The Dark Knight

[Figure Fan]

Apparently, those who got cell phones in the marketing campaign got a message from the Joker over the weekend...!?!?

Can someone elaborate on THIS?

[Gremlin]

Apparently, those who got cell phones in the marketing campaign got a message from the Joker over the weekend...!?!?

Can someone elaborate on THIS?

I googled and found nothing.

[docdelorean88]

Hey I realized that batgirl CAN make an appaerence in the next movie. i was thinking that, they show the comish's daughter but never really call her barbara. So i decided to look into it, i found this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Gordon_(comics)#Post-Crisis_2
His wife is called sarah in the movie and that is still close to the source material, because sarah is the second wife of Jim, and little barbara gordon is his adopted daughter! They could easily pull this off in the movies! I really hope it happens!

[GogglesPizanno]

Christian Bale has adamantly refused to step foot on the set if they introduced Robin... I cant imagine his opinion of Batgirl being much different.

[Midnite]

Apparently, those who got cell phones in the marketing campaign got a message from the Joker over the weekend...!?!?

Can someone elaborate on THIS?

That viral call happened 1-2 weeks before the free advance screening. For those who had the Joker cell phones.

[captmorgan72]

 I read in the news Christian Bale was accused of assaulting his mother and sister in London. Apparently his sis and mom put on a little to much lipstick and well it was a case of misidentity.

[TheMarvell]

one thing I didn't really understand in the movie is the part where Two-Face shoots the driver.

I mean, did he not realize he was riding in the SAME car?

[BatWing]

i say they should stop making batman movie, this one tops it all.

[Figure Fan]

one thing I didn't really understand in the movie is the part where Two-Face shoots the driver.

I mean, did he not realize he was riding in the SAME car?

Oh yeah! The car flipped if I remember right. I was a little confused by that, because I'm pretty sure Dent was still in the car. Maybe he escaped?..

[The_Baroness]

saw it again today... when he prepare to shot the driver you can see and hear how he unlock the door... so we can asume he jumped

[stumpy]

Yeah, I am nearly sure the wife's name is Barbara and I remember thinking what a dumb decision that was. He easily could have had an adult daughter we never saw, but it would be a little odd if both she and the wife were both named Barbara.

Not that I especially want to see a Batgirl character in the next movie, but there was no reason to play that sort of game with the names.

[docdelorean88]

I appologize, as watched the movie for the second time last night, just a few hours after i posted that, i realized that the wife in this movie is Barbara. And the way that Jim put Tony (their son) in danger at the end, would give her a reason to divorce him, setting up an oportunity for a batgirl.  Here is an example: You know the part of the movie when dent, gordon and batman are standing by the batsignal. Then batman disappears and gordon says "Yeah, he does that." I would love for them to do that with batman and batgirl. So, same scene, except instead of dent its batgirl, and when commisioner gordon goes to talk to batgirl, she is gone! then batman looks at him and says "Yeah, she does that." because batgirl was the person who would show up at thwe crime scene, help batman, and shazam, shes gone.

[Midnite]

one thing I didn't really understand in the movie is the part where Two-Face shoots the driver.

I mean, did he not realize he was riding in the SAME car?

Oh yeah! The car flipped if I remember right. I was a little confused by that, because I'm pretty sure Dent was still in the car. Maybe he escaped?..

saw it again today... when he prepare to shot the driver you can see and hear how he unlock the door... so we can asume he jumped

Actually he was putting on his seatbelt before he shot the driver.

[Figure Fan]

one thing I didn't really understand in the movie is the part where Two-Face shoots the driver.

I mean, did he not realize he was riding in the SAME car?

Oh yeah! The car flipped if I remember right. I was a little confused by that, because I'm pretty sure Dent was still in the car. Maybe he escaped?..

saw it again today... when he prepare to shot the driver you can see and hear how he unlock the door... so we can asume he jumped

Actually he was putting on his seatbelt before he shot the driver.

Yikes. Plot hole?

[lgmss]

 :spoiler:

one thing I didn't really understand in the movie is the part where Two-Face shoots the driver.

I mean, did he not realize he was riding in the SAME car?

Oh yeah! The car flipped if I remember right. I was a little confused by that, because I'm pretty sure Dent was still in the car. Maybe he escaped?..

saw it again today... when he prepare to shot the driver you can see and hear how he unlock the door... so we can asume he jumped

Actually he was putting on his seatbelt before he shot the driver.

