Retro_Link Posted August 7, 2008 Share Posted August 7, 2008 The thing is Joker must say the addresses quietly/just mis hear Batman saying hes getting Rachel or something. As Retro said, there are loads of people who misunderstood, so there must be some kind of reason. Ill pay particular attention to that scene when I see it again.I think the most confusing part is Batmans reaction when he arrives at Dent. I heard the Joker tell Batman two adresses. And I heard Batman say "Rachel!", when Gordan says 'who are you going after' or words to that effect. But when Batman kicks the door in and its Dent, he just immediately goes through the door and carrys Dent out... no hesitation. And that's what completely threw me, the lack of a reaction. It made me think, hmmm... maybe Gordan said 'who shall WE go after?'... [batman]... "Rachel!". It just left me with no idea, and thinking Batman had chosen Dent over Rachel! All you see immediately after Batman kicks the door in, is Rachel, and hear Dent over the phone shouting 'no... why me... not me' or something! Which also makes it sound like Batman chose him. I think it plays out poorly, but hey! Question: Why in the end does Dent seek out revenge on Gordon? What did he do? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chairdriver Posted August 7, 2008 Share Posted August 7, 2008 I think the most confusing part is Batmans reaction when he arrives at Dent. I heard the Joker tell Batman two adresses. And I heard Batman say "Rachel!", when Gordan says 'who are you going after' or words to that effect. But when Batman kicks the door in an its Dent, he just immediately goes through the door and carrys Dent out... no hesitation. And that's what completely threw me, the lack of a reaction. Except there's actually about a 2 second bit which just shows Harvey lying on the floor, choking in the petrol when Batman arrives, obviously for dramatic effect to show Batman's surprise. I've seen it about 5 times (I work at a cinema, and if I have a break I can go in and watch bits of films) and there's a definate hesitation. The dialogue is, BTW: Gordon: "Who are you going after?" Batman: "Rachael." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Retro_Link Posted August 7, 2008 Share Posted August 7, 2008 The dialogue is, BTW: Gordon: "Who are you going after?" Batman: "Rachael." Yeah I definately heard that, but then confusion set in! Thought the petrol scene was just so the audience knows he got petrol on his face, it certainly didn't help me in any other way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReZourceman Posted August 7, 2008 Author Share Posted August 7, 2008 Yeah and ALSO the fact that (well at least I) thought he'd go after Dent, putting his personal feelings aside, and saving Gothams white knight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paj! Posted August 7, 2008 Share Posted August 7, 2008 While it's more fun not having a reaction scene, I think a split-second shot of Batman's surprise really wouldn't have hurt. But then the lack of one could be interpreted as Batman's willpower to keep going, regardless of the situation [/stretch]. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Retro_Link Posted August 7, 2008 Share Posted August 7, 2008 Just to ask again... Why in the end does Dent seek his revenge on Gordon? I don't really see that Gordon played any part in Dents storyline. Is it just that Gordons an authority role model or what? Also... Whilst I thought Maggie Gyllenhaal [or however you spell it!] did a good job, I thought it was stupid recasting a character you're going to kill off. Keeping Katie Holmes would have been the better choice imo, as I think recasts are a little difficult to take. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paj! Posted August 7, 2008 Share Posted August 7, 2008 Just to ask again... Why in the end does Dent seek his revenge on Gordon? I don't really see that Gordon played any part in Dents storyline. Is it just that Gordons an authority role model or what? Also... Whilst I thought Maggie Gyllenhaal [or however you spell it!] did a good job, I thought it was stupid recasting a character you're going to kill off. Keeping Katie Holmes would have been the better choice imo, as I think recasts are a little difficult to take. She didn't want to return, apparently. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan_Dare Posted August 7, 2008 Share Posted August 7, 2008 Dent went after Gordon because he blames the mob infiltration of his unit, and the subsequent kidnappings on Gordon's good faith in his men. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Retro_Link Posted August 7, 2008 Share Posted August 7, 2008 Dent went after Gordon because he blames the mob infiltration of his unit, and the subsequent kidnappings on Gordon's good faith in his men.Sorry but I don't get it! I got that members of the mob had worked their way into the police, but what, just because Gordan hadn't realised/wanted to accept this, Dent was prepared to kill Gordans son?!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McPhee Posted August 7, 2008 Share Posted August 7, 2008 Dent used to work at internal affairs, he knew those officers were corrupt because he had investigated some of them. He warned Gordon, Gordon ignored him and defended his officers. The result? Rachel was murdered. In Dent's view if Gordon had done as he should have done then Rachel would still be alive. Then again, maybe Dent thought Gordon was corrupt as well? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shorty Posted August 7, 2008 Share Posted August 7, 2008 I figured Dent just went after Gordon because he was too slow to save Rachel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Retro_Link Posted August 7, 2008 Share Posted August 7, 2008 Dent used to work at internal affairs, he knew those officers were corrupt because he had investigated some of them. He warned Gordon, Gordon ignored him and defended his officers. The result? Rachel was murdered. In Dent's view if Gordon had done as he should have done then Rachel would still be alive. Then again, maybe Dent thought Gordon was corrupt as well? Ah ok, cheers! Just found this while looking through TDK info on IGN... Damn does Jack Nicholson come across as an idiot! http://uk.movies.ign.com/articles/833/833405p1.html Jack Nicholson is irked with The Dark Knight. Oscar winner Jack Nicholson, who played the Joker in Tim Burton's 1989 blockbuster Batman, expressed his disappointment about the film to MTV.com. "They never asked me about a sequel with the Joker. I know how to do that! Nobody ever asked me," Nicholson said. "It's like, in any area, you can't believe the reasons things do or don't happen. Not asking me how to do the sequel is that kind of thing. Maybe it's not a mistake. Maybe it was the right thing, but to be candid, I'm furious." The superstar added, "I'm not inclined to watch (The Dark Knight) because of what I said. But if it's a good movie, I'll catch up with it somewhere." Pull your head out your arse Jack! Glad Heith's Joker completely upstages his! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paj! Posted August 7, 2008 Share Posted August 7, 2008 He was hardly that good as the Joker. I never really get why he was on all those "greatest villains" lists...it's liek the reviewers know nothing about how good the actual comic character is...oh wait... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReZourceman Posted August 7, 2008 Author Share Posted August 7, 2008 WTF what an idiot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EEVILMURRAY Posted August 7, 2008 Share Posted August 7, 2008 Did we ever get an explanation as to how/why the Joker popped out of no where? He gave two servings of bullshit as to how he got his scars, were either of them true? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan_Dare Posted August 7, 2008 Share Posted August 7, 2008 the whole point was that he has no origin story. he's just fucked up and there's nothing to find empathy for in him, or any way to hurt or deter him from his killing spree. It's a particularly savage portrayal of the character. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EEVILMURRAY Posted August 7, 2008 Share Posted August 7, 2008 Still wouldn't mind finding out how the scars magically appeared though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan_Dare Posted August 7, 2008 Share Posted August 7, 2008 I assume they're self inflicted. Not that I think his wife story is true, I just think he's crazy enough to do it to himself, and too dangerous for anyone to do it to him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EEVILMURRAY Posted August 7, 2008 Share Posted August 7, 2008 You're not feeling the Daddy story then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Maase Posted August 8, 2008 Share Posted August 8, 2008 Of course not, Joker is famous for making up a lot of stories in the comics, both of them are false (i don't read the comics, and i still know that, shame on you :P) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paj! Posted August 8, 2008 Share Posted August 8, 2008 Why does it matter what his "origin" is? It's not like he has any super-human powers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LegoMan1031 Posted August 8, 2008 Share Posted August 8, 2008 It's the mystery of the joker that makes him such a good villian. Like it showed during the film when batman was trying to find out his past life, finding a weakness so to speak but could not find anything anywhere, which always gave joker the edge as he new Batman but Batman didn't know him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flameboy Posted August 8, 2008 Share Posted August 8, 2008 Just have to come in here and say I fucking hate the daily mail! They have had 4 days of coverage now saying how disgusting it is that the film is a 12A...they are now drawing into question what power and authority the BBFC have to do this without being questioned...yet rewind a few months to Manhunt 2 and they were holding them up as bastians of our day, heroes for taking a stance and not letting it get released like other countries did and now they think they are shit and can't do their job. Typical press turning and manipulating the facts to suit themselves and not caring if it makes them hypocrites. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReZourceman Posted August 8, 2008 Author Share Posted August 8, 2008 Ugh, ridiculous. Its a dodgy 12A fo sho, but ffs parents need to use a little discretion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paj! Posted August 8, 2008 Share Posted August 8, 2008 Ugh, ridiculous. Its a dodgy 12A fo sho, but ffs parents need to use a little discretion. But then, to be fair, it is Batman, which is shown to children on Cartoon Network/WB! in the form of The Batman!, which is even lighter than BTAS from 16 years ago. It's only natural that parents not in the know would assume it'd be ok. It's not that bad, but then, when I took my cousin and sister (11 and 12 respectively, fine with it, though it was disturbing, in that freaky but cool way), the little boy beside my sister kept asking to leave, and the parents just sat there. That's just mean. Apparently the mother said "You're six years old, start acting your age!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts