Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

The Dark Knight

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 174
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I don't know if you realized this, but Gotham=Chicago. In Batman Begins there was some attempt to cover it up with CGI but this time it was almost all Chicago. The underground chase scenes were on Lower Wacker Drive, the boat scenes were on Lake Michigan, etc.

To put in my $0.02, trivial film editing bs aside, the Dark Knight rocked.

Well, it makes sense. I think Gotham in the comics is based off Chicago as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, it makes sense. I think Gotham in the comics is based off Chicago as well.

It's a hybrid of Chicago and New York. It's the most prominent city in the world, but is filled with filth and crime, which was certainly true of NYC at the time Batman was created. It has the looks of Chicago, though.

I also think I saw the statue of liberty in a comic before.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If Wikipedia is to be believed...

Atmosphere

In terms of atmosphere, Batman writer and editor Dennis O'Neil has said that, figuratively, "Batman's Gotham City is Manhattan below Fourteenth Street at eleven minutes past midnight on the coldest night in November."[2]

Gotham City's atmosphere took on a lighter tone in the comics of the 1950s and part of the 1960s, similar to the tone of Batman stories of that era. However, by the early 1970s the tone of the city, as well as that of the stories, had become grittier. Today, the portrayal of Gotham is a dark and foreboding metropolis rife with crime, grime, corruption, and a deep-seated sense of urban decay.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I only remind the member of this link in respect of the person who wrote the Batman stories on those forums. Dispose in the trash if you deem it necessary. But it doesn't hurt to make this link and I'm confident that at least it will get some recognition, if some do not approve. We'll see.

Jose.

Batman Tales

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It was an entertaining movie that could have been better. In my view, the caricature of evil depicted through Ledger's Joker was the primary achievement of the film. Batman and Dent were so-so.

As a side note, I think my favorite scene was when the large prisoner on the boat threw the detonator out the window.

Edited by adrock3215
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know about Catwoman for the next movie in this series. In the first two films, Batman has saved the city in its entirety and saved it from a reign of terror by a madman. I have the impression that Catwoman is just a talented 'cat burglar', implying she doesn't pose enough of a threat to the city or any of its individual inhabitants to merit much attention. If anyone has a rationale for why she ought to be taken seriously, I'd like to hear it.

My idea for the next film continues the Batman vs. Gotham idea that concluded The Dark Knight. Batman would expose and humiliate some particularly highly placed corrupt city official. Feeling threatened, other corrupt city officials appeal to Superman to restore order to Gotham by apprehending the Batman. Superman fails, in the process learning something about human nature. Ultimately the theme would be about how superpowers are morally irrelevant because people can't be compelled to do the right thing. Impatient with the long lonely road of leading Gothams morally lost citizens by example, Superman abandons Gotham to the care of its dark crusader.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Catwoman doesn't necessarily have to be the main villain or even a through-and-through villain. She sides with Batman to take down threats more often than any other character. Not to mention these series have often had 2 bad guys who take priority over eachother. Catwoman could probably serve as the minor villain role, while a mob-villain like Black Mask controls the mob in the city.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know about Catwoman for the next movie in this series. In the first two films, Batman has saved the city in its entirety and saved it from a reign of terror by a madman. I have the impression that Catwoman is just a talented 'cat burglar', implying she doesn't pose enough of a threat to the city or any of its individual inhabitants to merit much attention. If anyone has a rationale for why she ought to be taken seriously, I'd like to hear it.

Aside from the fact that Catwoman is probably the most iconic Batman villain besides the Joker and Twoface, Nolan's Batman took a lot of inspiration from the comic book story lines A Long Halloween and Batman Year One, both of which included Catwoman as one of its major support characters. This means it is very likely that Catwoman will have at least an appearance if not a major role in the next film.

Personally my guess is that the next film will feature Harvey Dent as the fully transforming Twoface as he break all the prisoners out of Arkham Asylum, with Batman having to put each and everyone of them back behind bars.

My idea for the next film continues the Batman vs. Gotham idea that concluded The Dark Knight. Batman would expose and humiliate some particularly highly placed corrupt city official. Feeling threatened, other corrupt city officials appeal to Superman to restore order to Gotham by apprehending the Batman. Superman fails, in the process learning something about human nature. Ultimately the theme would be about how superpowers are morally irrelevant because people can't be compelled to do the right thing. Impatient with the long lonely road of leading Gothams morally lost citizens by example, Superman abandons Gotham to the care of its dark crusader.

I think the new Batman franchise should just stick within the Batman characters instead of randomly bringing in a character from a completely different franchise (granted they're both DC characters...). There are still many facets of Gotham that can be explored without reaching out to Superman. Not to mention the possibility of confusing or alienating casual fans.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think that's a bad speech. Batman realizes he must do what is necessary to defend Gotham, and he ISN'T a hero like Dent could have been.

He comes across as a selfless hero. A servent of the city.

Gotham doesn't need a hero. It needs a 'Dark Knight'.

BS in my opinion.

"Because sometimes, the truth isn't good enough. Sometimes people deserve more. Sometimes people deserve to have their faith rewarded." - vomitous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Because sometimes, the truth isn't good enough. Sometimes people deserve more. Sometimes people deserve to have their faith rewarded."

But take note of the visual context displayed while these sentences are spoken.

While the "truth isn't good enough" line is being spoken, we see Alfred destroying the note Rachel left for Bruce Wayne informing him of her love for another man. Was this a classic example of a white lie, which is never justified? Since Rachel was dead, was there a point to twisting the knife in the wound of Bruce Wayne's grief? Rachel did represent Bruce's hope for a normal life, so her rejection of him because of his double life as Batman is a far more serious blow to that hope than even the fact of Rachel's death. It would put Bruce's values at odds with each other, forcing him to give up all he could achieve as Batman for the possibility of romance, or to give up romance for what Batman could do. With Rachel dead and her rejection concealed, Bruce can proceed unconflicted as Batman and still be open to the possibility of another romance. Considered as plausible characterization, Alfred has raised Bruce from boyhood and been his protector for decades, of course he is going to want to withhold the note. When someone tells a lie someone has to pay the price of supporting that lie. I don't see a victim here.

The scene presented while the line "Sometimes people deserve to have their faith rewarded" is spoken is Lucius Fox witnessing the destruction of the surveillance device Wayne had arrange to be constructed, and walking away with satisfaction evident on his face. He had trusted Bruce Wayne and been rewarded. Clearly the meaning of the word 'faith' here is the trust people have in each other, not the religious version of believing in something with no evidence. The line also refers to preserving the public memory of Harvey Dent as an incorruptable man.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just saw it yesterday. Now I'll proceed to ignore the thread and state my impressions:

Stylistically this is the best Batman movie ever. Gotham, for once, looks like a real city rather than a dark, foreboding place.

Next, Batman is seen, at first, as a positive and inspiring role model, a true hero loved by those he protects. That was very nice to see, which only makes subsequent developments al the more puzzling.

There are three things wrong with the movie:

Spoilers may follow, proceed at your own risk.

1) Why does Batman get the blame for the Joker's actions? the Joker's a psychopath who kills and terrorizes for no reason, or only because he can (that is, he can hold power over others and never tires of showing it). He's an evil character who needs no excuse or reason to do what he does, certainly he doesn't need a Batman to be what he is. At no time in the whole movie does anyone say this (except perhaps Jim Gordon's boy at the very end).

2) The plot makes too much use of the plot-reversal device. That means a climax is about to be reached, then it's snatched away and replaced by more action scenes. Once is ok. More than once is too much.

3) The ending is absolutely terrible. Leaving aside the specific wording, which is a given to be couched in terms of altruism and sel-sacrifice in the current culture, Batman acts irrationally and does not really think things through. Quoting from the previous movie "It's your actions that define you." What kind of hero, and Batman is a hero regardless of what he says, would either do the terrible things Batman takes responsibility for at the end, or would allow such things to be placed, willingly, on his shoulders?

Now for some minor points:

They got Two-Face's look much better than in previous attempts. But they got the actor wrong. He's wonderful as Harvey Dent, but not quite adequate as Two-Face. Tommy Lee Jones did a much better job, albeit with inferior material, in the previous series. Two-Face is supposed to be insane and he's supposed to be scary. In Dark Knight he's almost reasonable.

The main characters spend too much time paying attention to the Joker. It's obvious you cannot trust anything he says, and that he can't even be forced to cooperate (he never once acts scared in the whole movie). So after the second time you shouldn't really mind his words, for you know he's lying to you.

