Jeph Jacques's comics discussion forums

Fun Stuff => ENJOY => Topic started by: Aimless on 05 May 2008, 03:46

Title: The Dark Knight (SPOILERS START ON PAGE 3)
Post by: Aimless on 05 May 2008, 03:46
http://entimg.msn.com/i/movietrailers/HD/trailers/darkknight.asx

Shows more, but for some reason it doesn't do all that much for me... still, I am now completely convinced Ledger as Joker will be kickass =)
Title: Re: New Dark Knight trailer
Post by: Dissy on 05 May 2008, 07:23
I'm sure the mocvie will be kick ass.  Michael Caine said the Ledger was so scary, Caine forgot his lines.  That ought to be excellent.
Title: Re: New Dark Knight trailer
Post by: Emaline on 05 May 2008, 21:12
I've seen Iron man twice now(gonna be three times this weekend), and my favorite part is always the Dark Knight trailer at the beginning. I can't wait for this movie to come out! I am beyond excited.
Title: Re: New Dark Knight trailer
Post by: KickThatBathProf on 05 May 2008, 22:39
EXCITEMENT EXCITEMENT EXCITEMENT EXCITEMENT
Title: Re: New Dark Knight trailer
Post by: Johnny C on 05 May 2008, 23:48
Fuckin' A.
Title: Re: New Dark Knight trailer
Post by: KvP on 06 May 2008, 01:20
There looks to be a pretty massive spoiler in it, but only if you're looking hard.
Title: Re: New Dark Knight trailer
Post by: minorbird on 06 May 2008, 03:55
God I love Christian Bale. If its half as good as the last one, fuck yes.
Title: Re: New Dark Knight trailer
Post by: Muppet King on 06 May 2008, 04:35
Batman Begins was trash, but a step in the right direction.  It suffered from a poor choice in villain and casting for Batman.  Christian Bale isn't built correctly and lacks the necessary power in his voice.

That said, I don't like the casting for Two Face, Eckhart can play Dent, but I'm skeptical of his ability to play Dent on a run of bad heads.
Title: Re: New Dark Knight trailer
Post by: minorbird on 06 May 2008, 05:08
My man crush on Bale might be swaying my judgement here, but I thought he did a reasonable job. But then again I haven't had much to do with the comics, tv shows or anime. I thought it was a big step up from Batman and Robin though. Whenever I think of those films I keep hearing Seal singing Kiss from a Rose. Ugh.
Title: Re: New Dark Knight trailer
Post by: Jimmy the Squid on 06 May 2008, 06:32
Batman Begins was trash, but a step in the right direction.  It suffered from a poor choice in villain and casting for Batman.  Christian Bale isn't built correctly and lacks the necessary power in his voice.

Seriously? I loved Batman Begins! Scarecrow has always been my favourite Batman villain and I thought that Murphy did a fantastic job of portraying a weak but intelligent man on a total power trip. I think his fear-inducing hallucinogen could have been done [urlhttp://achewood.com/index.php?date=10142003]better[/url] (I didn't think much of the Batman with the glowing face that the crowd saw but that is my only complaint) but Neeson playing Ducard/Ras Al'Ghul was done really well so it balanced out (Ducard was a little too reminiscent of Qui Gon Jin but it was never going to be perfect).

I also thought that Bale did a fantastic job of Bruce Wayne and Batman. He totally looked the part and I believed the smouldering anger in the voice. It was definitely a step up from Kilmer or Clooney (though George Clooney is generally awesome) and it made much more sense than Michael Keaton, even if he did do a fantastic job in the Burton films. I honestly couldn't think of a better person to play Wayne and Batman than Christian Bale. Dude is a solid actor.
Title: Re: New Dark Knight trailer
Post by: Muppet King on 06 May 2008, 07:29
I never liked Scarecrow and that's really my only reasoning for not liking the villain choice.  I understand it from the plot perspective, he's just starting out he needs a villain that's sane and not too powerful.  Using Ras definitely made this tollerable for me.

The casting aside from Bale was wonderful.  Bale doesn't have the power in his voice that Batman should have.  It just sounds like he's a heavy smoker when he's in that persona.  As for him as Wayne, I didn't like how he acted in public.  I felt like he acted too much like his alter ego and too intelligent.  I've always preferred the writing of Wayne as the playboy with no knowledge in the business world; it seems more realistic as a cover to me.  He also lacks the necessary jawline for Batman.

More than anything, though, I hated what they did to the Batmobile and the pathetic look of the batarangs.

That said, I can't wait for Dark Knight.  The Joker is my favorite villain of all time, and it looks like Ledger didn't fuck it up too much.  I hate that they gave him a glassgow smile as the makeup though; they made him look more like a junky than a psychotic, evil, son of a bitch.
Title: Re: New Dark Knight trailer
Post by: thehollow on 06 May 2008, 07:40
they made him look more like a junky than a psychotic, evil, son of a bitch.
A self-inflicted Glasgow smile doesn't seem like the action of a psychotic person to you? I always pictured as him having done that himself.
Title: Re: New Dark Knight trailer
Post by: Muppet King on 06 May 2008, 10:40
I see where you're coming from, but I've always seen the Joker as a different kind of psychotic.  A self inflicted Glasgow smile is more the style of Black Mask.
Title: Re: New Dark Knight trailer
Post by: 0bsessions on 06 May 2008, 12:39
Man, you're kind of coming off as one of those anal retentive obsessive comic fans who simply cannot be pleased by anything unless it's shot for shot accurate to the comics. It's a fucking move and a damn good one at that.

I've been reading comics for some sixteen years now and I'd say it was fantastic, particularly Bale.
Title: Re: New Dark Knight trailer
Post by: Lines on 06 May 2008, 13:35
Yeah, I think you're being way to picky. I thought the casting choices were amazing in the last film (minus Katie Holmes, but only because I can't stand her) and after seeing the new trailer, I'm convinced they made good choices this time around, too.  I've been into Batman since I was little and I think they're doing a great job with this series.

Response to the trailer: *drool* I am so excited for this movie. SO EXCITED.
Title: Re: New Dark Knight trailer
Post by: Dissy on 06 May 2008, 13:45
Man, you're kind of coming off as one of those anal retentive obsessive comic fans who simply cannot be pleased by anything unless it's shot for shot accurate to the comics. It's a fucking move and a damn good one at that.

I've been reading comics for some sixteen years now and I'd say it was fantastic, particularly Bale.

Agreed.  Although, I think the Glasgow smile is exactly what the Joker would do.  He is a crazy fucker
Title: Re: New Dark Knight trailer
Post by: Muppet King on 06 May 2008, 14:22
After re-reading what I wrote, yeah I guess I am being a little picky, sorry about that.  I guess I'm hoping too much that they'll do an accurate recreation of No Man's Land or something.
Title: Re: New Dark Knight trailer
Post by: Storm Rider on 06 May 2008, 14:27
There looks to be a pretty massive spoiler in it, but only if you're looking hard.

I think I know what you're referring to, but maybe I'm guessing wrong. This forum doesn't have spoiler text, either, so I can't check.

Title: Re: New Dark Knight trailer
Post by: Ozymandias on 06 May 2008, 14:29
Nolan's Batman movies are basically the best Batman we will ever be able to hope to see on the big screen. No one will top his vision and ballsyness to just say "Batman is not for kids" and go through with it, as intensely and realistically as possible.
Title: Re: New Dark Knight trailer
Post by: Dimmukane on 06 May 2008, 15:22
There looks to be a pretty massive spoiler in it, but only if you're looking hard.

I think I know what you're referring to, but maybe I'm guessing wrong. This forum doesn't have spoiler text, either, so I can't check.



Supposedly at some point there is a brief shot of Twoface.  I've watched the trailer 3 times and only saw Harvey Dent's face in a puddle of gasoline.
Title: Re: New Dark Knight trailer
Post by: 0bsessions on 06 May 2008, 15:26
Look very closely. (http://www.comicbookresources.com/images//reel/darkknight/tdk_trl3_20080504/tdk_trl3_20080504_110.jpg)

I noticed it my first time through. The revolver kind of tips you off and grabs your attention. How many district attorneys do you know who brandish revolvers?
Title: Re: New Dark Knight trailer
Post by: Storm Rider on 06 May 2008, 15:34
Yeah, I assumed that it was the shot of Dent with the gun, because one side of his face was deliberately facing away from the camera. I didn't actually notice the scarring until the still, though.

Is that really much of a spoiler anyway? Didn't everyone more or less expect that to happen during the course of the movie?
Title: Re: New Dark Knight trailer
Post by: 0bsessions on 06 May 2008, 15:40
Man, some people would consider knowing that Michael Caine broke wind on the set thirteen days into shooting a spoiler. Can never be too cautious.
Title: Re: New Dark Knight trailer
Post by: Lines on 06 May 2008, 15:45
I caught that in the preview, but I figured that would have been addressed before the end of the movie anyways, considering it's got both the Joker and Harvey Dent.
Title: Re: New Dark Knight trailer
Post by: Lines on 06 May 2008, 19:08
I'm sure the mocvie will be kick ass.  Michael Caine said the Ledger was so scary, Caine forgot his lines.  That ought to be excellent.

Look familiar?  :wink:
Title: Re: New Dark Knight trailer
Post by: KvP on 06 May 2008, 19:35
That wasn't the spoiler I was referring to, though I guess that is also a spoiler!

CHUD had a comment about it when the trailer debuted, you can look it up there.
Title: Re: New Dark Knight trailer
Post by: Dimmukane on 06 May 2008, 19:48
I'm sure the mocvie will be kick ass.  Michael Caine said the Ledger was so scary, Caine forgot his lines.  That ought to be excellent.

Look familiar?  :wink:

Wow.  I read through the thread twice to make sure it wasn't this one.  I think my brain is auto-adjusting to not read lines from people without avatars.  I'll delete that one, then.
Title: Re: New Dark Knight trailer
Post by: Ikrik on 06 May 2008, 21:26
Dude....If a spoiler head my way i'm not going to turn my head.  If I know the ending to something I'm still going to enjoy the movie just as much as I would if I didn't know the spoiler....but that's just me.  I knew the ending to the Sixth Sense and still thought it was an amazing movie (at the time).  But anyway.

Saying that Christian Bale isn't the right person for Batman is like saying that Roger Moore was the perfect Bond.  Christian Bale is everything that I imagine Batman to be and he does an incredible job.

No Man's Land?  Dude.....that'd have to be movie 5 or 6....which I would totally wait for.  The only problem with that is that you have to introduce Robin and then turn him into Nightwing and a bunch of other characters that might be a little bit hard to pull off.  It'd be kind of hard to have No Man's Land without Joker....and it's hard to have Joker without Heath Ledger.
Title: Re: New Dark Knight trailer
Post by: Ozymandias on 06 May 2008, 21:30
From the trailers alone, I think it'd be damn near impossible for someone to fill Heath's shoes.
Title: Re: New Dark Knight trailer
Post by: Surgoshan on 06 May 2008, 22:00
When you're so scary you make Michael Caine forget his lines, you're a damn good actor.
Title: Re: New Dark Knight trailer
Post by: Muppet King on 07 May 2008, 05:49
Saying that Christian Bale isn't the right person for Batman is like saying that Roger Moore was the perfect Bond.  Christian Bale is everything that I imagine Batman to be and he does an incredible job.

No Man's Land?  Dude.....that'd have to be movie 5 or 6....which I would totally wait for.  The only problem with that is that you have to introduce Robin and then turn him into Nightwing and a bunch of other characters that might be a little bit hard to pull off.  It'd be kind of hard to have No Man's Land without Joker....and it's hard to have Joker without Heath Ledger.

A matter of opinion I guess.

Yeah, No Man's Land is completely undoable.  Here's a short list of characters they'd have to introduce in order to do it:

Montoya
Bullock
Essen
Barbara Gordon
Dick Grayson
Tim Drake
Black Mask
Tallyman
The Penguin
Poison Ivy
Bane
maybe Scarface
Huntress
They'd have to introduce Cass Cain and Harlequin

It'd never work, but it's my favorite story arc and I can always hope someday it'd work....for now I'll settle with the Joker getting kneecapped.
Title: Re: New Dark Knight trailer
Post by: 0bsessions on 07 May 2008, 06:56
To say nothing about the fact No Man's Land was epically fucking long and drawn out and dragged something fierce.
Title: Re: New Dark Knight trailer
Post by: Lines on 07 May 2008, 07:52
Without Heath, I don't see how they can introduce Harley Quinn unless it's just when she's paired up with Poison Ivy. It'd be kind of cool to have those two in action, but it'd be kind of sad to see Harley without the Joker.
Title: Re: New Dark Knight trailer
Post by: JediBendu on 07 May 2008, 09:15
I somewhat agree with some of the sentiments on Christian Bale. I actually don't really like him that much as Bruce Wayne/Batman. That being said, from what I've seen so far there's nothing wrong with the casting of Aaron Eckhart or Heath Ledger in their roles. It's partially why I'm looking forward so much to The Dark Knight, because even though I didn't like Bale in Batman Begins, just the nature that this movie won't contain a Batman origin story could mean a greater focus on the villains, who just so happen to be the two main Batman villains period, so there's even more evidence to a greater emphasis on them.

Basically, as long as Bale does decent enough in my mind, I'm probably still going to love the movie cause the villains look fantastic.
Title: Re: New Dark Knight trailer
Post by: Storm Rider on 07 May 2008, 10:51
Now, my experience with Batman is pretty much exclusively from the animated series, but is Two-Face really the most important villain aside from the Joker? I guess it would make sense, considering the former identity and all, but I don't recall him being that important.
Title: Re: New Dark Knight trailer
Post by: 0bsessions on 07 May 2008, 10:58
Honestly, I'd say he was more important than the Joker. The Joker was more dangerous as he was an absolute sociopath, but Two-Face was also someone Wayne always felt could perhaps be redeemed or rehabilitated and there was an emotional attachment.
Title: Re: New Dark Knight trailer
Post by: Lines on 07 May 2008, 12:01
Yeah, even in the comics when Frank Miller picked it up, Two Face was still really important to Bruce/Batman. They are good friends before he goes crazy and then Batman always feels guilty about it. I wouldn't say he's the most important villain, but he's definitely one of them.
Title: Re: New Dark Knight trailer
Post by: KvP on 07 May 2008, 12:20
When you're so scary you make Michael Caine forget his lines, you're a damn good actor.
You know I wouldn't be surprised if Michael Caine was just being nice. Dude's been acting for over 50 years, you'd think an old pro like that would hold up in the face of deep method acting.

Or he might just have a fear of clowns.

Quote from: Linds
Without Heath, I don't see how they can introduce Harley Quinn unless it's just when she's paired up with Poison Ivy. It'd be kind of cool to have those two in action, but it'd be kind of sad to see Harley without the Joker.
Didn't they introduce Harley via the Animated Series? I don't see Nolan going that direction, great as the show was, but you never know. He'd probably make her humor-free and some sort of obsessive copycat killer or something.
Title: Re: New Dark Knight trailer
Post by: Faker on 17 Jun 2008, 17:30
Ok can I just say I'm loving the viral campaign for this film, but even without it I'd be really excited.

So the latest piece is this site (http://www.gothamcitypizzeria.com/).

I know it doesn't look like much, but click on the HA in Gotham, and you'll be treated to a post "incident" clip of Harvey Dent.

Obviously if you wanna go into the film cold don't follow the link, but I really don't think the clip even warrants the term spoiler, but that's just me
Title: Re: New Dark Knight trailer
Post by: Blue Kitty on 17 Jun 2008, 17:57
The most recent trailer that I have seen sort of points at the fact that Harvey is going to be deformed and then shows him with one side away from the camera holding a gun, so I don't know how much of a spoiler it is.
Title: Re: New Dark Knight trailer
Post by: Surgoshan on 17 Jun 2008, 18:20
Las trailer I saw just had Harvey being held with his face in a puddle, looking at the camera, screaming "NO!"
Title: Re: New Dark Knight trailer
Post by: Dimmukane on 17 Jun 2008, 18:21
That new one has a shot of him from behind, rotating to show a little bit of the scarred side of his face.  Still no frontal view.
Title: Re: New Dark Knight trailer
Post by: Dissy on 17 Jun 2008, 20:19
Thank you for that link. 

Oh man, I am so toatally looking forward to thismove.  I can't hardly wait.
Title: Re: New Dark Knight trailer
Post by: Snarf on 20 Jun 2008, 08:19
Batman sucks.  What superhero doesn't have superpowers?

Superman Returns II.  That is the movie Snarf wants to see.
Title: Re: New Dark Knight trailer
Post by: Surgoshan on 20 Jun 2008, 08:31
What superhero doesn't have superpowers?

The goddamn batman.  He doesn't need superpowers.
Title: Re: New Dark Knight trailer
Post by: Dimmukane on 20 Jun 2008, 08:34
Also the Watchmen.
Title: Re: New Dark Knight trailer
Post by: Thy Dungeonman on 20 Jun 2008, 08:41
And Iron Man.
Title: Re: New Dark Knight trailer
Post by: Surgoshan on 20 Jun 2008, 09:27
And the punisher.  And Dr. Mcninja.
Title: Re: New Dark Knight trailer
Post by: Snarf on 20 Jun 2008, 09:42
Ha!  Superman kicks all of their butts.  Superheroes with no powers are like liberals without taxes.
Title: Re: New Dark Knight trailer
Post by: Surgoshan on 20 Jun 2008, 09:45
Ha!  Superman kicks all of their butts.  Superheroes with no powers are like liberals without taxes.

Batman has kryptonite on his belt.  He'd never use it, because they're BFF, but still, he has it.  Just in case.  Because he's batman.
Title: Re: New Dark Knight trailer
Post by: Dissy on 20 Jun 2008, 09:52
^^  Actually, he has used it.  When Supes was under Poison Ivy's influence.

Yeah, Batman kicks the shit out of Superman on a regular basis, just to keep the illegal alien in line.
Title: Re: New Dark Knight trailer
Post by: Snarf on 20 Jun 2008, 09:55
See, Batman cheat.  If he no have Kryptonite, Superman squish him with little finger.
Title: Re: New Dark Knight trailer
Post by: Betagold on 20 Jun 2008, 11:00
Well, if Superman didn't have superpowers, then Batman would squish him with his little finger.  Which is what Kryptonite does to Superman, takes away his superpowers.  Batman isn't cheating, he's evening the playing field.
Title: Re: New Dark Knight trailer
Post by: Border Reiver on 20 Jun 2008, 16:27
Out of all of DC's heroes  Batman was the only one I could ever get into in the 80s - I was more of a Micronauts fan...

But, if they had to do a Batman multi movie arc, my choice would be The Cult.  That was a damned scary miniseries.
Title: Re: New Dark Knight trailer
Post by: Nodaisho on 21 Jun 2008, 22:24
See, Batman cheat.  If he no have Kryptonite, Superman squish him with little finger.
So basically, if someone doesn't use something that will defeat him, superman will win? Hey, if superman doesn't use something that would defeat batman, batman would win.

Oh, and get out the fire-based weapons, I smell a troll.
Title: Re: New Dark Knight trailer
Post by: Ozymandias on 22 Jun 2008, 21:41
Man, read Tower of Babel.

