BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Batman: The Dark Knight

 
  

Page: 1234(5)678

 
 
tickspeak
14:21 / 22.07.08
I'll get back to the fascist thing, but let me clarify something else first:

"No offense, but I take issue with you argument. You are confusing the moral issues of the film with your own aesthetic preferences--which actually strikes me as somewhat (no offense) amoral whining about the films lack of fun or hipness--I get the sense that you are wrongly dismissing "film's" ability to be art and saying entertainment has to be somewhat cartoonish, harmless, ironic, and safe."

What I meant was that according to my own personal aesthetic values, putting Batman in a Realistic world is not useful to the audience, to the artist, or to Batman. The character and the stories he's told in are better served by being freed from the shackles of "military R&D" design and lots-of-bombs-instead-of-cool-themed-gimmicks. I did not mean to conflate my aesthetic problems with the film (which are huge and are really my main concern) with my moral ones (which are half-assed since I kind of stopped paying attention for the last 30 minutes or so).

In terms of fascism, I'm starting to regret bringing it up because it was a half-formed thought. I agree that the Batman in these films is a rather progressive, humanitarian Batman. My problem is, in order to make Batman a humanitarian, we must de-humanize the people he beats up. If he's more of a gleeful, Milleresque "fascist", we don't have to do that because he does it for us (if that makes sense). The fascist fantasy element of Batman, expertly displayed in DKR and almost nowhere else, is a silent partner in every single one of his adventures (at least, to me), and by denying that element of joyful, violent superiority, the film loses a major piece of the character's psychology.

I'm trying hard not to be the comic book nerd who says "It sucks because it's not the way it is in my favorite comics/in my head." But actually, that's what I'm doing, isn't it? Blast.

I think my arguments about poor action and lazy visual style still stand, though.
 
 
grant
16:30 / 22.07.08
So, Christian Bale just got arrested for assault.
 
 
HCE
17:10 / 22.07.08
Is it possible that the spirit of Batman has taken him over and caused him to launch a morally questionable assault on his elderly mother? And what are the odds that she will play the villain in the sequel? Has anybody got any fanfic to hand that covers this?
 
 
Aha! I am Klarion
17:21 / 22.07.08
My question was whether he actually assaulted his mother or sister or did they report an assault on a third party? In the U.S., in the state where I live, this would probably be a domestic violence charge where it would be easier to guess what happened do to the charge's connotation.
 
 
Triplets
17:42 / 22.07.08
According to the Telegraph:

Sources said that Bale was accused of lashing out at his family members - pushing one of them - in an argument over a long-running family dispute.

...

Bale was born in Haverfordwest, Pembrokeshire, South Wales, in 1974. His mother was a circus clown


!
 
 
deja_vroom
17:47 / 22.07.08
His mother was a circus clown.

This is a most delicious way of ending a news report.
 
 
Triplets
17:55 / 22.07.08
Ha! That's good. I'm going to mentally add "[Someone]'s mother was a circus clown" to every news report I read for a while. It's the new "except in beeeddddddd!" on the end of a cookie fortune.
 
 
Keith, like a scientist
20:46 / 22.07.08
The Dark Knight has a whole new dimension now.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
20:49 / 22.07.08


WHAT ARE YOUR CRIMES?

DID YOU PUNCH A CLOWN?

Speaking personally, I'm just glad we're not talking about the film any more. The nightmare is over!
 
 
H3ct0r L1m4
21:20 / 22.07.08
could it be possible that Batbale fell for another one of the Joker schemes?

 
 
Ron Stoppable
07:41 / 25.07.08
Morning all - genuine question:

I typically avoid too much pre-movie discussion as I find it often spoils the actual film for me a little for all the obvious, unoriginal reasons. Entirely personal thing, that.

However, I've seen it now (5:30 showing at the IMAX this morning - work today is going to be a trial) and wondered how long it's likely to be before a critical mass of people who have actually watched it develops so we can discuss without annoying those still patiently waiting?

Or is there little appetite for bat-analysis any more? No need for the board to become Batbelith, I suppose..
 