Yikes. Plot hole?

What you talking about seltbelts save lifes you know.  :angry:




jk

Ya it is kind of a plothole but it's not really a huge one because it can be explained just not very well.


Anyways great movie, I might even see it again.

[bredon7777]

Apparently, those who got cell phones in the marketing campaign got a message from the Joker over the weekend...!?!?

Can someone elaborate on THIS?

That viral call happened 1-2 weeks before the free advance screening. For those who had the Joker cell phones.

Not the call I was referring to.  Found this on a ARG message board:

*****
Congratulations Clowns!

Your Movie "The Dork Knight"...
Has Set A New Midnight Record,
A New Opening Day Record,
The Record for Opening In The Most North American Theaters Ever,
and Has Now Broken the Opening Weekend Record!
Doesn't This News Just Make You SMILE!
More to Come....

*****

Supposedly, this message was sent on 7/20 to those with Joker cell phones.  I have been unable to confirm or deny this.

[TheMarvell]

the intent was that he would be saved from what he was doing by putting on his seatbelt. it was dark humour basically.

sort of a missed opportunity, as I never saw him buckle his seatbelt in the two times I've seen the movie so far. To me it just seemed like Two-Face was just becoming more crazy by shooting the driver of the very car he was riding in. I also didn't think it made much sense, as what exactly was Two-Face's issue with the driver? Everyone else he flips the coin for, he was out for vengeance against.

a minor plot hole that I can let slide, but it did make me wonder "huh...why?" after the second time I saw it

[Viking]

sort of a missed opportunity, as I never saw him buckle his seatbelt in the two times I've seen the movie so far. To me it just seemed like Two-Face was just becoming more crazy by shooting the driver of the very car he was riding in. I also didn't think it made much sense, as what exactly was Two-Face's issue with the driver? Everyone else he flips the coin for, he was out for vengeance against.

The point would be that by buckling up, Two-Face already knew going in that there were even odds that the coin would come up 'good heads.'  So he planned in advance for the possibility that he would need to shoot the driver to get a second chance at his real target - the mob boss, who had not buckled up, and would almost certainly die from a nasty crash.  Two-Face is not above skewing the odds in his favor, or acting like a dirty lawyer who honors the letter of his agreements, if not the intent.

[BWPS]

Bad guys NEVER buckle up. Fact.

[Gremlin]

Bad guys NEVER buckle up. Fact.

:lol:

[Ares_God_of_War]

the intent was that he would be saved from what he was doing by putting on his seatbelt. it was dark humour basically.

sort of a missed opportunity, as I never saw him buckle his seatbelt in the two times I've seen the movie so far. To me it just seemed like Two-Face was just becoming more crazy by shooting the driver of the very car he was riding in. I also didn't think it made much sense, as what exactly was Two-Face's issue with the driver? Everyone else he flips the coin for, he was out for vengeance against.

a minor plot hole that I can let slide, but it did make me wonder "huh...why?" after the second time I saw it

He actually did flip the coin for the driver as well. And when he was saying something along the lines of "he's not so lucky" thats when he started to buckle up.

[spoiler]The one that gets me is Harvey is attributed to 5 deaths as per Gordon and 2 of those cops. I wonder who they all were? I'll assume that Maroni and his driver make up 2 of the non-cops and I know wertz was one of the cops, so who were the other 2? Maybe we can asssume Harvey offed the Bartender so that would make 3 civillians and the only ones I can think of for cops are either one of the 2 cops at the hospitol that the joker killed or he killed Ramirez anyway[/spoiler]

[Viking]

[spoiler]The one that gets me is Harvey is attributed to 5 deaths as per Gordon and 2 of those cops. I wonder who they all were? I'll assume that Maroni and his driver make up 2 of the non-cops and I know wertz was one of the cops, so who were the other 2? Maybe we can asssume Harvey offed the Bartender so that would make 3 civillians and the only ones I can think of for cops are either one of the 2 cops at the hospitol that the joker killed or he killed Ramirez anyway[/spoiler]

Since Ares placed that element of the movie in spoilers I shall offer my musings in spoilers as well:

[spoiler]Regarding the question of attributing five deaths to Two-Face, two of which are cops, this may simply be a mystery that will have to wait until the DVD is released with deleted scenes or until the director speaks up.  I've done a little searching on the Internet and found further discussion of this connundrum, but no conclusive answer.  A reasonable theory was that like many movies, about a half hour of material got removed on the cutting room floor, which might have included the two unaccounted-for deaths that are attributed to Two-Face.