Batman has so many ways of kicking Superman's boy scout ass.
Title: Re: New Dark Knight trailer
Post by: Border Reiver on 23 Jun 2008, 05:19
My preference is still the method used in "The Dark Knight Returns"
Title: Re: New Dark Knight trailer
Post by: De_El on 23 Jun 2008, 10:00
That was when he used, like, big ol' solid kryptonite boxing gloves, right?
Title: Re: New Dark Knight trailer
Post by: Border Reiver on 23 Jun 2008, 10:53
No, he gave an arrow made of synthetic kyrptonite to Green Arrow, who shot the big blue boy scout, allowing an elderly Batman to whale three kinds of hell out of Superman. 

The comic came out either in the late '80s, and may be hard to find now.
Title: Re: New Dark Knight trailer
Post by: 0bsessions on 23 Jun 2008, 11:02
I can't imagine Dark Knight Returns being all that hard to find. It's one of the biggest and most widely recognized Batman comics of all time.

It also sounds to me that De_El is at least passingly familiar with it. The kryptonite boxing gloves was a scene from the 2001 sequel, Dark Knight Strikes Again.
Title: Re: New Dark Knight trailer
Post by: De_El on 23 Jun 2008, 11:27
I've read 'em both. Like the first better, obv. I just mixed 'em up is all.
Title: Re: New Dark Knight trailer
Post by: Faker on 02 Jul 2008, 12:36
God damn it, I need to see this movie now!

(http://www.empireonline.com/images/image_index/hw800/28185.jpg)
Title: Re: New Dark Knight trailer
Post by: MusicScribbles on 02 Jul 2008, 19:05
New Dark Knight trailer right here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U1Ey-FZC_QM).
Title: Re: New Dark Knight trailer
Post by: De_El on 03 Jul 2008, 23:41
Man I don't even want to watch the trailers any more. It's like, I'm not afraid of being spoilt in the normal sense, but I think the experience will be more fulfilling if I don't already have all kinds of lines and scenes rolling around my head.
Title: Re: New Dark Knight trailer
Post by: Lines on 04 Jul 2008, 07:20
Two more weeks!
Title: Re: New Dark Knight trailer
Post by: Ozymandias on 07 Jul 2008, 12:22
The Dark Knight's script! (http://my.spill.com/profiles/blog/show?id=947994%3ABlogPost%3A355506)

(By Michael Bay)
Title: Re: New Dark Knight trailer
Post by: imapiratearg on 07 Jul 2008, 12:42
Sheer brilliance.
Title: Re: New Dark Knight trailer
Post by: Scandanavian War Machine on 07 Jul 2008, 12:52
that is fucking genius.
Title: Re: New Dark Knight trailer
Post by: De_El on 07 Jul 2008, 17:01
Shared on Facebook!
Title: Re: New Dark Knight trailer
Post by: gargoylekitty on 09 Jul 2008, 01:38
Better images of Two-Face: http://www.lyricis.fr/cinema-dvd-serie/batman-the-dark-knight-photos-exclusives-de-double-face-et-du-joker/

This movie is going to be made of win.
Title: Re: New Dark Knight trailer
Post by: Inlander on 09 Jul 2008, 06:29
The Dark Knight's script!

(By Michael Bay)

Awesome! I think my favourite bit was "An American flag (CGI)".

Though, having said that . . .

WE HACK THE INTERNET
Title: Re: New Dark Knight trailer
Post by: 0bsessions on 09 Jul 2008, 06:51
But which one of the internets do we hack?
Title: Re: New Dark Knight trailer
Post by: Inlander on 09 Jul 2008, 06:55
ALL OF THEM.
Title: Re: New Dark Knight trailer
Post by: 0bsessions on 09 Jul 2008, 06:59
My word!
Title: Re: New Dark Knight trailer
Post by: Faker on 09 Jul 2008, 13:28
Ok so most of this has been seen in the various trailers to date, but how do you fancy seeing 56 WHOLE SECONDS (http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/video/2008/jul/08/thedarkknight) of the Dark Knight?
Title: Re: New Dark Knight trailer
Post by: Ozymandias on 09 Jul 2008, 14:05
Man, Heath Ledger is nowhere in that clip.

There's only The Joker.

It's insane.
Title: Re: New Dark Knight trailer
Post by: Scandanavian War Machine on 09 Jul 2008, 14:12
must...not....watch....clip....




EDIT: okay, so i'm at work and i just went out for a smoke break and found that someone had taken a Joker from a deck of cards and placed it under my windshield wiper. really weird because i can see my car from my desk and no one has been by, not even in a car. it's been completely dead here. i guess there's a chance it's been there for a while and i just didn't notice it but i kind of doubt it.
Title: Re: New Dark Knight trailer
Post by: Dimmukane on 09 Jul 2008, 15:00
So much yay.  I think I have a split lip from smiling so hard.
Title: Re: New Dark Knight trailer
Post by: Ikrik on 09 Jul 2008, 15:40
Holy........crap.  That was possibly the greatest thing I've seen this entire year.  I was checking my Gmail today and one of those stupid little google info ad thingies was all like "Heath Ledger to be given Oscar Nomination?" It was either Gmail or MSN.....either way.  Wow that was intense.  He doesn't even DO anything and I was frightened...that was great.
Title: Re: New Dark Knight trailer
Post by: gargoylekitty on 10 Jul 2008, 01:18
Well... there is the first 6 minutes of the movie that have been online since December.
http://www.dailymotion.com/waldo05/video/x62t25_my-big-fat-sisters-wedding_news (http://Link)
Title: Re: New Dark Knight trailer
Post by: johnny5 on 10 Jul 2008, 07:19
must...not....watch....clip....




EDIT: okay, so i'm at work and i just went out for a smoke break and found that someone had taken a Joker from a deck of cards and placed it under my windshield wiper. really weird because i can see my car from my desk and no one has been by, not even in a car. it's been completely dead here. i guess there's a chance it's been there for a while and i just didn't notice it but i kind of doubt it.

Y SO SRYS

i'm going to try and avoid like hell that little leak. i'm already starting to think about what batman tres might hold in store (is it too lame to use Hush as a basic storyline? would you rather they write a new one from scratch?)(this is all based on if two-face gets wrapped up in this movie or not)

edit again : clayface as the villian would be so dope, if they could make it look realistic enough...too much CGI would ruin a Batman movie, imo
Title: Re: New Dark Knight trailer
Post by: 0bsessions on 10 Jul 2008, 08:59
Clayface wouldn't likely happen. Nolan has made it explicitly clear that he is not a fan of CG. Clayface, while awesome in the cartoon, was also always a villain who kind of pulled Batman out of the reality of it. Nolan's made mention that his favorite thing about Batman is that he's pretty grounded in reality. I figure they'll be avoiding the superpowered villains like Clayface, Man-Bat and the like.

Hush would be workable, but I doubt we'll see that one in action. It was a pretty complicated storyline and it really wasn't all that good to begin with.

If they do a third movie, I'd expect someone more along the lines of maybe Catwoman, the Riddler or maybe even the Mad Hatter. Even Bane would be a possibility (And an interesting one, at that). Judging by the dark tone of the series and the more realistic portrayals, I think Mad Hatter can be effectively written off, as he's rather goofy. Riddler's a possibility, as he's easier to write with less camp. I expect we'll see a Frank Miller style Catwoman in the third installment (A prostitute who gets a kick out of Batman and decides to resort to theft).

Unfortunately, as good as Nolan's been, his style and vision is pretty limiting when it comes to Batman's rogues gallery. If he continues to refuse to stray from his mafioso, grim and gritty M.O., then he's going to run out of possibilities really quick unless he majorly reworks some villains. Let's run through the Batman rogues:

Scarecrow, Ra's, Joker and Two Face will have been covered by the end of this one.

Poison Ivy, outside of her plant schtick, would be effectively pointless. The only other role she serves is as a seductress, which Catwoman covers better. Not likely.

Bane is VERY easily reworkable to suit Nolan's purposes. Let's ignore the Bane that showed up in Batman & Robin, shall we? They fucked him up but good. The real Bane was one of the smartest and most intimidating villains Batman ever faced. He organized a massive breakout of Arkham in order to wear Batman down. Once Bats was at the end of his rope, Bane broke into Wayne Manor, beat the piss out of Alfred then savagely beat Batman and broke his back. Sure, he was super strong, but run an angle of him just being a heavily trained mercenary with crime lord ambitions and you're golden. Very feasible.

Mr. Freeze, like Poison Ivy, doesn't really work outside his schtick. This is tragic, considering the BTAS Freeze was incredibly well done.

The Penguin is doable. Lose Burton's circus act crap and turn him into the affluent, high society criminal he was in the cartoon and comics and he writes himself. Get a relative unknown in there and he could be gold.

Clayface I've covered. Too much CGI, too unrealistic to suit Nolan's vision.

Killer Croc is a two dimensional bruiser. He'd be fun in a one off role of just being a nickname for a generic mob enforcer, but otherwise of no use.

Scarface is realistic and very intriguing, but I'd be concerned about the audience taking him seriously. If they got him just right, he could be perfect, but otherwise risky. If they set him up right at the beginning to do something particularly heinous, Scarface and the Ventriloquist could make for an excellent tragic story.

Riddler could be made to be more menacing, but it's an uphill battle. If they portrayed him as an obsessive compulsive, it could work out really well.

Most anyone else is either too obscure (Lady Shiva), too generic (Black Mask) or too similar to/derivative of another villain (Harley Quinn) to be workable.

