Retro_Link Posted August 6, 2008 Posted August 6, 2008 Saw it today... Thought it was great but I think atm I prefer Begins more. But I really believe this film needs a second viewing. I thought TDK had too many characters in it to do them all justice. - There wasn't enough Batman - There wasn't enough Bruce Wayne [i enjoyed his fake playboy personna scenes from BB, they added some moments of relief] - There wasn't enough Alfred - And most importantly, imo there was no way near enough of the Joker! The Joker could and should have carried this film I thought. And for me, the heavy inclusion of Dent took something away from the sublime performance of Heith Ledger. It almost felt to me ultimately neither character were done fully and I felt Heiths Joker was truelly deserving of a film all to itself! I think Dent should have had a minor/cameo/background part in this film, maybe getting scarred right at the end and setting him up for the third film alongside The Riddler or someone. I thought both characters ended up having their endings rushed towards. I didn't really believe in Dents all to quick character transformation and I really wanted to see more of the Joker. I thought it was a real shame. I also felt [as others in here have said] that they didn't make the Rachel/Dent choice clear enough. I heard Batman say he was going after Rachel, or at least I thought I had, but when he turned up at Dents I just persumed I'd miss heard or something. And consequently it actually partly ruined the remainer of the film for me because I just couldn't understand why he'd chosen Dent. If I'd been sure of what had happened whilst watching the film it probably would have upped everything for me instead of leaving me with a feeling of 'WTF did you just do Bruce, she was the love of your life and you just let her die as if she was of no great importance!' Other opinions related to topics in this thread: Batmobile - FTW!! Batpod - equally cool! Next Villian - Riddler [and Scarecrow will probably crop up again] Robin - No Way Catwoman - undecided, might work, but maybe should just leave her out.
Solo Posted August 6, 2008 Posted August 6, 2008 He didn't choose Dent. Joker sneakily told Batman the opposite locations of where they really were, thus making Batman end up where Dent was.
Guest Maase Posted August 6, 2008 Posted August 6, 2008 Retro Link, you didn't get the point of the movie at all, did you? Harvey Dent was the most important character in the entire Movie, everything you saw was based on him, and it wasn't rushed at all, the entire dillema of the movie is Harvey Dent, the hope of Gotham, turning Two Face, by the hands of Joker. Even tough the best performance was of Heath Ledger, the movie wouldn't make any sense if there wasn't those scenes with Two-Faces, it would be just a Summer Flick, as i like to call them (and in Wanted theres a great argumentation about that), where we would only see Joker provoking chaos, nothing more... With Harvey Dent, Joker made his point, he defeated Batman, Batman had to stay the Dark Knight he is, instead of being hope for Gotham, he is the Hero that they don't "need". And all this happened because of the transformation of Harvey Dent. "See... Madness is like Gravity, all you need is a little push" This sentece made me understand the importance of Harvey Dent in the entire movie.
ReZourceman Posted August 6, 2008 Author Posted August 6, 2008 Eh..I meant "Cain" being "Caine", Mr.Jamieson. Rude one to me. I direct you to this part of my post.
Retro_Link Posted August 6, 2008 Posted August 6, 2008 He didn't choose Dent. Joker sneakily told Batman the opposite locations of where they really were, thus making Batman end up where Dent was.I know, I said that. During the film I thought I'd misheard the Rachel part and that he had chosen to save Dent. This annoyed me for the rest of the film.Now that I know I'd heard right about Rachel and that actually the Joker had switched locations, had I been assured of this in the film I could have enjoyed the rest more. Retro Link, you didn't get the point of the movie at all, did you? Harvey Dent was the most important character in the entire Movie, everything you saw was based on him, and it wasn't rushed at all, the entire dillema of the movie is Harvey Dent, the hope of Gotham, turning Two Face, by the hands of Joker. Even tough the best performance was of Heath Ledger, the movie wouldn't make any sense if there wasn't those scenes with Two-Faces, it would be just a Summer Flick, as i like to call them (and in Wanted theres a great argumentation about that), where we would only see Joker provoking chaos, nothing more... With Harvey Dent, Joker made his point, he defeated Batman, Batman had to stay the Dark Knight he is, instead of being hope for Gotham, he is the Hero that they don't "need". And all this happened because of the transformation of Harvey Dent. "See... Madness is like Gravity, all you need is a little push" This sentece made me understand the importance of Harvey Dent in the entire movie. No I completely got the messages that the film put out.And that Batman was preserving the image of Dent to give the city hope. Well Two-Face did feel rushed to me, he was only Two-Face for about 20mins on screen. The transition in character happened to quickly because surely it would make more sense for his immediate anger to have been focused on revenge on the Joker; as he scared him and killed Rachel. The policewoman he went played far less a part, and why go after Gordon and his family? It felt a bit forced; did they only do those two parts so they could setup the whole White Knight/Dark Knight factor. And you bring up another point. 'Batman being the hero they don't need', I felt it was quite a jump from Begins. In Begins he saves the city; when he's Wayne you here citizens talking about the good Batman is doing, catching these criminals, delivering crime lords. Sure the police don't like it, but apart from them you get the feeling everyone is generally happy to have him around. But then already in the second film he is having to be 'villianised', I thought this came about to quickly.