Another comment was made (which I haven't yet been able to independently verify) that in the 'car scene' where Two-Face shoots the driver, one can get a brief glimpse of another one of Maroni's men being yanked from view just before Harvey enters the car.  It's possible that Two-Face might have offed that guy, if that's the case.[/spoiler]

[laughing paradox]

the intent was that he would be saved from what he was doing by putting on his seatbelt. it was dark humour basically.

sort of a missed opportunity, as I never saw him buckle his seatbelt in the two times I've seen the movie so far. To me it just seemed like Two-Face was just becoming more crazy by shooting the driver of the very car he was riding in. I also didn't think it made much sense, as what exactly was Two-Face's issue with the driver? Everyone else he flips the coin for, he was out for vengeance against.

a minor plot hole that I can let slide, but it did make me wonder "huh...why?" after the second time I saw it

While I certainly wouldn't call that scene 'dark humor', Two-Face definitely buckled his seat belt right before shooting the driver. The reason why he did that was to kill the mob guy..but since Two-Face flipped his coin to let the mob boss live, he flipped it again to kill the driver, knowing that the car accident would kill the mob guy as well. It was his way of not defying this coin but still killing the mob guy.

Watch it again, they deliberately show Two-Face buckling his seat belt. No plot holes there. I thought it was pretty straightforward when I watched it.

[Ajax]

I remember talking to someone about the Dark Knight and he said "It was good but it didn't feel like a Batman movie". I thought about this after seeing the movie yesterday and I have to agree. This wasn't a Batman movie, it was a Gotham movie. Screen time was spread liberally among Dent, Gordon, Joker, and Batman to the point where you can consider each of them a lead. Though Batman does get the majority of the screen the movie required people like Dent and Gordon to push it forward. Some might say this is good story telling and they would be right, but it's a departure from your average Batman story. Where Batman only deals with others on his own terms, he gets what he wants from them or puts them where they want them and then goes back to what he wants to do. In this movie, he is as much a pawn as he is a player.

[spoiler]When Jim Gordon faked his death I doubt anyone knew, especially Batman. Joker lying about the location of Rachael/Harvey to further his plan on destroying Dent. The hostages being dressed as clowns could be seen two ways, one as a clever way to make the police kill innocents and as a way to force Batman to fight the police in a desperate attempt to protect the hostages. We saw very little of the master planner Batman that has become the status quo in the comics. He was very much at the mercy of all the "schemers" as Joker called them.[/spoiler]

Anyways, my prediction for the next movie is a continued focus on the Gotham Police, more specifically Gordon trying to root out the corruption.

[spoiler]When he talked to Dent in the hospital he was on the edge, paranoid, and deeply disturbed by the corruption in his own department. He didn't know who it was and I think this paranoia will continue in the third movie and probably become a problem. As for the Batman I think he will also go through a stag of paranoia now that he is a fugitive. He doesn't know who trust, maybe he will find out Alfred hid the letter, something between him a Lucius will happen, etc etc etc. What would further add to this paranoia is if he comes into contact with say Catwoman and she plays him. Add another villain like Black Mask or Penguin to connect the two storylines and you have the third movie.[/spoiler]

By the way this movie gave my favorite portrayal of the Joker ever. He was a genius, he was disturbing, frightening, and everything the character should be. Combined with the constantly changing "origin story" further adding to the "can you really trust what the Joker says" and the mystery of the character, which was great. Plus Ledger's performance was something special.

[spoiler]Also I find it interesting that Joker actually won. Sure they covered up Dent's death but he destroyed the white knight and now Gotham might be in the hands of a lesser DA. Despite him saying Batman was the one who changed everything, I think the reality is Joker changed everything. It will be this crime spree that causes all the other "freaks" to slowly come to Gotham. He opened the door, which I think was nicely illustrated by him being responsible for the creation of Two Face.[/spoiler]

[BentonGrey]

Alright, I've been meaning to do this since I saw the movie, but simply haven't had the time.  This movie disappointed me, not because it was necessarily a bad movie, but because the flaws that it did have, and they were plentiful, glared at me like the sun on a Mississippi summer day.  They were many of the same problems the first movie suffered from, made inexcusable by the fact of their continued presence in this second installment.  I'll put the rest of this in spoilers, just in the off chance that anyone here hasn't seen it yet.

