"But I don't have to save you" is BATMAN, how is that abandonment? That scene also "Calls back" the moment he first saved Ra's Al Ghul.

Lol at Gordon = Anakin in Phantom Menace, BB is a better film, Dark Knight is more complex but also a mess.

http://www.salon.com/ent/movies/revi...7/dark_knight/

this review is spot on

I think that review sucks. If we were to do a review battle, I could easily post
19 very positive reviews raving about how well the story was presented to your every 1 negative review (ie the 95% fresh rating on RT).

This here is terrible (from the Salon.com review):

I'm assuming that her gripe is with Batman just "appearing" and "disappearing." Well I don't think she understands that he's trained to be a ninja. The abduction critique is totally off as well. We didn't need to see them abducted at all. That critique is almost as stupid as some of the critiques I heard about BB; more specifically, the scene in which Alfred and the jet pick up Bruce in Asia. A small number of people were complaining that "Alfred just magically knew where to pick up Bruce." In a scene like that, we can reasonably infer that Bruce called Alfred with his co-ordinates. This is similar to Dent and Rachel being kidnapped. It isn't important how they were kidnapped or by whom because them being kidnapped is very reasonable.

to a degree you're right they don't have to show literally everything...but I think she's talking more about the scenes I/a couple others references earlier.

I won't go far as to call it a mess, but as I said earlier, I do think the continuity got wonky in a few places

So I just got back from the seeing this a few hours ago and have read this thread through - it was only released today over here. I have to say at this stage I loved it (I have loved Batman for ages so I am probably pretty biased anyways) and think it was much better than Batman Begins. Though I concede I need to give it time and also see it again to solidify my opinions. I don't feel qualified to say where it might rate against other films all-time, but personally don't think that whole issue is important anyway.

I have to say I was kind of shocked seeing so many people on here saying Harvey/Two-face died as I never once thought that while watching. My interpretation was they gave Harvey the public funeral as Gotham needed to believe in their "White Knight". As he previously stated: "you either die a hero, or live long enough to see yourself become the villain". Harvey Dent as Gotham knew him died a hero. I got the impression Harvey/Two-face was not dead and would have been locked up somewhere.

I think the ending was good though...it seemed as if Batman had taken another step in his development and whilst conflicted throughout the film as to whether he was achieving anything, he ultimately realised what must be done and that he cannot be a traditional hero to the city. I got the impression it was almost as if by affirming he is not this "hero" a weight was lifted from his shoulders and he is now freer to fight on and do what is necessary than he was previously. It took the Joker for him to see this.

One thing, probably not that important, but I sort of got the idea that when Lucious Fox entered his name at the end and the spy network machine was destroyed, his faith was restored in Bruce/Batman and would remain his ally. He had stated that as long as that machine was there he could not work there, so I thought it was all ok in the end. Whereas my mate I saw the film with thinks that he would still resign as he had stated when he saw the machine. Relatively inconsequential I suppose, but nonetheless, your opinions?

From watching it again, I think it's pretty clear Lucius is gonna stay around. The narrative mentions something about faith being restored (Gordon's speech).

Also, in the shooting script, supposedly Dent gets his neck broken by the fall. Johnathan Nolan also said Dent was dead in an interview.

Also, I don't really know what they can do from here with regards to another film. As far as I'm concerned the Joker is an eternal necessity to Batman. He is the equal and opposite reaction to Batman's action. In "The Dark Knight Returns" by Frank Miller, it is revealed that the Joker has been kind of dormant in his lock-up whilst Batman has been in "retirement". When Batman comes back, the Joker snaps back to life in a way and then proceeds to murder all the staff and audience on a TV talk show originally set up to talk about he was a changed man. Batman vs. Joker is an ongoing struggle and the effectively exist because each other. So, from my perspective, I don't know how they can really give the franchise much longevity whilst keeping it true to the core themes, darkness etc. of the Batman world without somehow working in the Joker again at some point.

I still think Two-face is a character with more depth that could be explored in another film. The fact that he once was the vision of hope and had the "partnership" of sorts with Batman and Gordon, as well as his stuggle with his duality makes him more intriguing than most of other villains in the Batman world - the Joker being the only notable exception I can think of at this point.

As for the "Joker Begins" idea....I don't really like it. In The Killing Joke, though they give the fall in chemical story as how he came to be, the Joker goes on to admit that he recalls the story different every time and that "if I have to have a past I prefer it to be multiple choice." I really liked the way they did this in the film by having him appear right at the start and so abruptly without any explanation or back story. And then how he went on to retell the origin of his facial scarring differently at each successive occaision.

Yeah that is pretty much how I saw it with Lucious.

Interesting...I didn't know about Jonathan Nolan confirming he was dead. If that's true then that seems a bit premature to me...I think he could be explored more, not to the point where he is a central villain for a whole film say, but he definitely has more to him in the main comic releases than was covered in The Dark Knight.

I don't know where they would go story wise in the future, but if anyway is going to write their way out of it, it would be the Nolans!

recasting Joker certainly isn't ideal, mostly b/c of how great Ledger was, but recasting in general is super standard. Nolan obv just did it with Dawes, and that was a pretty big character, so I don't think he would have a huge problem with it.

also, Joker was left alive, so having another movie without him (or having someone throw away line explaining his absence in Arkham or w/e) would be kind of lame.

Ed Norton ftw!

i just remembered how awesome it was when the joker said,

"there's nothing you can threaten me with; nothing to do with all your strength"

does the joker want to empower people or make them feel powerless? hmm

I agree...it's because Ledger was so good and because the Joker doesn't die in this film (and in my view cannot be removed because of his importance to Batman's world and Batman's character himself) it's hard to see at this stage how they can pull off a decent continuation...