Running through the list, Catwoman, Riddler, Scarface and Bane would be the best and most likely candidates with little tooling necessary.
Title: Re: New Dark Knight trailer
Post by: johnny5 on 10 Jul 2008, 09:15
you're totally right. nolan does take characters and tries his best to root them in reality. bane as a mercenary who's bulked up on juice could be played by roger clemons (jk). the most encouraging thing i've heard about TDK is that above all else, it's an excellent detective/crime drama, so i assume nolan will want to continue in that vein.

i threw clayface out there because the fact that he can change forms and thus would be/should be very hard for batman to track down and figure out who is actually who (let's lose the weakness to water, and have him impersonate jim gordon, rachael dawes...lucius fox...daaaaamn)

riddler would be good, without the green suit that reminds me of that guy from the infomercials. if his clues were a lot more savage and ruthless (maybe throw in a bit of a se7en feel in there, leaving clues with victims, etc) that might be the best option.

honestly catwoman as villian might be the worst option as far as the well known villians could go. she never really commited crimes horrible enough to command the title villian role in a movie.
Title: Re: New Dark Knight trailer
Post by: Scandanavian War Machine on 10 Jul 2008, 09:19
riddler would be good, without the green suit that reminds me of that guy from the infomercials. if his clues were a lot more savage and ruthless (maybe throw in a bit of a se7en feel in there, leaving clues with victims, etc) that might be the best option.

this, and Jon's Bane sound the best to me so far.
Title: Re: New Dark Knight trailer
Post by: 0bsessions on 10 Jul 2008, 09:22
Title role, no. Then again, she's NEVER been used that way. She's always been used as more of a foil for Batman. Someone to just kind of fuck his day up a little bit and be a bit of a pain in his ass. She'd definitely have to be a supporting character, but she excels in that role and would be easily done.

And I would absolutely love to see Bane, yeah. Just the effect of seeing the "Break you" scene would be bitchin'.

I stand by my belief that Scarface, if done right, would probably make for the most interesting story in a self contained flick.

Edit: You know what? I take it back. Scarface would work well as a supporting villain and a great subplot (Kind of like Sandman in Spider-Man, though he was about the ONLY redeeming factor there). He's simply not someone who would translate well to the teaser trailer lifestyle. I can't imagine anyone seeing him in a trailer and being all "Oh, fuck everything, I has got to see this shit!"

Bane, on the other hand, is tailor made for a trailer. Intercut the teaser with shots of the Arkham breakout and a Bane voiceover, detailing how he plans to wear down Wayne and then close it with a shot of Bane lifting a battered Batman over his head about to bring him down on his knee. Go black and end the trailer on "and then... I will break him." I guarantee you, you'd get a fucking standing O for that and people would start lining up for tickets right then and there.
Title: Re: New Dark Knight trailer
Post by: johnny5 on 10 Jul 2008, 09:46
that pre-trailer sounds awesome. to be honest, the only reasons why i wouldn't support a scarface/bane storyline:

1. scarface overall isn't really that intimidating to me. a doll worn on some guys hand commiting crimes...i dunno. creepy, but it shouldn't really take too long to beat this guy. as a supporting villian, that might work.

2. anytime you deal with bane, you kind of have to deal with azreal (i'm pretty sure i fucked that up but i'm sure you get the idea). i hated that guy and i dont know how much film nolan would have to/would be willing to show him and the struggle of power between him and batman once he gets well. it doesn't look like nolan plans to add robin anytime soon so he coulnd't fill in either.

however, if you mean just taking the character and basic premise of bane and creating a new story around that, i can get behind that.
Title: Re: New Dark Knight trailer
Post by: Dimmukane on 10 Jul 2008, 09:49
Not having read much comics at all, who would you think should play Bane?
Title: Re: New Dark Knight trailer
Post by: johnny5 on 10 Jul 2008, 09:59
if we're going with well known actors, i might give vinnie jones a call. it kind of depends how buff the dude is actually going to be.
Title: Re: New Dark Knight trailer
Post by: Jimmy the Squid on 10 Jul 2008, 10:05
Urgh.

Oh and Nolan already came out and said that he will never direct a Batman film that has Robin in it. Given the potential gain from any Batman's directed by Nolan in light of the Colossal Failures that were the Schumaker Batmans I'm pretty sure WB will not push the sidekick issue.
Title: Re: New Dark Knight trailer
Post by: Ozymandias on 10 Jul 2008, 10:43
That's okay. We already have an amazing Death in the Family inspired Batman movie in Return of the Joker.
Title: Re: New Dark Knight trailer
Post by: Dimmukane on 10 Jul 2008, 10:47
Vinnie Jones?  The way you guys are talking about him, I'd expect a deeper, less gravely (sic) voice.  More along the lines of James Earl Jones, although obviously not him.
Title: Re: New Dark Knight trailer
Post by: johnny5 on 10 Jul 2008, 10:49
i dont remember how his voice sounds, but they could certainly alter the voice like they do for the scarecrow and such. that was just off the top of my head, i'm certain there might be more creepy, unsettling actors to play the part.
Title: Re: New Dark Knight trailer
Post by: Jimmy the Squid on 10 Jul 2008, 10:55
It would need to be someone really physically imposing, which apparently in action films means getting a pro-wrestler to stumble about the set, but for Bane you'd need someone both large but actually able to act. Vinne Jones just doesn't cut the mustard for it unfortunately. Honestly, I don't know of anyone like that.
Title: Re: New Dark Knight trailer
Post by: Scandanavian War Machine on 10 Jul 2008, 10:58
i think Micky Rourke could fit that bill pretty well as long as he wore the mask so it wasn't obvious that it was him, since he's a pretty big actor.

but at the same time, i just don't think he's quite right. he's the best i can think of right now but i'm sure there's someone better.
Title: Re: New Dark Knight trailer
Post by: johnny5 on 10 Jul 2008, 11:03
fuck it, i mean...can they consider vin diesel? once upon a time (saving private ryan), i thought he could act decently...he's a big dude and he could sound threatening enough. i'm kind of blanking on big dudes who can act too
Title: Re: New Dark Knight trailer
Post by: Scandanavian War Machine on 10 Jul 2008, 11:13
you know...Vin Diesel might actually work if he really pulled out his A game and they never showed his face.


....on second thought...why not just get a huge pro wrestler to be in the scenes (with mask) and have David Hayter do the voice.

it's perfect.
Title: Re: New Dark Knight trailer
Post by: 0bsessions on 10 Jul 2008, 11:28
Vinnie Jones is a big colossal fuck no. The guy couldn't even act well enough to portray the Juggernaut and I'm pretty sure a 300 pound retard could handle Juggernaut. Say no to Vinnie Jones.

Bane doesn't necessarily have to be a huge guy. It's all about perspective. Get a guy who's pretty in shape and turn Bane into more of an Anti-Batman. It still gets the general premise, as Bane's real big point was that he was smart enough to outwit Batman in order to take him down. Any thug could've beaten him after the hell Bane put him through, but no one but Bane calculated it so meticulously. With that said, just get a good actor over six feet tall who's in good shape and run with it. Most importantly: lose the gimp mask. A lot of fanboys are going to cry about it, but as long as they got the important shit, it'll turn out all right.

In terms of Azreal, fuck that guy. Completely fuck that guy. He's very easily written out of the whole thing. You could basically do Knightsend without the second act. Just basically run the first half as the Breaking of the Bat storyline. Then, run about half an hour of Wayne rehabbing and retraining while Bane effectively fucks the city to hell and back, then bring Wayne back to Gotham and have him beat Bane. Pretty simple story that could be compacted into 2 1/2 hours easily enough. They could just open with the mass breakout and explain Bane's motivation as it goes just like in the comic.

In terms of Scarface, as I said, I don't think he could work as the main villain in retrospect. He could, however, steal the show. The idea of a dude with a puppet and a tommy gun doesn't sound intimidating and that's the point of the character. Initially people don't take him seriously, but then he will absolutely fuck your day up.
Title: Re: New Dark Knight trailer
Post by: johnny5 on 10 Jul 2008, 11:35
lol i forgot he was the juggernaut...bitch

Title: Re: New Dark Knight trailer
Post by: Storm Rider on 10 Jul 2008, 15:00
Technically, the end of Begins left Scarecrow unaccounted for, so they could bring him back in the future if they wanted to.
Title: Re: New Dark Knight trailer
Post by: 0bsessions on 10 Jul 2008, 15:30
I was going to make a snarky remark about how I said that ages ago, but it would appear that that was in Gabbly, not here.
Title: Re: New Dark Knight trailer
Post by: Tom on 10 Jul 2008, 15:58
Catwomen?

I don't think that'd sit well with Nolan, Catwoman isn't old enough for people to have forgotten about.
Title: Re: New Dark Knight trailer
Post by: Ikrik on 10 Jul 2008, 16:09
Can they bring back Arnie for Mr. Freeze?  That would be sweet.  And they'd keep it so ALL his lines would be one-liners.  "You're not going to put me in da kool-ah"  that would be...awesome.

Mickey Rourke did Marv....it would NOT be difficult for him to be Bane.  Statham is too short and Vinnie Jones acts and looks too stupid.  If they choose to cast Bane it might just be someone no one has really heard of....that would be the best bet.

Dude, people forgave the Hulk. I'm sure they can forgive Catwoman too, especially if she isn't Halle Berry.
Title: Re: New Dark Knight trailer
Post by: Tom on 10 Jul 2008, 16:46
Good point.
Title: Re: New Dark Knight trailer
Post by: Inlander on 10 Jul 2008, 19:02
Less Batman talk, more making fun of Michael Bay (http://www.theonion.com/content/news/cgi_team_creates_realistic_oscar)!

(It's old, but I've only just seen it.)
Title: Re: New Dark Knight trailer
Post by: sean on 10 Jul 2008, 19:50
I read that in the real physical copy of the Onion.