What's with Batman's voice? He seems to be growling all the time. Now, I know he's supposed to sound differently from Bruce Wyane, but Christian Bale really doesn't do it well enough. Michael Keaton did it better, and Keaton's not what I'd call a great actor. Kevin Conroy does it much better still in the animated movies and series. They both use a kind of intense, half-whisper, spoken perhaps in a slightly lower register than usual. Not a growl.

Last time they agve a hint as who the next villain would be. This time they didn't, unless you take Lucius Fox's crack about the suit withstanding cats seriously. So I nominate Mr. Freeze for the next movie. If for no other reason than someone needs to exorcize Schwarzenegger's awful performance of him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am a fan of the animated series from the 90s -- especially the episode, "The Gray Ghost." Very hero-worshipping.

If I were in charge of this franchise, I would introduce a villain from the animated series, Poison Ivy. She is a plant-loving, man-hating, eco-terrorist. You could do a lot with her character while promoting and defending technology and capitalism, and showing how the environmentalist movement has a hatred for people, regardless of how much they "go green." I would model Poison Ivy after Julia Butterfly Hill, the woman who lived in a sequoia tree for over 700 days.

I will be seeing the "Dark Knight," but not too enthusiastically. I enjoy the character of Bruce Wayne, and from what I've gathered, it doesn't focus on his character development much, mainly the Joker's.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am a fan of the animated series from the 90s -- especially the episode, "The Gray Ghost." Very hero-worshipping.

Very good episode. I liked the old actor getting back into character, only for real this time.

A better episode, though, was "The Man Who Killed Batman."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As a side note, I think my favorite scene was when the large prisoner on the boat threw the detonator out the window.

I was surprised by that and liked it as well.

. . . goes to this line IMO. With everything around it, in full context, that line is side-splitting funny. (Not as funny if you haven't seen it yet, so don't spoil it for yourself.)

Yes! Ha ha!

I also liked this part. http://youtube.com/watch?v=CWV4Vjyqe2s&feature=related The contrast between the feminine disguise and his psychoticness was hilarious. The way he's walking, what he's doing, his humorous frustration at technology, etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1) Why does Batman get the blame for the Joker's actions? the Joker's a psychopath who kills and terrorizes for no reason, or only because he can (that is, he can hold power over others and never tires of showing it). He's an evil character who needs no excuse or reason to do what he does, certainly he doesn't need a Batman to be what he is. At no time in the whole movie does anyone say this (except perhaps Jim Gordon's boy at the very end).

2) The plot makes too much use of the plot-reversal device. That means a climax is about to be reached, then it's snatched away and replaced by more action scenes. Once is ok. More than once is too much.

3) The ending is absolutely terrible. Leaving aside the specific wording, which is a given to be couched in terms of altruism and sel-sacrifice in the current culture, Batman acts irrationally and does not really think things through. Quoting from the previous movie "It's your actions that define you." What kind of hero, and Batman is a hero regardless of what he says, would either do the terrible things Batman takes responsibility for at the end, or would allow such things to be placed, willingly, on his shoulders?

1) The people of Gotham are corrupt or cowards. This is a necessary premise to make possible any Batman story, not just this one.

2) Ok. Your preference.

3) Paraphrasing from the IMDB.com Dark Knight FAQ:

"After the events of The Dark Knight, Batman can no longer allow himself to be affiliated with Gotham Police without risking more deaths. By "rebranding" himself, he not only severs all ties to authority, he is also "becoming the villain." As Dent is allowed to die a hero, Batman must accept the opposite responsibility. (i.e.- Dent's phrase, "You either die a hero or live long enough to see yourself become the villain.")

Batman's reputation with the criminals is that he is now a more dangerous person. Several people in this film showed disdain for Batman, secure in the knowledge that he lived by a set of rules that seemingly included a taboo on killing anyone. Now, he's got the deaths of at least 5 people - including cops - being attributed to him. The criminals of Gotham City are losing just a little more sleep over the whole Batman phenomenon now!