Well, there is always the cop out of "flashbacks." I think it much more likely that Nolan uses something that was cut from TDK. Nolan had a few months in the wake of Ledger's death to re-edit TDK. Maybe he kept a few outtakes of The Joker that he plans to fit into the next movie (assuming there is a next movie).

Yeah, it is so awesome how they captured the Joker as not just a ruthless maniac but as an intelligent maniac. He understands Batman pretty completely from the get-go and knows Batman can't do anything to him. Batman on the other hand struggles to understand the Joker, but perhaps begins to grasp him and what he must become to counteract the Joker at the end of the film.

I'm not sure if the Joker particularly wants to empower or make people feel helpless as a motive...he states to Dent/Twoface how he is an agent of chaos and "do i look like a man with a plan?". But he certainly revels in the chaos he causes and the way it affects people and Batman.

True, true. As a huge Batman fan, at this stage I loved TDK and it's tone and I would almost prefer there was no next movie than have something that loses the way, a la Matrix sequels... >.<

ok i should probably go to bed... it's 3am now here but am still super-psyched about the film. If there had been another session after the one I saw I would have walked straight into that and watched it again...! heheh

He wasn't a criminal mastermind in BB he was just a pawn used by Ra's Al Ghul.

Katie Holmes as Rachel Dawes isn't quite the same as Heath Ledger as the Joker. Recasting Dawes hardly compares to what it would be like recasting the Joker after Ledger's performance.

I'm not saying it won't eventually happen, I'm just saying it is like recasting Hannibal Lecter after Anthony Hopkins completely defined the character. If they recast the Joker for the very next movie there is absolutely no doubt it will be a huge disappointment. It doesn't even really matter how good the actor is playing the part. It's kind of like the Beatles coming to America in 1964, you just can't top that kind of hype...especially when the actual performance really ****ing delivers.

Plus most everyone hated Katie Holmes in BB.

He was lying to Dent about not having "a plan" in order to turn him against everyone else. He wanted Dent to believe Rachel's murder was masterminded by people like Gordon and Moroni...manipulation ftw.

Just got a chance to see this movie last night. A really great movie. The joker was flat out great and really carried the movie. I was somewhat confused that the end of the movie was batman vs dent and the joker was somewhat neglected there.

Sound was great, I didn't particularly like batman's voice, but I get that he really needed to differentiate his voice from that of wayne, so OK.

Eff the haters, maggie is smokin and while her character wasn't great, like others said, the role was going to be hard to play and wasn't written great either.

I'm not exactly sure where the next movie is going to go. I thought the movie would be endingish with two-face's character set for the 3rd movie and batman and joker finishing the movie off.

Overall, a great movie. Ledger really did a great job.

sure, it'll be different, and will take getting used to, but I'm not sure it's unprecedented. James Bond was recast after the role was defined by Sean Connery, and Connery played him 6 times. I think Keaton was actually very good as Batman (the way the part was written back then), and Batman was recast.

Since when has Maggie been smoking hot. At best she's slightly above average, and below average for Hollywood.

Like I said it's a possibility, but what I said still stands...if they follow TDK with another movie featuring a new Joker it will be a letdown. It would only maybe be good if some other great actor did another new take on the character, but why would Nolan want to muddle up his series of films like this when there are certainly better options? Also, any actor good enough to pull off a good Ledger-Joker impression would undoubtedly have enough pride and ego to want to do his own take on the character.

The Bond series has over twenty films spanning over almost 50 years. Connery couldn't be Bond for the rest of his life. Also, the directors and writers changed many times over from movie to movie. Also, the Joker is not the sole driving force to the Batman series, while both Bond and Batman are central to their stories (ldo)...point being, there is no need for Nolan to recast the Joker as he has so many more options for a third movie.

Regarding the earlier Batman films, imo you can barely link Tim Burton's first two Batman films to Joel Schumacher's two. There really isn't any sort of continuity between them and they are wildly different takes on Batman. Also, while Keaton was certainly a "good" Batman he did not completely redefine the role.

But, yeah, whatever...Chris Tucker for Joker 2.0, imo.

This was my favorite aspect of the film; the Joker was the kind of villain I've always wanted to see, someone who lies every time it's +EV to do so, without letting any honor or vanity get in the way of his effectiveness, someone who exploits the hero's weaknesses, etc. Neil McCauley in Heat was probably my favorite example of this before, but now the Joker has taken the top spot.

The problem this brings up, though, is that he just owns Batman throughout the film. Batman in the comics or cartoon would have already had an expert plan stashed away in a file somewhere for this occasion, and would have used logic and game theory to try to predict what the Joker might do and when he might be lying. Here, he never says 'hey, maybe we should stop believing everything the Joker tells us.' This is not a huge complaint - because you can say he's early in his career, he's more realistic this way, etc. - I just think it would have been fun to see Bats get in some brilliant moments, too, rather than relying on tech and physical power.

Kimbell,

Those brainy qualities you desire seem like they would work really well in a movie featuring the Riddler. This would perhaps be a great change of pace from TDK.

Actually, Batman does learn and figure out the Joker at the end. Remember when Gordon and the cops were about to shoot all the people in clown masks in that tall building thinking that they were Joker's henchmen? Well Batman tells Gordon that it's never that easy with the Joker and he figures out that the people in the masks are actually the hostages.

Fair enough. I really liked Scarecrow when I read comics, so I was kinda mad that they made him come off like a punk.

That's true. I had forgotten about that.

I just kinda miss the World's Greatest Detective® Batman who led to stuff like the Tower of Babel storyline or figuring out how to fight Superman at the end of DKR.

But like I said, it's not a big complaint. Because this version of Batman has its own charms. These films are trying to show what would happen if a man decided to fight crime this way in the real world, and it's fitting that he makes mistakes and leads to unintended consequences.