[spoiler]When I saw Batman Begins I was completely captivated.  I loved almost every facet of the story, the film elements themselves, and the acting, but I noticed weird little flaws that I KNEW they would fix in the next one.  The Rachael Dawes character is one I think we all would agree upon, and her handling in the second movie at least provided a semi-useful reason for her existence, although I would have vastly preferred that she had simply been written out off screen and Dent's wife Grace been the catalyst instead.  Anyway, at least the problem was solved with the character's demise in the second one.  However, the other main flaw of the first movie is alive and well in the sequel, and that is the film style of the action scenes.  They follow the pattern of quick, impossible to follow cuts, and uncomfortably close shots that completely obscure the action going on in front of the lens.  In the first movie this style served a real purpose as Batman was beginning his journey, highlighting the speed and violence, the pure brutality of the fight scenes, but by Bruce's final confrontation with Ra's, he had truly become Batman and the same style was a dead weight.  Because of its continued use the finale is hard to follow and not the fight it should have been.

I was appalled to see the same strategy employed in DK, to the point where I was almost completely lost during most of the big action sequences.  The car chase was especially chaotic (and not in a good way), dragging on and on with uninterpretable shots of cars and trucks, and batman on his bike that provided no sense of where they were in relation to one another.  Similar to the first movie, the finale with the Joker was filmed so dark and close in that I couldn't tell what was going on.  Was he beating the dogs?  Batman?  The floor?  Who was hitting who?  Was Batman fighting back, or just wandering around in a daze?

Related to these terrible cinematographic choices is the abysmal state of the movie's editing.  I have NEVER seen a major Hollywood release that had such terrible editing.  The first third of the movie was filled with jump cuts, scenes that didn't lead into each other, and terrible transitions.  That was inexcusable, although I imagine it was a result of their desperate scramble to achieve the PG-13 rating the film NEVER should have had.

As far as the story itself...well, it was a wonderful idea, with moments of incredible beauty, poignancy, and pure pathos, but it was fraught with it's own set of problems.  To start off, this movie should have been split in two, and I think most of us know that.  It couldn't accomplish anything it set out to do because it was trying to be all things to all people.  It tried to be a cop drama, but failed because we never got to know any of the cops other than Gordon (who we mostly knew from the first film.  When Dent comes to kill the two that betrayed him, there is fairly little weight to the scenes as far as they are concerned, because we know NOTHING about them, except for one line of dialog concerning the woman's possibly checkered past.  It tried to be a superhero flick, but failed because Batman, despite constantly reacting to the Joker, seemed to me to have too little to do in his own movie.  He takes his trip to China, rides around in the Batpod, and beats on some gangsters, but I still felt like he was MIA.  It couldn't really tell us the story of Two-Face's rise and fall either, because of the breakneck pace forced upon it.  Instead of what we got, they should have made two movies at once in the vein of Back to the Future or LOTR.  DK should have ended with Dent in the hospital bed, turning to Gordon and demanding that he say his name.  Give Batman a small victory right before that point, and then end right there.  The second movie should have given us Two-Faces story, and not forced the descent of a good man into a venue far too thin for its scope. 

As far as individual choices they made in the story, most of them I enjoyed and agreed with, but I don't like the way they handled Dent's scarring.  It removes the burden of guilt that Batman carries for it.  Also, I hated the fact that Dent and Wayne were not friends to begin with (another reason I curse the existence of the Rachael character in the first film), as this also really causes the film to lose the weight and pathos their relationship possesses in the comics and the animated series.

Now, don't let this tirade throw you, I didn't hate the film, I was just disappointed in its weaknesses, and I'm frustrated by the fact that no one seems to take notice, or seems to simply excuse them.  The fact that this flawed piece of cinema history is being hailed as the best movie of the summer really makes me think about the way our society is helpless against hype.