 
Spaniel
08:40 / 25.07.08
Ron, the film is on general release, discuss away
 
 
Spaniel
08:57 / 25.07.08
What I meant was that according to my own personal aesthetic values, putting Batman in a Realistic world is not useful to the audience, to the artist, or to Batman

Tick, I think you need to face the fact that your "own personal aesthetic values" are just that. I like R&D Batman - I enjoy that take, and I couldn't give two shits whether it's "useful" or not.

I also like 60s Batman, and RIP Batman, and lots of other Batmen. My cup runneth over.

Now that I've seen the film three very obvious points spring to mind: 1) All this talk of the movie being untoppable is hyperbolic nonsense, the challenge is in creating a new baddie as fantastic as Ledger's Joker (I actually had a moment deep into the depths of film when I realised I was watching an actor - I'd completely forgotten); 2) All Nolan's non-commital comments re a third film look rather empty - TDK virtually ends on a cliffhanger; 3) Go see the fucker in IMAX. The format switches don't jar at all as the print is so bloody large anyway, but when that special IMAX button is pressed... fucking hell. I actually had to close my eyes a couple of times thanks to overwhelming vertigo.
 
 
Seth
14:57 / 25.07.08
What I meant was that according to my own personal aesthetic values, putting Batman in a Realistic world is not useful to the audience, to the artist, or to Batman

If that's your sticking point then I don't see the problem. The Dark Knight isn't *realistic* at any point, whether it's in terms of script, character, plot or action. Fingerprints are not indestructible and cannot be recreated from fragments of a bullet that's been extracted from concrete. Cell phones are usually only used in that kind of daft-ass manner in Doctor Who.

Neither Nolan Batman movie is *realistic,* they're just shot like *realistic* films in places. This is well-worn film language now, we should all be used to it: convince people of the reality of what they're seeing by making it *dark,* *violent* and shooting it as though it's something other than a superhero adaptation.

None of these are criticisms of the movie though. It's great fun, I'll need to see it a second or third time because it rocked pretty hard. It had a general Death Note-lite feeling throughout... I don't believe it was necessarily aping the comic (no idea if the writers have even read it), in some ways if you have a villain and detective whose identities are obscured and who are both engaged in grand scale manipulations against each other you kinda have no choice but to be a little Death Note around the edges.

I was thinking "Wait, so is she really dead," not feeling the emotion of the moment, and that was due both to it being a surprising twist, but also because of what happened with Gordon earlier.

That wasn't a problem I had due to the shot of her getting blown up. From memory it's a split second, the flames start from behind her and engulf her, then the windows of the building she's in are blown out. The film made it pretty inarguable.
 
 
H3ct0r L1m4
21:15 / 25.07.08
that was clear to me also...

and, as we're talking about spoiler material: what do you guys think was the fate of Harvey Two-Face?

Gordon made a public homage to Dent but that was part of his and Batman's plan to keep hopes up in Gotham. i hope we see Two-Face at Arkhan or hiding in a third movie.
 
 
Spaniel
21:20 / 25.07.08
He looked dead to me.
 
 
FinderWolf
22:28 / 25.07.08
I don't think he's dead at all. I think they're saving him as a villain for film no. 3. Nothing in the film conclusively shows him to be dead... and the memorial could be just a cover for Harvey's reputation while they throw him in Arkham and try to rehabilitate him or something.
 
 
Paralis
06:58 / 26.07.08
Well, there's a long shot of Dent's torso and he's visibly not breathing. It's hard to say with any definition given the overall bloodlessness of the film: the gangster whom the Joker kills before offering tryouts dies without bleeding, while people are willing to assume Gordon's death in the absence of blood. So it's entirely possible that Dent survives the film--the main argument against is one of logistics (given that Gordon pretty much immediately treats him as dead), but I don't think anybody will posit that TDK is bound by mortal limits there.

The problem, though, is that within the framework of the Nolanverse, Two-Face isn't enough of a villain to carry a film. Ra's al Ghul and the Joker--more than the citizens of Gotham and Batman himself, they represent existential threats to Gotham and Batman as ideas. Two-Face just doesn't rise to that level: without the thematic arc of his personal fall, he's just another guy with a gun in a city full of criminals.