I'm so hip.
Title: Re: New Dark Knight trailer
Post by: Inlander on 10 Jul 2008, 20:16
It's only hip if, when you read it, instead of laughing you just smirked.
Title: Re: New Dark Knight trailer
Post by: Tom on 10 Jul 2008, 22:48
I read it on the internet and did a half smirk and strange enough, it was more insolent than amused.
Title: Re: New Dark Knight trailer
Post by: sean on 11 Jul 2008, 09:23
Actually, I scoffed when read it.
Title: Re: New Dark Knight trailer
Post by: Dissy on 11 Jul 2008, 09:39
If Nolan is going to do Bane, why not include the Venom arc?  Bane organizes the break-out of Arkham, hypes several of the inmates up on the Venom drug, Bats gets the crap kicked out of him first go around. Enter Bane, disguised as a street dealer, who offers to "help" Batman and give him a more consentrated dose of the drug.  Batman kiks ass for about twenty minutes, but suddenly crashes, badly.  He is forced to keep fighting, even though he is suffering from withdrawl of the drug.  Bane, however, is off kidnapping Batman's allies (Jim Gordon, Rachel Dawes) and finds out who the Bat is.  He breaks into Wayne Manor, and waits.  There Batman gets the shit kicked out of him.  
Title: Re: New Dark Knight trailer
Post by: 0bsessions on 11 Jul 2008, 10:20
Because that would be horrible, cliched and something Grant Morrison would write. Seriously, that reads like Morrison's last arc on New X-Men.

"DRUGS! DRUGS! DRUGS MAKE YOU STRONG! OH NO! I CRASH! DRUGS ARE BAAAAAAAD!"

The End.
Title: Re: New Dark Knight trailer
Post by: Dissy on 11 Jul 2008, 11:42
That was the whole point of Venom, wasn't it?

And since the Venom drug is almost always associated with Bane, why not continue it
Title: Re: New Dark Knight trailer
Post by: 0bsessions on 11 Jul 2008, 11:56
Actually, venom was rarely portrayed that way outside that horrible fucking movie.

In the comics, Bane was an incredibly brilliant guy who was naturally built like a tank. He used the venom as a leg up because it essentially was basically adrenaline. It pumped him up a bit further and dulled pain. You don't lose anything if you just completely eliminate the venom angle. In fact, even putting venom in would needlessly complicate matters and also come off as a bit "been there/done that" when stacked up against the fear toxin from the first movie.
Title: Re: New Dark Knight trailer
Post by: Faker on 12 Jul 2008, 06:25

Some people have too much time on their hands


The Best Dark Knight Trailer yet? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iHufrsP9XMA)

Title: Re: New Dark Knight trailer
Post by: minorbird on 16 Jul 2008, 04:03
Just booked my tickets for tommorow afternoon...
Who else is getting really excited?
Title: Re: New Dark Knight trailer
Post by: Betagold on 16 Jul 2008, 13:28
The thing is, I could see a Batman with Bane in it ending in either:

A) Batman completely destroys Bane's mind to defeat him, essentially hitting him with every trick he has.

B) A giant mech suit.

I would be super psyched to see either of these movies.  You know what would be an excellent plot, once they've got all the villians tied together?  No Man's Land.
Title: Re: New Dark Knight trailer
Post by: johnny5 on 17 Jul 2008, 07:53
DARK KNIGHT TONIGHT! DARK KNIGHT TONIGHT! DARK KNIGHT TONIGHT! DARK KNIGHT TONIGHT!
Title: Re: New Dark Knight trailer
Post by: minorbird on 17 Jul 2008, 17:44
Pfft. Already seen it.
Title: Re: New Dark Knight trailer
Post by: imagist42 on 17 Jul 2008, 18:49
no one cares about australia

also I still think it's crazy to go to a big movie like this on opening weekend, much less midnight on opening day
Title: Re: New Dark Knight trailer
Post by: Boro_Bandito on 18 Jul 2008, 00:34
Went to see it tonight. 4 theaters all sold out. Got best seat in house. Holy shit. HOLY. SHIT.

I honestly can not see how any critic could ever give this movie a bad review. Like usual, I find myself unable to describe with any eloquence how awesome this movie was, and I can't even try, its 3:34 am right goddamn now and I'm tired having been up all effin day.
Title: Re: New Dark Knight trailer
Post by: talon on 18 Jul 2008, 01:01
Holy shit. HOLY. SHIT.


i agree... i can't even describe it without totally geeking out. amazing. i'll talk more later but i just had to say amazing... and watchmen looks way cool too
Title: Re: New Dark Knight trailer
Post by: Melodic on 18 Jul 2008, 03:05
Watchmen was not The Dark Knight, and thus it sucks.

It was fucking epic. Just absolutely fucking epic.
Title: Re: New Dark Knight trailer
Post by: morca007 on 18 Jul 2008, 03:50
The Dark Knight was amazing.
That is all.
Title: Re: New Dark Knight trailer
Post by: Dimmukane on 18 Jul 2008, 06:02
Going to see it this weekend, I'm just going to say that the critic in the Baltimore Sun gave it a C for being too serious.  There was a little more to it than that, but that was what it boiled down to. 


Also, perhaps now would be a good time to make a seperate thread for the movie?  For spoilers and all...
Title: Re: New Dark Knight trailer
Post by: Dissy on 18 Jul 2008, 08:10
MSN gave the movie 4 1/2 out of 5.  I need to see this.  Soon.
Title: Re: New Dark Knight trailer
Post by: Emaline on 18 Jul 2008, 09:44
Oh my god it was so fucking good! It was just amazing. I absolutely loved it.


And The Watchman trailer was all kinds of good. None of my friends knew what it was though, and that was a little sad.
Title: Re: New Dark Knight trailer
Post by: Plasticity on 18 Jul 2008, 11:58
From this point in the thread, assume there will be spoilers. From this point in the thread, assume there will be spoilers.

From this point in the thread, assume there will be spoilers. From this point in the thread, assume there will be spoilers.

From this point in the thread, assume there will be spoilers. From this point in the thread, assume there will be spoilers.


Yo how fucked up was it when they killed Gordon.
Title: Re: New Dark Knight trailer
Post by: Dimmukane on 18 Jul 2008, 12:09
Gah' FUCKIN DICK!!!!!!!!!!!!!


At least write it really tiny or something!!!!!!  GODDAMMIT!
Title: Re: New Dark Knight trailer
Post by: KvP on 18 Jul 2008, 17:03
Actually that post is a lie. If we're going to post actual spoilers we might as well shrink em down so only those who want to can read them.

Ledger was very good, good performances all around, except for Bale as Batman, but whatever. I was thrown a little bit by the gaps in some of the scenes. For example when the Joker crashes the Harvey Dent fundraiser at the Wayne tower, in one scene Wayne has incapacitated Dent and locked him in a closet, then he gets in his getup and saves Rachel Dawes from the Joker. The next scene Dent is in the police station and the Joker has apparently gotten away. What the fuck? Wouldn't the cops have surrounded the building? How did the Joker escape? And for that matter why didn't he or his men do any searching for Dent? How did Dent get out of the closet? Why isn't he curious as to the reason Wayne knocked him out and hid him? There are a couple of scenes like that, which just drop off, and I didn't fully buy the emergence of Two-Face, but overall it was pretty good. My favorite scenes had neither Bale nor Ledger. The first was the cameo by the Scarecrow, who I prefer to the Joker anyhow (what was up with all the early previews that mentioned interaction between the Joker and Scarecrow, possibly having to do with the crazy gas? Was that scrapped or never in the movie to begin with?) and the second was when the convict throws the detonator out the window.
Title: Re: New Dark Knight trailer
Post by: The Albatross on 18 Jul 2008, 17:29
I think The Joker was robbed of some screen time. It didn't feel like he got a lot of time to develop. Although, the pencil trick was pretty fuckin' nifty if you ask me. 

The way Harvey segued into being Two-Face was probably one of the better parts of the movie for me.

And for the love of God, can Bale cut out that fuckin' voice?

And they could have talked more about Batman's struggle with the whole situation at the end. Somehow it felt like he wasn't the main character...

More Ledger, some more Bale (at least with his struggle and whatnot) and I would have easily given this movie a ten.
Title: Re: New Dark Knight trailer
Post by: Trollstormur on 18 Jul 2008, 18:09
And for the love of God, can Bale cut out that fuckin' voice?

2nd'd.
Title: Re: New Dark Knight trailer
Post by: carrotosaurus on 18 Jul 2008, 19:14
Oh my god you guys, how can a Batman movie be so good? This is everything I've been waiting for.
Title: Re: New Dark Knight trailer
Post by: Blue Kitty on 18 Jul 2008, 20:54
Mother fucking god, that was amazing.  This movie right here, this is the golden standard.  This is the movie by which comic book movies will be set against.  Hell, the standard by which most movies should be set against.

Two questions though:
1)How are they going to top this?
2)Who is going to be the villain in the next one?
Title: The Dark Knight
Post by: britMonster on 18 Jul 2008, 21:11
I do believe this is the best movie I have ever seen.
Title: Re: The Dark Knight
Post by: Blue Kitty on 18 Jul 2008, 21:14
I don't think we should make another one as we are using the old one (http://forums.questionablecontent.net/index.php/topic,19985.0.html)
Title: Re: The Dark Knight
Post by: britMonster on 18 Jul 2008, 21:27
I was under the impression that that was a thread for the trailer.
Title: Re: The Dark Knight
Post by: Blue Kitty on 18 Jul 2008, 21:38
There are some people, such as myself, that are using it to talk about the movie.  Then again, it is not up to me.  We shall see tomorrow if this thread stands or falls.


Personally, I would love to see some obscure character like they did in the first one with Ra's Al Ghul (I mean in comparison to characters like Joker, Penguin, or Scarecrow).  I am thinking Black Mask or Hush, leaning towards Black Mask because I really don't like Hush all that much.  Wait, Prometheus or Wrath would also be good.
Title: Re: New Dark Knight trailer
Post by: Scandanavian War Machine on 18 Jul 2008, 22:03
i still can't believe Heath Ledger's dead.  :-(

well...at least his last movie was such a great one...
Title: Re: The Dark Knight
Post by: KvP on 18 Jul 2008, 22:31
I think the obvious answer is Sub-Zero and Scorpion.
Title: Re: The Dark Knight
Post by: Johnny C on 19 Jul 2008, 00:35
i still can't believe Heath Ledger's dead.  :-(

well...at least his last movie was such a great one...

Not quite his last (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Imaginarium_of_Doctor_Parnassus).