Cube Posted August 6, 2008 Posted August 6, 2008 The transition in character happened to quickly because surely it would make more sense for his immediate anger to have been focused on revenge on the Joker; as he scared him and killed Rachel. He pretty much became "Two Face" just after the murder attempt on the Mayor. It's just that Batman stopped his first kill.
Paj! Posted August 6, 2008 Posted August 6, 2008 He pretty much became "Two Face" just after the murder attempt on the Mayor. It's just that Batman stopped his first kill. Yep. Try watching the 2-part origin story of Two-Face from the 90's TV show, that's the best version of his origin out there, IMO. Basically he has a massive dark side that has always been within him, but the scarring was physical as well as mental, causing the dark side to be in control mostly. Two-Face was done perfectly. Talk of him being in the third film is silly...he served his purpose, he was a metaphor, in any case. I metaphor for Batman vs. Joker, Chaos vs. Order. Where Joker and Batman are opposites that can never beat one another, Two-Face is the one (unfortunately?) stuck in the middle, dealing with both chaos and order within himself. People should stop seeing the villains as those from the 90's films, where they are the 2 big baddies, with long set ups. Nolan actually made Two-Face effective in this film, and cut the crap crimes he commits based around doubles and twos. Think of Two-Face as Joker's pawn/his final send-off. As Joker says himself, the fate of Gotham's spirit wouldn't be decided in a silly fist-fight at the top of a skycraper.
Retro_Link Posted August 6, 2008 Posted August 6, 2008 Yep. Try watching the 2-part origin story of Two-Face from the 90's TV show, that's the best version of his origin out there, IMO. Basically he has a massive dark side that has always been within him, but the scarring was physical as well as mental, causing the dark side to be in control mostly. Two-Face was done perfectly. Talk of him being in the third film is silly...he served his purpose, he was a metaphor, in any case. I metaphor for Batman vs. Joker, Chaos vs. Order. Where Joker and Batman are opposites that can never beat one another, Two-Face is the one (unfortunately?) stuck in the middle, dealing with both chaos and order within himself. People should stop seeing the villains as those from the 90's films, where they are the 2 big baddies, with long set ups. Nolan actually made Two-Face effective in this film, and cut the crap crimes he commits based around doubles and twos. Think of Two-Face as Joker's pawn/his final send-off. As Joker says himself, the fate of Gotham's spirit wouldn't be decided in a silly fist-fight at the top of a skycraper. Hmm yeah I quite like looking at it in that way. I think the thing was I just wasn't that keen on Dent/Two Face anyways, and the fact he took alot of time away from the Joker was dissapointing. But yeah I can see that all three characters have an interwoven story that is dependant on each other and I guess that does work.
Dan_Dare Posted August 6, 2008 Posted August 6, 2008 Dent was really the heart of the story. The Joker was the main badguy, yeah, but he's just like a force of nature, and doesn't really needto be essential to the plot. It's like he say's 'you have nothing to threaten me with' to Batman. With a character like that where's the potential for a full story arc? not to say that's a particularly bad thing. The Joker is fucking ace.
Shorty Posted August 6, 2008 Posted August 6, 2008 Yep. Try watching the 2-part origin story of Two-Face from the 90's TV show, that's the best version of his origin out there, IMO. Basically he has a massive dark side that has always been within him, but the scarring was physical as well as mental, causing the dark side to be in control mostly. Two-Face's origin is best told in the Long Halloween comic book series by Loeb and Sale, IMO
Paj! Posted August 6, 2008 Posted August 6, 2008 Two-Face's origin is best told in the Long Halloween comic book series by Loeb and Sale, IMO Argh! Stop reminding me that I haven't read Long Hallowe'en yet!