I'm not sure whether I hope there's a third film or not,--I definitely don't think TDK rises to a level of greatness such that a third act can only disappoint--but the idea of another Nolanverse Batman in which Harvey Dent plays more than an incidental role fills me with angst and woe.
 
 
hachiman
07:24 / 26.07.08
Watched this last night with some friends.

Wow, it was good. Minor niggles aside, it was probabaly the best Comic Book Adaption film i've ever seen,and it was a pretty good movie too.

Ledger was amazing as The Joker, he was scary, intelligent and totally criminally insane.

Aarom Eckhart's Dent and his transformation from White Knight to Monster was damn well done. The little hints of his well concealed rage that popped up before his scarring, his bravado and his genuine heroism was well portayed.

And lastly Bale, did something i dont think any of the previous Batman actors could do, and that's keep us interested in the Bat in the face of Ledger's Joker and Eckharts's Dent. Batman was'nt just a placeholder while the bad guys stole the show.

The rest of the cast were excellent as well, Freeman's Fox, Caine's Alfred, Oldman's Gordon, all added to the story in concrete ways and had character bits that illuminated not just their characters, but the 3 leads too.

And Maggie Gyllenhaal, why the heck didnt they cast her for the first film! She was great, and brought so much to the movie. Gah!

Well, that's all the Gushy Frothy Fanboy Delight all out of my system, i'm gonna rewatch it now and see if i can be objective.

Banzai!
 
 
FinderWolf
13:29 / 26.07.08
I had a thought about a possible 3rd film which coincidentally, Morrison echoed at the ComicCon this weekend. His sugggestions for villians for a 3rd movie? Man-Bat and Catwoman (Morrison felt it was time for some real sex/romance to be brought into the Batman Nolanverse movies, as opposed to the long-suffering Rachel who just worries about Bruce and either supports or admonishes him all the time).

Man-Bat would be a cool, creepy, sci-fi "The Fly"-esque take on Batman - and the episodes of Batman: The Animated Series which dealt with Man-Bat were always strong. It would be something that might fit into the Nolanverse (i.e. being at least somewhat rooted in the "real world") given the modern emphasis on cloning, etc. It's undoubtedly more 'out there' than, say, Ra's al Ghul or the Joker, but it might be the gentle genre push that the 3rd movie could sustain, given that they've pretty much done all they can do now with 'gritty street/mob/crime movie'.

Others have mentioned Talia al'Ghul coming in for some romance, intrigue and springboarding off Ra's in Batman Begins, which would also work.
 
 
Spaniel
17:50 / 26.07.08
If we're gonna get fanwanky then here's my thoughts. I agree completely and utterly with Paralis. Two Face simply isn't set up to carry a movie by himself, and I don't see much value in him taking on a secondary villain role for a second time.

The next movie, well, I think we're all ignoring the elephant in the room: Batman on the run. The way I see it they're not planning to rehash his half-baked criminal status of the first movie, no, if they are committed to going that route, I expect to see things get quickly out of hand (out of Gordon's hands specifically) - a genuine manhunt, probably with hefty government resources backing it up. Into that mix wades a new baddie. I strongly doubt we'll be getting Manbat. Nolan is on record as saying that the Penguin doesn't have a place in his vision*, so I'm doubtful he'd be inclined to take the big sci-fi leap Manbat would necessitate. Nope, I think the Riddler, Catwoman or perhaps Bane are the most likely candidates, in fact given the precedent of the last two films I suspect we'll be seeing two of the above in the next movie.

Quite how they'd fit in is anyone's guess, but I suspect that things might get a little more intimate, more personal the next time around, which would open the door to the kind of romantic story arc suggsted by Morrison.

Although it must be said that Nolan has a track record of outright lying to his public
 
 
Spaniel
17:54 / 26.07.08
Just to say Bane particularly appeals to me because one the things these movies haven't don is pit Bats against an implacable physical threat. Someone capable of taking him to pieces every fucking time. Done right it could be quite scary.

Interestingly, Catwoman would also almost certainly bring some rock-hardness to the game.
 
 
Seth
20:23 / 26.07.08
Hey! Who's up for starting a Batnolan III thread for all this fun speculation? I'm looking at you, Flyboyze!
 
 
Hallo, Paper Spaceboy
20:43 / 26.07.08
Flyboy doesn't live here anymore, but Haus does.
 
 
Triplets
11:39 / 27.07.08
Not looking at thread. Not to be spoiled before The Dark Knight. Had to leave Starbucks yesterday because busters would not up shut.
 
 
Seth
15:33 / 27.07.08
Daft jokes about *already* being at the stage of third movie speculation aside, the way I'd go would be to adapt elements of the Dark Knight Returns. With the mob in disarray the gangs take over with multiple villain cameos as gang leaders (none of whom are strong enough to carry a whole movie), Batman realises that with the police looking for him he can kill two birds with one stone by embracing the copycats and channelling the kids away from their lunatic leaders and into the Sons of Batman, thus bringing us thematically full circle to the first movie with Wayne's own more ethically balanced (but still colourfully dubious) version of the League of Shadows. The police get overrun with false Batman sightings and he starts to set his sights on bigger targets than just one city.
 
 
X-Himy
16:53 / 27.07.08
Directo, I'd watch that.
 
 
hachiman
05:21 / 28.07.08
Thats a pretty cool idea. And it would tie nicely with having Bane be the Big Bad, if Bane is positioned as Bruce Wayne's replacement in the League of Shadows heirarchy, making us see him as what Bruce Wayne could have been if he had gone along with Ra's and the League.

I always felt Bane got a raw deal in the comix, as writers never seemed to want to make him Batman's opposite but equal, probably out of protest to the way he was grafted onto the Bat-mythology as an A-list baddie to sell Knightfall.

On reflection the villain Hush, despite his similar Sales-Gimmick origins might also make a good foil for the third film, as he too was meant to be the A-list opposite and equal baddie.

A Nolan directed Knightfall with either of those villains as centerpiece, with a Talia/Ra's/League of Shadow spin on it, and with Bruce Wayne the victor in the end, would roxxor my world.
 
 
Benny the Ball
17:02 / 28.07.08
Just got back from watching this. First thoughts are: there is a lot to like, but sadly a lot to not like - the script clunked, the incidental characters weren't grounded in reality enough to jar with the rest of the film (Commissioner, Eric Roberts etc) and the Joker worked best when not being focussed upon too heavily (a blur in the corner of the eye, rather than the all too oft single of Heath that held longer than any other shots in the film).

That said, the "magic trick" with the pencil was such a fantastic, brutal character set up for him, Gary Oldman is the heart of the series, there were some genuine shocks, and the whole transportation of Dent/chase was a fantastic sequence.

As for weakly hanged speculation for possible next villains? There was one little comment about cats (I think from Fox when talking about redesigning the batsuit) that was a little bit coy. I also think setting Batman up as a monster is an interesting way to introduce man-bat, an actual monster, into proceedings.
 
 
Dead Megatron
19:03 / 28.07.08
I dunno. despite the man-bat being an interesting comic character and a reversed reflection of the main character, it's do highly doubtful Nolan and team will go down that route. And, frankly, I would agree: unlike every other single DC character, the Batman is based on an at-least-in-theory realistic form of fiction, i.e. detective pulp, so, to introduce sci-fi elements (other than the very subtle tech & gear sci-fi) would make the movie depart heavily from the previous two. I mean, Ra's al Gul was not immortal, the Joker did not have a bleached skin and natural green hair. I doubt a splice mutant would be their choice.

A movie in which the Batman is forced to deal with a lawless Gotham, a la Earthquake-No Man's Land-Dark Knight Returns issue 4, as suggested above more than once, would indeed make a very interesting movie which would lead the character into new directions, exploiting the human drama angle (and, which would be a surprise turn, could totally forgo the need for a costumed villain as antagonist), but could end up being thematically detached from the previous two. That can be good or bad (the later being in the case of the film-makers attempting to make a close-ended trilogy, which is the fad in the industry now, it seems).