This was a pretty awesome film. It ranks pretty highly in terms of character and plot, though thematically it's a bit heavy-handed.
Title: Re: The Dark Knight (SPOILERS START ON PAGE 3)
Post by: Jimmy the Squid on 19 Jul 2008, 07:17
I just got back from seeing this. Holy hell I have a new favourite movie. Absolutely perfect. My only complaint is that the couple sitting next to me wouldn't shut the fuck up. Don't worry, I'm going to see it again.

Such a great film. Heath Ledger was incredible. Bale was great too. I don't mind the voice at all, really. Nevertheless, Ledger totally stole the show. I would have liked to have seen more Two-Face though. He's such a great character and it's a shame they killed him off.
Title: Re: New Dark Knight trailer
Post by: imapiratearg on 19 Jul 2008, 08:21
Two questions though:
1)How are they going to top this?
2)Who is going to be the villain in the next one?

*Caution Spoilers.*
1) Excellent.  Brilliant.
2) I initially thought it was going to be Two-Face, but the end of the movie changed my mind.  I don't see them doing the Riddler again, since Jim Carey was the Riddler in Batman Forever, which was an okay movie.  I think there was some sort of Batman & Robin movie where they fought Poison Ivy and someone else, but that movie wasn't all that great if I remember correctly.  I really don't think a sequel is necessary, but that may just be me.
Title: Re: The Dark Knight (SPOILERS START ON PAGE 3)
Post by: carrotosaurus on 19 Jul 2008, 08:56
Hey as long as it's not the Calendar Man, I think we're ok. Just please don't let it be Catwoman...
I think Deadshot or Firefily would be pretty cool.
Title: Re: The Dark Knight (SPOILERS START ON PAGE 3)
Post by: KvP on 19 Jul 2008, 11:24
I liked the movie, but the more I think about it the more plot holes / contrivances jump out at me (why did Gordon fake his own death again?), and the more I dislike the direction they took with Two-Face. In the movie's he's just a rampaging, revenge-obsessed psychopath, which I guess is serviceable, but I remember in the Animated Series in particular (never was one for comics, unfortunately)  Two-Face was actually somewhat conflicted, an actual headcase rather than a disfigured killer, and rather than the two-headed coin being a gimmick that he's more than willing to work around (as shown by the limousine scene where the coin spares the mob boss once but Two-Face kills him anyway through the driver) it's a real weakness of his. I remember an episode of B:TAS where Batman throws the coin in a pile of quarters, and Two-Face is completely incapacitated as he frantically and single-mindedly tries to find the coin, leaving him to be picked up by the cops. Eckhart's Two-Face is unfortunately not nearly as interesting. The only thing the movie can claim a definitive status on is the Joker as far as I'm concerned. I'm of the opinion that Two-Face should've gotten the third movie.
Title: Re: The Dark Knight (SPOILERS START ON PAGE 3)
Post by: Johnny C on 19 Jul 2008, 11:48
Eckhart's Two-Face isn't as interesting as a guy with OCD...? Nolan provides us with a nuanced Dent and a legitimate dark side to that character. See his scene near the end with Ramirez - he's bound to the choice his coin makes. Sometimes he just has more than one choice.

Gordon faking his own death made sense insofar as his role in the MCU made him a very viable target for the Joker. What I didn't like as much about it was that I have no idea how he wound up driving Dent's van.
Title: Re: The Dark Knight (SPOILERS START ON PAGE 3)
Post by: britMonster on 19 Jul 2008, 11:51
SPOILERS IN THIS POST

Gordon faked his own death so that the Joker wouldn't go after his family like Dent did in the end. I honestly thought the movie was over after the oil can scene. I was like 'Oh they'll continue this in the 3rd movie' I was very surprised when they continued for another hour or so. I was very pleased with the cameo by the Scarecrow.

One thing that bugged me was that they kept calling Batman "the Batman" it just bothered me.

I really want them to do the Riddler, he's one of my favourite Batman Villians.
Title: Re: The Dark Knight (SPOILERS START ON PAGE 3)
Post by: KvP on 19 Jul 2008, 12:27
I really liked Eckhart in this one, I just feel that his arc was too squashed (perhaps truncated, there's gotta be a 3 or 4 hour cut of this movie out there somewheres) he certainly shows a dark side, but I didn't buy his two stages of grief (crying in bed and then homicidal rage dictated by coin-tosses). and he was obviously discarded far too quickly.
Title: Re: The Dark Knight (SPOILERS START ON PAGE 3)
Post by: Lines on 19 Jul 2008, 19:05
I've skipped over all the spoilers and am going back to the discussion for Bane and I have to say it - every actor suggestion just doesn't seem right for that character. Like Jon said earlier, these movies are more rooted in reality and like he also said, I don't think the dude needs to be super huge in order to be considered strong. If the actor they choose (if they choose Bane) is built well enough and can fit the character, I don't think size will matter. Someone like Mickey Rourke would be cool, but I think Rourke himself is too old.

Also, I hated the look of Bane in B&R, so I'm hoping for a whole new look. Nolan did it very well with Scarecrow so I think he could with others.
Title: Re: The Dark Knight (SPOILERS START ON PAGE 3)
Post by: Vendetagainst on 19 Jul 2008, 19:24
I am sorry if this appears out-of-context to the current conversation (I am not reading page 3 because I haven't seen the movie) but the next movie will almost certainly not have the penguin because the directors want villains that have not been frequently used before.
Title: Re: The Dark Knight (SPOILERS START ON PAGE 3)
Post by: Lines on 19 Jul 2008, 19:39
That makes no sense considering the recent movie has the Joker and Two Face, both of which are pretty major.
Title: Re: The Dark Knight (SPOILERS START ON PAGE 3)
Post by: Vendetagainst on 19 Jul 2008, 21:06
I thought the same thing.

"Prior to the release of The Dark Knight in 2008, David Goyer ruled out using the Penguin or Catwoman as a villain in a future film, preferring to use antagonists from the comic that had not yet been portrayed on the big screen."
Title: Re: The Dark Knight (SPOILERS START ON PAGE 3)
Post by: Tom on 19 Jul 2008, 22:43
They could always do something with the basic idea of Baron Bedlam.
Title: Re: The Dark Knight (SPOILERS START ON PAGE 3)
Post by: est on 20 Jul 2008, 22:22
Went to see this on Saturday night.

omfg, so good.  It's probably my favourite superhero movie now by a long way.  The pencil trick was a pretty cool thing.
Title: Re: The Dark Knight (SPOILERS START ON PAGE 3)
Post by: hack on 21 Jul 2008, 00:32
i loved this movie. easily the second best film i've seen this summer (right behind wall-e).

and they blew-up Rachel Dawes which is good as her character really didn't add anything to the films.
Title: Re: The Dark Knight (SPOILERS START ON PAGE 3)
Post by: De_El on 21 Jul 2008, 01:08
Definitely the most intense moment with the Joker's ability to instill sheer terror was when he's talking to the Batman impersonator on the video he sent to the news and the guy keeps looking down, and the Joker growls "LOOK. AT. ME." So fucking cool.
Title: Re: The Dark Knight (SPOILERS START ON PAGE 3)
Post by: Dimmukane on 21 Jul 2008, 08:25
Saw this last night with six friends, all slightly stoned.  Managed to sneak a few beers in.  HOT DAMN.  If I had been holding my bladder for 2 hours before the movie, I would've held it through the entire movie.  I did not want to leave the chair.  At one point, I forgot I had to pee.


As for who I think is going to be the next villain, possibly the Riddler.  Mister Reese seems to be important.
Title: Re: The Dark Knight (SPOILERS START ON PAGE 3)
Post by: no one special on 22 Jul 2008, 02:42
I really liked Eckhart in this one, I just feel that his arc was too squashed (perhaps truncated, there's gotta be a 3 or 4 hour cut of this movie out there somewheres) he certainly shows a dark side, but I didn't buy his two stages of grief (crying in bed and then homicidal rage dictated by coin-tosses). and he was obviously discarded far too quickly.

You said it exactly.  Two-Face is quite the interesting character, and it was sad to see him reduced to a throw-away character.  And I certainly would have wanted to see more of his history, showing how dark of a side he really has.  But hey, maybe he's not really... you know... and perhaps he'll be asked to join the next installment.
Title: Re: The Dark Knight (SPOILERS START ON PAGE 3)
Post by: Ozymandias on 22 Jul 2008, 03:41
I thought Dent's story was perfect. The only way they could go after it is Batman's quest to redeem him, but I like the way they did it too.
Title: Re: The Dark Knight (SPOILERS START ON PAGE 3)
Post by: carrotosaurus on 22 Jul 2008, 07:28
I just saw it again last night, and it really doesn't lose it's steam on a second viewing.
Title: Re: The Dark Knight (SPOILERS START ON PAGE 3)
Post by: Faker on 23 Jul 2008, 15:36
Been avoiding this thread whilst waiting for the flick to come out in Europe, but have now seen it and can I just say... WOW!

Not a weak spot in the entire cast, and just, WOW.

And if they decide to continue with the Joker in future sequels, it's a brave man that takes it on, Ledger has thrown down one hell of a marker. Fuck Jack Nicholson!

As for future villains, I think The Riddler could be revisited, compare Aaron Eckhart's Two-face with Tommy Lee Jones', now imagine someone like Casry Affleck as a very different kind of rRddler to Jim Carrey's!
Title: Re: The Dark Knight (SPOILERS START ON PAGE 3)
Post by: Scandanavian War Machine on 23 Jul 2008, 17:19
it's not hard to imagine Nolan deciding to not bring the Joker back on the premise of him being locked away, maximum security style, and instead opting to bring in a psychotic Harley Quinn as a "copy-cat" of sorts.

Batman needs a sexy villain to fight.