Retro_Link Posted August 6, 2008 Posted August 6, 2008 Found this a really good read... IGN talks whether Robin could cut it in Nolans universe, http://uk.comics.ign.com/articles/896/896638p1.html
Paj! Posted August 6, 2008 Posted August 6, 2008 Found this a really good read... IGN talks whether Robin could cut it in Nolans universe, http://uk.comics.ign.com/articles/896/896638p1.html Not really much that fans haven't already been over in their heads. However, he'd have to be at least 16...or I wouldn't buy it at all. Plus the fact that Bruce would ever train a teenager to join him is actually an extremely selfish idea, when thought about. That's why I think that if a sidekick is ever introduced, they should be independant, wanting to help Batman. Maybe a Batgirl that takes from character aspects of The Huntress, or even Azrael. Of course, they could just do Catwoman right, and have her as Batman's first experience of having a "sidekick".
ReZourceman Posted August 6, 2008 Author Posted August 6, 2008 Not really much that fans haven't already been over in their heads. However, he'd have to be at least 16...or I wouldn't buy it at all. Plus the fact that Bruce would ever train a teenager to join him is actually an extremely selfish idea, when thought about. That's why I think that if a sidekick is ever introduced, they should be independant, wanting to help Batman. Maybe a Batgirl that takes from character aspects of The Huntress, or even Azrael. Of course, they could just do Catwoman right, and have her as Batman's first experience of having a "sidekick". The point is it has to be Robin if they do though. I feel hes extremely important to Batman (of course all this is redundant talk) but I agree with you, he'd need to be at least 16. Heck Id probably go older than that.
Retro_Link Posted August 6, 2008 Posted August 6, 2008 The point is it has to be Robin if they do though. I feel hes extremely important to Batman (of course all this is redundant talk) but I agree with you, he'd need to be at least 16. Heck Id probably go older than that.They make the point in the IGN article though that it's important to draw parallels between Bruce's experiences/emotions when he lost his parents and Robins situation.
ReZourceman Posted August 6, 2008 Author Posted August 6, 2008 They make the point in the IGN article though that it's important to draw parallels between Bruce's experiences/emotions when he lost his parents and Robins situation. Yeah I know, but Id rather sacrifice that and have him older to be honest. Its not like losing parents effects person X at X age a particular way, it effects people differently. A parallel could still be drawn, I feel. ie, an 18 year old, dependant on his parents, or maybe his parents dependant on him, thus leaving him wrecked etc.
Paj! Posted August 6, 2008 Posted August 6, 2008 Yeah I know, but Id rather sacrifice that and have him older to be honest. Its not like losing parents effects person X at X age a particular way, it effects people differently. A parallel could still be drawn, I feel. ie, an 18 year old, dependant on his parents, or maybe his parents dependant on him, thus leaving him wrecked etc. Nah, 18's too independant, or at least the age has connotations of such. I mean, Forever did the same thing, and it was better than having a child, but a 16 year old is still a "child" in older people's eyes I guess.
Dan_Dare Posted August 6, 2008 Posted August 6, 2008 the costume's not too hard. Dark, wine red body armour and green tinted cloak, if they include one. no pants.
Chris the great Posted August 6, 2008 Posted August 6, 2008 if robin were included, make him chuck norris.
Paj! Posted August 6, 2008 Posted August 6, 2008 I have to say, I love the Nightwing costume from Batman & Robin. I think something like that would work in the 3rd Nolan film...though obviously without the pointless muscle definition and nipples. I love the simplicity of the bird design and the cape. If he had longer hair, to give more of a serious/sinister appearance, it would be good too. \
Retro_Link Posted August 6, 2008 Posted August 6, 2008 Nah I think they've got to ditch the red, green, yellow colours! I think a similar suit to Batmans would be the way to go. Grey and Black, and if they had to maybe a slight burdandy tint to some of the panelling. EDIT: ^ actually yeah! Something along those lines, only more 'real' looking like Batmans!
ReZourceman Posted August 6, 2008 Author Posted August 6, 2008 Id have something like this, with a sleek red trim.
Dan_Dare Posted August 6, 2008 Posted August 6, 2008 you know what...all things considered (ie, that film was an abomination) that costume is pretty good.
ReZourceman Posted August 6, 2008 Author Posted August 6, 2008 IN MY LATEST PODCAZT I REVIEW TDK TOWARDS THE END.
Recommended Posts