If we want to maintain the "crime drama" theme from TDK, my choices for villains would be Cat-woman (coll roof-top chases, and a hint of sex appeal, which was absent, IMHO, in BB and TDK), the Riddler (a underused character that would fit perfectly into a realistic version of Batman, as a calculating, rational criminal mastermind who pulls the strings from the backstage, pitting mobsters against each other, fooling the cops, and manipulating the Batman, who, in turn, would have a great chance to finally do serious detective work. we would need to drop the green suit and mask, obviously), and Pinguin as well (the latter mostly as a support character, a mobster who never leaves his restaurant and who hates the stupid nickname people only call him by to his back, at the risk or having a few bones broken, but could double as Batman's informant, after a nice amount of ass-whooping).

But let's be honest about this. We can speculate which villains would appear in the next, now-inevitable-with-all-those-box-office-numbers third Nolan Batman, until we give Haus nightmares, but they will NEVER be as good as the Joker was in this film, and we better accept that.
 
 
Spaniel
19:59 / 28.07.08
Well, at risk of giving Haus nightmares, I'm of the opinion that the loss of one love interest kind of necessitates (this being Hollywood) the introduction of another. From that point of view Catwoman starts to make sense.

the incidental characters weren't grounded in reality enough to jar with the rest of the film

Benny, I'm not sure I found much of it incongruous on that score. Perhaps I'll feel differently after a second viewing. Care to elaborate? Also, the script was about what I'd expect, a little bit clunky, yeah, but considerably better than I've come to expect from Hollywood. As far as I'm concerned the movie's real problems boil down to an over abundance of climaxes and Powerful Moments, and, in a closely related issue, being over-long.
 
 
Spaniel
20:03 / 28.07.08
and the Joker worked best when not being focussed upon too heavily

Ya think? Blimey, perhaps you and I just live on different planets. I'm entirely of the opinion that the Joker rocked pretty much continuously.
 
 
Colonel Kadmon
21:53 / 28.07.08
The Joker was, agreed, the best thing about this movie. Despite a great opening sequence, I quickly lost patience with this movie, and the overall feeling I took home was one of sore disappointment.

Not that it was a bad film, just that it was a bit of a mess. If it had been a movie about the Batman and the joker, it might have worked, but I felt like Batman was hardly in it, and the Two-Face story was a story too many. Had his character been peripheral, and the film had ended when he turned to the camera to reveal his injuries, setting him up as the major antagonist for a third movie, this might have been a stronger movie. As it was, I felt we had two stories that were less defined than they should have been, and an ending twenty minutes longer than desirable.

I strongly feel that the "early death effect" is what is generating the majority of the post-release hysteria. It's about as good as "Batman Begins", maybe not even quite, and that's taking Ledger's strong performance into account.

And for the record, I feel pretty confident in predicting there won't be a third Nolan-directed Batmovie.
 
 
Dead Megatron
22:13 / 28.07.08
I'm entirely of the opinion that the Joker rocked pretty much continuously.

And so am I, yeah.
 
 
Tsuga
22:19 / 28.07.08
The movie was not helped by the bat-voice, spoken through Bale's gritted teeth, looking as though he was passing a particularly large stone of some sort. It was visually exciting, Ledger was great, but it still had the trademark silliness of unidimensional characters (yes, even Two-Face) and absurd dialogue. It was fun, I wish I'd seen it on a bigger screen, that was the singularly tiniest theater I've ever been in. I think my brother's television is bigger. At many points I was pulled in, only to be wrenched out by some lame element like the Gordon fakey-fakey or "da Lamboh geeny, suh?", the Joker's constant mysterious one-upmanship with no explanation, the drive into the tunnel, the ferry sequence. Not that it all has to be explained, there has to be a great deal of taking it on faith or suspension of disbelief, but so much was so flimsy. The visuals were solid, though.
 
  

Page: 1234(5)678

 
  
Add Your Reply