subplot with the cell-phone surveillance) would have been cut.
Posted by neo-dragon (Member # 7168) on :
My only problem with the whole sonar thing is I don't understand why Lucius and Batman found it so morally deplorable that the system had to be destroyed after one use.
I get that the real reason is probably because it would be too convenient a plot device in future movies. But the in-story explanation of it being unethical seemed odd considering that Batman has done things like breaking mobsters' legs by dropping them from high places, and letting Ra's Al-Ghul die rather than try to save him. Having the ability to see inside buildings and listen to phone conversations didn't strike me as being so bad.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I liked the sonar thing. It was cool
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
"Sonar? Like... a... a..."
"Like a submarine."
"yeah. A submarine."
Posted by Tarabon (Member # 11710) on :
I take it you agree with Mr. Bush's warantless wiretapping neo dragon?
Haha, that's a joke.
I'm not apologizing for saying someones comments were stupid until you apologize for saying my comments make me look foolish. You seem to have a major problem with understanding what a doub;e standard is. And I don't care if you or anyone takes me seriously. If you think it matters at all to anyone on the internet who has never met you what you think about them, then maybe you take yourself way to seriously.
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
"You seem to have a major problem with understanding what a doub;e standard is."
Nope, there's no double standard being applied here.
"If you think it matters at all to anyone on the internet who has never met you what you think about them, then maybe you take yourself way to seriously."
Defensive much? If you don't care then why are you explaining yourself so much?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I'm not apologizing for saying someones comments were stupid until you apologize for saying my comments make me look foolish.
Personally, I'm not saying that you should apologize for saying some random person's comments were stupid. For my part, I'm saying you look foolish when you imply that Glenn Arnold thinks child molesters should roam free.
Posted by Tarabon (Member # 11710) on :
Why, Tom? Maybe he does? If he's consistent with how he thinks, then he thinks they should be cured rather than punished. That's what a lot of these people think. And then alot of them think that the cure doesn't mean they should be locked away.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
When you can see the foolishness in what you just said, only then you will be ready. Posted by Kama (Member # 3022) on :
aren't newbies cute.
Posted by manji (Member # 11600) on :
Isn't it kind of odd that no one noticed their cell phones emitting sonar signals? I mean, some people are talking into their cell phones. I don't know, it seemed kind of weird that no one knew what was going on.
Anyway, it was kind of a bit of a stretch that Wayne could hijack every single cell phone within the city. The first instance of sonar with Lucius Fox was understandable, since both phones were in his possession. Perhaps if the movie had spent some time to establish that Wayne Enterprises had a cell phone plan or something.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Although I have no idea how they would have found time for this, I would have liked to see the common Gothamite's reaction to Harvey Dent.
There was a lot implied about the symbols that he and Batman presented, but very little actually shown.
Batman is a criminal whose main purpose is to instill fear in the bad guys. When he inspired people, they became criminals too who were putting themselves at great risk to follow him. He wasn't ready and wasn't happy with his effect on the non-criminal element.
Harvey Dent was an icon of the system. Hopefully his influence went beyond attacking the bad people and more torwards people having more faith in the good.
I'd have loved looks at how this played out, but, man, that's really a movie in itself.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
quote:Originally posted by neo-dragon: My only problem with the whole sonar thing is I don't understand why Lucius and Batman found it so morally deplorable that the system had to be destroyed after one use.
I get that the real reason is probably because it would be too convenient a plot device in future movies. But the in-story explanation of it being unethical seemed odd considering that Batman has done things like breaking mobsters' legs by dropping them from high places, and letting Ra's Al-Ghul die rather than try to save him. Having the ability to see inside buildings and listen to phone conversations didn't strike me as being so bad.
Not to mention massive destruction of private property. I agree, there's an inconsistency between their attitude toward the cell phone surveillance and the rest of the ethical compromises which they keep making. I think it was either a) an irresistible chance to poke at recent events having to do with surveillance and privacy rights or b) an irresistible plot device (which like you said maybe would be too easy for future plots, although I don't see why they wouldn't build it again if they saw a similar need). Posted by Ecthalion (Member # 8825) on :
plus... once the batcave is finished they will have to build the supercomputer that knows everything anyway... or it just wouldnt be batman.
Posted by Enigmatic (Member # 7785) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tarabon: I take it you agree with Mr. Bush's warantless wiretapping neo dragon?
Haha, that's a joke.
I got a chuckle out of that.
quote:I'm not apologizing for saying someones comments were stupid until you apologize for saying my comments make me look foolish. You seem to have a major problem with understanding what a doub;e standard is.