...or maybe he doesn't, i don't know; everytime i think i know what i want to see in the next one, i change my mind.
Title: Re: The Dark Knight (SPOILERS START ON PAGE 3)
Post by: KvP on 23 Jul 2008, 18:31
The third movie's been set up pretty well already, I'd say. I wouldn't be surprised if Batman's main adversary is the police / gov't. Perhaps some officially sanctioned villain or even a sort of "antiDent" public official. But obviously the studio's going to be pushing for a comic villain, otherwise there's not much point in Bruce Wayne dressing up like a bat. Maybe the cops will just be a thorn in the side of Batman, or a tool used by the comic villain.

There's also the issue of how many Batman movies there are going to be. Killing off Batman when he's got the highest weekend gross in all the land is certainly out of the picture. Bale reportedly didn't ask for too many millions at the beginning of the franchise (he even took a Terminator paycheck), that's bound to change now. We'll see.
Title: Re: The Dark Knight (SPOILERS START ON PAGE 3)
Post by: Ishotdanieljohnston on 23 Jul 2008, 18:33
Seen it twice now... loved it both times.
Title: Re: The Dark Knight (SPOILERS START ON PAGE 3)
Post by: Storm Rider on 23 Jul 2008, 23:34
I read somewhere that Bale is under contract for at least two more sequels.

The thing that sucks is that the ending technically leaves the Joker alive but not Two-Face, but I don't see how anyone could really follow up Ledger's performance so it seems almost like that door has been closed when it could have been explored further.
Title: Re: The Dark Knight (SPOILERS START ON PAGE 3)
Post by: Jimmy the Squid on 24 Jul 2008, 02:34
The only thing I can think of, which is no longer possible would have been to kill the Joker and keep Two Face alive. Two Face is such a huge character in Batman that they should have kept him alive for subsequent films to explore the guilt that Batman is meant to feel for what happened to him.

Also I really didn't like Maggie Gyllenhal as Rachel Dawes. I kept expecting her to snap her fingers at someone, she was being so sassy!
Title: Re: New Dark Knight trailer
Post by: LittleKey on 24 Jul 2008, 03:15
Batman sucks.  What superhero doesn't have superpowers?

Superman Returns II.  That is the movie Snarf wants to see.
What superhero doesn't have superpowers?

The goddamn batman.  He doesn't need superpowers.
Also the Watchmen.
And Iron Man.
And the punisher.  And Dr. Mcninja.

Dr. Mcninja QFT. Also, if Ledger doesn't win an award or five for his performance, i will kill someone.
Title: Re: The Dark Knight (SPOILERS START ON PAGE 3)
Post by: PassiveTheory on 24 Jul 2008, 03:17
It's a sad day when the fucking Ventriloquist is a poll option and Black Mask and Hush are left off... What the fuck, people?
Title: Re: The Dark Knight (SPOILERS START ON PAGE 3)
Post by: Muppet King on 24 Jul 2008, 06:00
The only thing I can think of, which is no longer possible would have been to kill the Joker and keep Two Face alive. Two Face is such a huge character in Batman that they should have kept him alive for subsequent films to explore the guilt that Batman is meant to feel for what happened to him.

Also I really didn't like Maggie Gyllenhal as Rachel Dawes. I kept expecting her to snap her fingers at someone, she was being so sassy!

Two Face is entirely possible.  All they need to do is claim that in order to protect his image and all that he worked for they faked his death so he could remain the hero; meanwhile, they would quietly move him to Arkham.  If they did that they could set it up so Two Face elevates someone like Black Mask as a credible main villain.
Title: Re: The Dark Knight (SPOILERS START ON PAGE 3)
Post by: 0bsessions on 24 Jul 2008, 07:13
It's a sad day when the fucking Ventriloquist is a poll option and Black Mask and Hush are left off... What the fuck, people?

That's because Ventriloquist has boundless potential and both the Black Mask and Hush are one dimensional garbage.

Black Mask has always been the poor man's Joker. He cracks wise and is a twisted prick. He's simply boring.

And Hush was one of the worst things I have ever read. Jeph Loeb has really never done a good comic that didn't involve Tim Sale. The quicker he's forgotten entirely, the happier I'll be.

Really, there hasn't been a good new Batman villain since Bane.
Title: Re: The Dark Knight (SPOILERS START ON PAGE 3)
Post by: johnny5 on 24 Jul 2008, 07:21
I like that they left him alive, that's how it is in the comics. Batman won't kill or let anyone be killed (exception: cops when they are in his way. THEN THEY GO EXPLODEY). He'll probably be holed up in Arkham on insanity charges.
Title: Re: The Dark Knight (SPOILERS START ON PAGE 3)
Post by: PassiveTheory on 24 Jul 2008, 09:23
Black Mask was two-dimensional, at least in his original incarnation; I always liked how he turned to crime because he no longer wanted to wear the "mask" he had worn in public for so long. That and he also "killed" a Robin.

Personally I think having a one-two punch of Catwoman/Black Mask in the next movie is the best way to go. Catwoman because this last movie Bruce toys a lot with the idea that he can possibly give up his mantle and return to a normal life and that's clearly not the case. Enter Catwoman, someone who offers Bruce a reason to abandon his civilian identity and you can play that off for most of the movie. Then you've got Black Mask, and if Roman can be played right, you can fit in a character with the kind of disdain for two-faced individuals that it forces Batman to re-examine his own duality. Plus Black Mask can actually go toe to toe with the Dark Knight.

Better than the fucking Riddler again...
Title: Re: The Dark Knight (SPOILERS START ON PAGE 3)
Post by: Dissy on 24 Jul 2008, 11:02
It's a sad day when the fucking Ventriloquist is a poll option and Black Mask and Hush are left off... What the fuck, people?

That's because Ventriloquist has boundless potential and both the Black Mask and Hush are one dimensional garbage.

Black Mask has always been the poor man's Joker. He cracks wise and is a twisted prick. He's simply boring.

And Hush was one of the worst things I have ever read. Jeph Loeb has really never done a good comic that didn't involve Tim Sale. The quicker he's forgotten entirely, the happier I'll be.

Really, there hasn't been a good new Batman villain since Bane.

Are you kidding me?  Hush would be an excellent option for when Batman is the "good guy" again (In Nolan's universe).  A childhood friend who figures out who Batman is, and has the money and the talent to rival Bruce's detective skills, and martial arts skills.
Title: Re: The Dark Knight (SPOILERS START ON PAGE 3)
Post by: 0bsessions on 24 Jul 2008, 11:45
The problem there is that that doesn't describe Hush at all.

Riddler was always the brains behind the Hush storyline, Elliot just provided the cashflow. That's pretty boring when you get down to it. Riddler figured out Wayne was Batman and approached Elliot. Elliot never showed any kind of skill or talent, he was just a whiny brat who somehow managed to plot the murder of his parents at the age of ten and not get caught, despite there being two witnesses. It was the most idiotic deus ex I have ever read in a comic book, and that's saying something considering the ridiculous crap that happens in comics.

You can't even team him with the Riddler, as it really completely takes away the idea behind the Riddler's involvement. Riddler got involved in the first place because he was sick of being a gimmick. You can't jump from his first appearance to him becoming old hat in the span of a single movie.

Honestly, the only resonance the Hush story really had was the hints that Jason Todd was alive. Seeing that there is no Robin in the Nolanverse, Jason Todd becomes a moot point.

The resources and talent to rival Batman, though? Sounds a lot more like Bane to me. The entire story of Hush simply does not work in the Nolanverse for the simple fact that it didn't work in the comics either. It was always just a cheap excuse for Jim Lee to draw the entirety of Batman's Rogues Gallery.

Black Mask, while not as bad an idea, is still pretty terrible. Black Mask has always been a rather generic mix of the Joker and a mafioso. Too much been there done that. In order to get into any of the meat of the character, you've got to spend a bunch of time on exposition, which would entirely disrupt things. You can't just pepper it through the story in any non-linear manner.

The beauty of the Joker was that he has never had much of any motivation outside of being an engine of chaos. Bane has similarly shallow motivation that can get a ton of mileage.

Edit: The more I think about it, the more I remember how much I hated Hush. It was probably the single worst Batman storyline I have ever read. The dialog was coarse and cheesy, the plot was a fucking mess and it was all just one big fucking plothole. It read like bad fanfic and I'm surprised it didn't just end with Robin and Nightwing fucking because it was one step removed from fucking Harry Potter slash fic.

Aside from the aforementioned ridiculousness of a fucking ten year old managing to pull off a diabolical plot to kill his dad and not get caught, there's the following:

The Riddler manages to get to a Lazarus Pit. How in the fuck does this inept twit manage that exactly? Ra's has them protected by the fucking League of Shadows. How exactly did a guy who compulsively leaves clues because he really wants to be caught, much less one with a brain tumor, do that? Did they just assign all the new guys to this pit or something?

How in the hell does everyone suddenly know who Jason Todd is? Yeah, everyone knows that Joker killed A Robin, but if it were actually widely known that it was Bruce Wayne's dead/missing ward, wouldn't that kind of make it obvious? This is a plot hole that has continued to run to this day.

The entire Harvey Dent subplot. WHAT?! Seriously, what the fuck? Jeph Loeb managed to write the absolute definitive Harvey Dent/Two Face story in the Long Halloween, yet he can't get this shit straight? How is it that a brain surgeon is somehow capable of fixing a guy that no cosmetic surgeon has ever seemed to be able to figure out? At least James Robinson tied this one up a little bit when he retconned it by having Two Face reemerge and re-scar himself.

Kryptonite lipstick? Seriously? Fuck you, Loeb.

KRYPTO THE GOD DAMN WONDERDOG?! ARGH!

If any semblance of that twelve issue pile of utter shit EVER makes it onto the big screen, I will burn down Time Warner myself.
Title: Re: The Dark Knight (SPOILERS START ON PAGE 3)
Post by: Faker on 24 Jul 2008, 13:45
One of the rumors I've been seeing alot on-line is the suggestion that the villain for a possible third film is in The Dark Knight already.