Harvey Dent is a leading prosecutor. If word was to get out that he's a crazy killer, all the crime bosses in prison would have sufficient grounds for appeal. All the convictions of all the cases Dent has ever tried could be overturned, and all the crime bosses would be back on the street. The movie mentions this a few times. In their first meeting, the mayor cautioned Dent that he had better watch himself, because all they need is a little dirt on him and all the cases would crumble. During the scene where Dent threatens the fake honor guard who was actually a paranoid schizophrenic, Batman warns Dent that killing him would put all the cases in jeopardy. Batman reiterates this to Gordon at the end."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I found this film to be philosophically simple and it's message morally depraved. The movie's underling premise is that there is a higher good. That the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few; that a true hero is and should be, willing to sacrifice himself for the greater good. The message of this film is not justice. Secondarily, the movie was focused on a typical philosophical paradox: What to do in the face of a prisoners dilemma? I find this to be a rather boring and uninteresting issue to wrestle with. Another repeating sub-premise of the film and of its villains was to offer an incentive to Batman or the general population to be evil to avoid a greater catastrophe, mass death, or a greater evil. And, in thus doing so, the villains attempt to demonstrate that everyone is morally corrupt. I agree with the assessment that Batman was unclear in his moral self-assessment. Batman consistently offers mercy to evil as a moral message of nobility.

I think this is the best summation of the movie's theme so far. However, what bothered me more than the moral depravity and tolerance of evil was the ridiculous plot. (spoilers below)

When I watch a superhero or fantasy movie, I'm certainly not expecting a world exactly like ours. But I do expect some sort of thinking behind the creation of the plot. One of the most ridiculous aspects of the story was the scene where Batman has to choose to save Rachel Dawes or Harvey Dent. This scenario completely evades the invention of the telephone and police radio. Why didn't Batman pick up the phone (or have someone else pick up the phone) and call the local police departments closest to where Dawes and Dent were being held? Did the city have zero police cruisers running around the city at the time? I can suspend my disbelief, but not that much. By the time Batman arrived at Dent's location, there should have been at least five cruisers already there.

Another bit that had me shaking my head was Dent running around the city, killing and kidnapping people, and giving silly speeches, only hours after half of his face-flesh had been completely burned off. I had trouble convincing myself that he could be conscious in such a condition. Nevermind fully active and already doing the Joker's will. I'm not sure I have ever seen a less believable depiction of the creation of a villain.

And that ending! Talk about anticlimaxes. After the finale with the Joker, am I supposed to get excited about Two-Face falling about 15 feet to the ground? And am I supposed to believe that that little fall killed a guy who took down mafia bosses with half of his face-flesh burned off? Even lamer, how am I supposed to believe that this fall knocked Batman unconscious, after his prior plunge from a skyscraper which rendered him unscathed. This movie had a very bizarre and inconsistent notion of the limits of the human body, considering it at times went out of its way to appear realistic.

Edited by IntolerantMan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1) The people of Gotham are corrupt or cowards. This is a necessary premise to make possible any Batman story, not just this one.

But at the start of the movie they weren't corrupt and cowardly.

Batman's reputation with the criminals is that he is now a more dangerous person. Several people in this film showed disdain for Batman, secure in the knowledge that he lived by a set of rules that seemingly included a taboo on killing anyone. Now, he's got the deaths of at least 5 people - including cops - being attributed to him. The criminals of Gotham City are losing just a little more sleep over the whole Batman phenomenon now!

At the risk of sounding like a leftist, that image is not sustainable. Not among criminals. They'll know soon enough Batman isn't out killing people indiscriminately, or even for a good reason. On the other hand most civilians would likely run scared of him, meaning he'll find little support when he needs it. He'll find no official support, either. And that serves only to make Jim Gordon a risk taker, because he'll always be loyal to Batman for good and sufficient reason.

So if the ending was a plot device as setup for the next movie, that only makes it worse.

Harvey Dent is a leading prosecutor. If word was to get out that he's a crazy killer, all the crime bosses in prison would have sufficient grounds for appeal.

Never. Not if there are three working neurons in whatever appeals court exists. I mean, having your fiancee killed nad half your face burned off is sufficient trauma to drive anyone insane.

I'm not saying that's not the stated reason, only that it isn't credible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But at the start of the movie they weren't corrupt and cowardly.

The start of the movie? The people of Gotham have been corrupt and cowardly since Detective Comics #1 was first published back in 1914 (or whenever). Otherwise, there is nothing for Batman to do. Premise, as in literary premise.

A literal mentality is the opposite of what is needed to appreciate literature.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The start of the movie? The people of Gotham have been corrupt and cowardly since Detective Comics #1 was first published back in 1914 (or whenever).

You wonder how they can possibly sell tickets to people who haven't read every Batman comic book ever published. Amazing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...