On the positive side, the movie had moments where it's potential shined through, as I said above.  The acting was superb in almost every way, and say whatever you wish about the Rachael character, at least they hired a competent actress to play the part this time.  Bale did a really good job (other than his Batman voice, which seems to have become a parody of itself, and at times makes it impossible to take him seriously in the role), and might have been really touching if he had been given more time to delve into the character on screen.  Heath Ledger's last performance as the Joker was simply astounding.  He truly brought the character to life as the avatar of chaos that he is, with manic energy and pure madness that just spilled off the screen.  Now, I still don't think they needed to make the visual choices for his character that they did to accomplish this, the scars work for me now.  I still think he should have had the bleached skin.  As a matter of fact, I wish that they had taken a page out of that first Joker story, and had everyone think that it was makeup until they actually captured him, and then when they open his shirt to check him for weapons, they (and the audience) would realize that he is more than he seems.  I think that would have added to his moorless portrayal.  I loved the bit about the different origins, though.  The fellow who played Dent did an incredible job with little time, just about pulling off Two-Face's turn.  That scene where he finds the coin, and turns it over to reveal the burnt side and KNOWS that she is dead...that is cinematic gold.  I loved the theme of the people of Gotham CHOOSING to be better, and the heavy overtones of redemption.

All in all, I really wanted to love this movie, perhaps more than any movie I've ever seen, and even though I went in with high expectations, I don't believe they were unreasonable.  Even so, I find myself mourning the film, or films, that could and should, have been.. [/spoiler]

[bredon7777]

Benton-

[spoiler]
I don't disagree with a lot of what you said (though the jump cuts didn't bother me at all), but how on earth does what they did in TDK REMOVE the burden of guilt that Batman carries for two-faces scarring?  In the original origin, he's in a trial and Batman isn't even present when he gets scarred- if anything, I'd say the way they handled it here puts far more guilt on Batman.
[/spoiler]

General question:
[spoiler]
Did the Joker lie to Batman about what address Rachel was at, sending him deliberatley to save Dent because Rachel's death would hurt him more?  Or did he just give the addresses knowing Batman would jump to the wrong conclusion.  Mrs. bredon and I wqere discussing this and we could not remember...
[/spoiler]

[MJB]

General question:
[spoiler]Did the Joker lie to Batman about what address Rachel was at, sending him deliberatley to save Dent because Rachel's death would hurt him more?  Or did he just give the addresses knowing Batman would jump to the wrong conclusion.  Mrs. bredon and I were discussing this and we could not remember...
[/spoiler]

[spoiler]Joker did lie about the address just so he could prove his point and hurt Dent (his point of turning a good guy into someone like himself). It also didn't hurt the fact that the Joker had deduced that Bats had the hots for Rachel. A win-win situation in his eyes.[/spoiler]

-MJB

[BentonGrey]

Benton-

[spoiler]
I don't disagree with a lot of what you said (though the jump cuts didn't bother me at all), but how on earth does what they did in TDK REMOVE the burden of guilt that Batman carries for two-faces scarring?  In the original origin, he's in a trial and Batman isn't even present when he gets scarred- if anything, I'd say the way they handled it here puts far more guilt on Batman.
[/spoiler]

I'm not referring to the original origin, but the superior one presented in TAS.  However, I believe the point holds valid, because in both instances Batman was too slow to save his friend, a fact which torments him.  In the movie it is a freak accident, which strengthens the random chance connection, but that is a facet of the story never explored.

[kkhohoho]

I, for one, think that that the movie was just fine.  I liked that they had a lot put in it. It kept me fixed to the screen.  As for Bruce and Dent's relationship, Bruce/Batman did respect Harvey, and knew that he was one of the greatest hopes for the city.  When that hope is gone, Batman of course feels sad about it, so there is guilt there.  Personally, I felt the TAS's origin, while good, was a bit of a cop-out, by having Harvey's psychological transformation into Two-Face be due simply to a split personality that was corrupt all along.  In TDK, the persona of Harvey Dent changes, and I like that better.  As for Batman's lack of presence; I don't like it when someone judges a movie off of something that's come before it, and says that it's not too good, just because it has the same name as something else.  I judged this movie as a movie for the most part.  Batman may have not shown up a lot, but the movie is still great regardless.  The movie's basically a crime drama with Batman's name slapped onto it, but I don't dislike it for that.

[Gremlin]

Personally, I felt the TAS's origin, while good, was a bit of a cop-out, by having Harvey's psychological transformation into Two-Face be due simply to a split personality that was corrupt all along.  In TDK, the persona of Harvey Dent changes, and I like that better.

Actually, I was a little annoyed that they didn't play into the disassociative identity of Two-Face, since I've always thought that was one of the more compelling aspects of his character.  He's obsessed with duality, and two minds in one body perfectly reflects that.  I do wish they'd gone more into the "twin opposing natures cancel each other out and make nothing have any meaning," instead of just jumping into the "nothing has any meaning," but that's alright.