Not in the slightest. The suggestion of apology was (like Tom mentioned) for assuming offensive things about what someone else thinks, not for saying that the comments were stupid. So again, not the same thing so that's not a double standard.
quote:And I don't care if you or anyone takes me seriously. If you think it matters at all to anyone on the internet who has never met you what you think about them, then maybe you take yourself way to seriously.
Not especially, no. But many of us do try to be helpful from time to time. Since you've had several posts complaining about not feeling welcomed, some of us have offered advice as to how you could be perceived more as a member of the community instead of a random internet stranger. It's unfortunate that you seem to be viewing this advice as attacks instead of assistance.
I think you'll find that you receive much as you give here, be it respect, scorn, humor, information, friendliness, or what-have-you.
--Enigmatic
Posted by Enigmatic (Member # 7785) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ecthalion: plus... once the batcave is finished they will have to build the supercomputer that knows everything anyway... or it just wouldnt be batman.
When they first showed the big sonar computer bank, before you could see what was going on on the screens, I thought it was supposed to be the batcomputer. I think I would have liked it better if they'd kept the sonar bank and done away with the goggles portion of it. They could have had Lucius telling him where the thugs were but Batman using his normal vision or nightvision.
--Enigmatic
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tarabon: then maybe you take yourself way to seriously.
It seems to be that someone should have made the obligatory "Why so serious?" crack by now, but seeing as they haven't....
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote:If he's consistent with how he thinks, then he thinks they should be cured rather than punished.
I haven't gone anywhere. If you have an example of what I said that bears out this conjecture, please copy it and quote it into a post to make your point.
Posted by Mathematician (Member # 9586) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I'm sure everything that can be said has been said, so I'll just say this:
Wow!
What he said.
Posted by lem (Member # 6914) on :
I didn't like the sonar thing. That whole sequence of Batman going through the building saving the civilians reeked too much of an add-in to make the movie more adaptable for a video game tie-in.
It seemed silly and out of place.
I loved the movie. My internal ranking of the movie is 4 out of 5 stars. Had they left that part out it would have been a 5 star movie.
I like that Batman used the sonar thing to find the joker. I liked the plot device, but it seemed the director added that scene in to just show it off--and it didn't work for me.
I still saw it twice in the theaters.
Edit:
quote: Which brings me to the next question: Who (if anybody) would be capable of taking over the role? The one that comes to mind is Brad Pitt (think 12 monkeys).
I can't answer that because I had no faith that Ledger could pull off the joker. I was shocked and surprised and oh-so-happy someone played the joker exactly how I always wanted to imagine him.
Ledger? Who knew? Not me. Now I am willing to admit that anyone can surprise me. For all I know Scott Baio could pull it off.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
I seem to be one of the few people who liked the sonar scene. I did think the seizure inducing style was a little too much, but I liked that they actually came up with a "reason" for him to have the glowy eyes that we see in the comic books.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
heh. Scot baio.
Well, I thought the sonar scene was incredibly cool Besides, he's supposed to be a giant bat.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
quote:Besides, he's supposed to be a giant bat.
Somehow, I managed to totally not notice that. It IS pretty appropriate.
Posted by Enigmatic (Member # 7785) on :
I liked the fight aspect of the sonar scene a lot, because he was fighting off both the bad guys and the swat team. Being in a position of having to fight off cops without killing or too seriously injuring them is classic Batman.
"Fighting cops. It's been a while..." -The Dark Knight Returns
--Enigmatic
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote:Besides, he's supposed to be a giant bat.
Hence the line about submarines, but I guess it was a little too subtle.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Yes him fighting cops and bad guys was soooooo cool.
Also Batman Forever looks even more terrible compared to Nolan's batman movies.
[ August 09, 2008, 10:48 PM: Message edited by: Synesthesia ]
Posted by neo-dragon (Member # 7168) on :
That's not fair. The Schumacher Batman films are bad enough to be terrible on their own (lack of) merits.
Posted by SteveRogers (Member # 7130) on :
quote:Originally posted by Synesthesia: Yes him fighting cups and bad guys was soooooo cool.
And here I'd thought cups had turned their backs on their lives of crime.
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
I didn't wait till after the credits.![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
my favorite line "How about a magic trick, I'll make this pencil dissapear hoo ho hee hee ho haha ha ho."![[Wink]](wink.gif)
.![[Blushing]](graemlins/blushing.gif)
I didn't catch that. I must be used to coins having two sides. ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
aren't newbies cute.