The accountant threatening to reveal Batman's true identity.. Mr. Reese... mystery... The Riddler.

Sounds like bollocks to me, but thought I'd throw it out there,
Title: Re: The Dark Knight (SPOILERS START ON PAGE 3)
Post by: imapiratearg on 24 Jul 2008, 14:04
The Riddler's name was Edward Nigma, wasn't it?
Title: Re: The Dark Knight (SPOILERS START ON PAGE 3)
Post by: Faker on 24 Jul 2008, 14:08
Yes it was, and that's part of the reason I doubt this rumor, but at the same time I think that Nolan has shown a willingness to deviate from the source material, and may consider E. Nygma a pun too far
Title: Re: The Dark Knight (SPOILERS START ON PAGE 3)
Post by: Dissy on 24 Jul 2008, 14:10
well, Edward, aka the Riddler, went by many different names, all of them somehow related to riddles, crossword puzzles, etc.
Title: Re: The Dark Knight (SPOILERS START ON PAGE 3)
Post by: Meg on 24 Jul 2008, 15:16
Saw it today. I loved it so much I thought I was going to pee my pants.

The pencil trick was a pretty cool thing.

Oh my God, that was awesome.
Title: Re: The Dark Knight (SPOILERS START ON PAGE 3)
Post by: Melodic on 24 Jul 2008, 18:11
I think Reese was more an homage than a clue about the next villain. The actor that played Reese is too small-time to be the next main baddy.
Title: Re: The Dark Knight (SPOILERS START ON PAGE 3)
Post by: Lines on 25 Jul 2008, 18:27
One thing that bugged me was that they kept calling Batman "the Batman" it just bothered me.

Villains always call him "the Batman".

And I finally saw it today and it was all kinds of amazing. I kind of wish Two-Face would get more time after this movie, because I've always liked him as a villain, and it's also really sad that Ledger is gone, because his performance was outstanding. When he dressed up as a nurse and was disappointed when they hospital didn't completely blow up was hilarious. The pencil trick was as well. Also, I liked Gyllenhaal as Rachel a lot more than Holmes, but this is because I like Gyllenhaal and can't stand Holmes.
Title: Re: The Dark Knight (SPOILERS START ON PAGE 3)
Post by: Kaktion on 25 Jul 2008, 20:07
He's always been "the Batman" to authorities and stuff during his early years so it makes sense and I doubt Batman would send out a memo saying "Guys, it's just Batman, not the Batman. Cut it out" so it works.

The movie was amazing and thrilling and I loved it so much and after the initial feeling of oh god this movie was awesome went away I was left with a deep sadness that Heath Ledger wouldn't reprise his role because he was simply perfect. Two-Face was a surprise because I'd heard this was just a set-up for him to take on a starring role as villain in the next installment but you know, I really liked what they did with him in this movie. It works very well.

I want David Tennant as the Riddler. I don't know why but I do. The Riddler could work if you twist his motivations some.
Title: Re: The Dark Knight (SPOILERS START ON PAGE 3)
Post by: Johnny C on 25 Jul 2008, 20:23
That's because Ventriloquist has boundless potential and both the Black Mask and Hush are one dimensional garbage.

Really, there hasn't been a good new Batman villain since Bane.

You're smoking rock.

Besides that, if either of these are the villains in the next Batman film it might as well include a shot of him jumping the Batpod over the Great White Shark.
Title: Re: The Dark Knight (SPOILERS START ON PAGE 3)
Post by: Surgoshan on 26 Jul 2008, 08:56
I've not seen the gay cowboy movie, but I think this was Ledger's best work.  It really made the whole movie bittersweet.
Title: Re: The Dark Knight (SPOILERS START ON PAGE 3)
Post by: Lines on 26 Jul 2008, 09:05
Brokeback actually is a good movie. Just skip over the one sex bit if it makes you uncomfortable. (I skipped over it.)
Title: Re: The Dark Knight (SPOILERS START ON PAGE 3)
Post by: Betagold on 26 Jul 2008, 20:30
I said Catwoman.  Remember the bit when Batman asked about the armor being useful against dogs and Lucius said that it would protect against cats?  I'm pretty sure that that's foreshadowing.
Title: Re: The Dark Knight (SPOILERS START ON PAGE 3)
Post by: Surgoshan on 26 Jul 2008, 20:41
I said Harley Quinn.  I think they could add her in as the psychiatrist getting sucked in by the Joker's charisma and then starting a big crime spree or something in order to lead up to a distraction allowing her to break the Joker out of Arkham.  Couple that with Mr. Reese* as the Riddler who simply wants to challenge Batman, thinking that being careful and clever is better than being a thug who beats up bad-guys, and I think you've got a movie.

Although, with the study of opposites that DK was (Harvey Dent was the good opposite of Batman, the Joker was the bad opposite), Catwoman would be excellent in that she'd be a perfect mirror image of Rachel Dawes, because she'd hate Bruce Wayne and love the Batman.

* I did not see that, but I think it's genius.
Title: Re: The Dark Knight (SPOILERS START ON PAGE 3)
Post by: Tom on 26 Jul 2008, 21:42
Catwoman would be wildly promiscuous and a mildly sadistic sociopath. Promote Rachel-replacement as the feminine paragon of justice and virtue.
Title: Re: The Dark Knight (SPOILERS START ON PAGE 3)
Post by: Johnny C on 26 Jul 2008, 23:28
I'm pretty sure that that's foreshadowing.

It's another word that starts with "f" that should be familiar to people who are followers of franchises.
Title: Re: The Dark Knight (SPOILERS START ON PAGE 3)
Post by: RobbieOC on 26 Jul 2008, 23:32
I have heard rumors of David Tennant wanting to play the Riddler. Interesting, at least to think about. I personally would love to see Riddler, just because it would finally shine a light on him being a detective. Riddler could be done either as a schemer (which makes Joker's speech kind of tie in) or as a hired gun by the police to track down Batman. That could really be interesting.

I would think Catwoman is pretty obvious, just because of what happened with Rachel (they'll need a new female lead), though Halle Berry... grrrr....
Title: Re: The Dark Knight (SPOILERS START ON PAGE 3)
Post by: Sox on 27 Jul 2008, 06:58
Two Face is entirely possible.  All they need to do is claim that in order to protect his image and all that he worked for they faked his death so he could remain the hero; meanwhile, they would quietly move him to Arkham.  If they did that they could set it up so Two Face elevates someone like Black Mask as a credible main villain.

According to the novelisation and the screenplay, that is what happened.
Dent was only knocked unconscious after taking the fall with Batman.
Title: Re: The Dark Knight (SPOILERS START ON PAGE 3)
Post by: Lines on 27 Jul 2008, 13:23
If they need a female lead, it could be Catwoman, Harley Quinn, Poison Ivy, or even one of Ra's al Ghul's daughters. Or maybe another of Bruce's love interests. Who knows. I would love it to be Harley, but I don't want them to have to replace the Joker just so she can be the character, unless they can build a back story without having to show him. Also, too bad Barbara Gordon isn't older, because I'd like them to introduce her as Oracle (not so much as Batgirl), but I doubt that'd happen.

I kind of hope it's Two Face, though, along with someone else, like the Riddler. They could play that up.
Title: Re: The Dark Knight (SPOILERS START ON PAGE 3)
Post by: Johnny C on 27 Jul 2008, 13:36
According to the novelisation and the screenplay, that is what happened.
Dent was only knocked unconscious after taking the fall with Batman.

I FUCKING KNEW IT
Title: Re: The Dark Knight (SPOILERS START ON PAGE 3)
Post by: Ozymandias on 27 Jul 2008, 18:14
According to the novelisation and the screenplay, that is what happened.
Dent was only knocked unconscious after taking the fall with Batman.

[citation needed]
Title: Re: The Dark Knight (SPOILERS START ON PAGE 3)
Post by: Melodic on 27 Jul 2008, 18:46
Do you guys see what Ozy did there? He mimicked Wikipedia, a well-known internet encyclopedia that is totally user-sustained!
Title: Re: The Dark Knight (SPOILERS START ON PAGE 3)
Post by: Cartilage Head on 27 Jul 2008, 21:58
 I saw it today. It surprised me by being really great. I hadn't really thought about seeing it, because usually a movie as hyped as Dark Knight turns out not being nearly as good. In this case, is was great. All of the acting was top-notch (Ledger really blew me away, which I also wasn't expecting). The only complaint is one of my favorite actors, Cillian Murphy (Scarecrow) being in it for only like 3 minutes. I was mad!
Title: Re: The Dark Knight (SPOILERS START ON PAGE 3)
Post by: Surgoshan on 27 Jul 2008, 22:02
Maybe they just wanted him in there fore a few minutes so they could catch him and send him to Arkham... so that in the third movie he can truly launch Two Face on his career.
Title: Re: The Dark Knight (SPOILERS START ON PAGE 3)
Post by: JediBendu on 28 Jul 2008, 00:33
Also, too bad Barbara Gordon isn't older, because I'd like them to introduce her as Oracle (not so much as Batgirl), but I doubt that'd happen.

I kind of hope it's Two Face, though, along with someone else, like the Riddler. They could play that up.

What's with everyone wanting to jump ahead in continuity so much? Barbara Gordon should never be introduced as Oracle if she's never going to be introduced as Batgirl. Oracle is nobody when compared to her previous alter ego.

And they're definitely not going to do a Two-Face/Riddler movie. Because... well... doesn't it sound familiar?

I would be happy with seeing all manner of villains be used in the next movie. In particular I've kind of been thinking that continuing the organized crime focus (and magnifying it even more) for the next movie, you could definitely include either The Penguin or the Ventriloquist & Scarface as either competitors to the established Gotham mobs or kind of aggressively rising stars. I also have a particular fondness for the Mad Hatter and would have no qualms about his inclusion in a Batman film.

However, the thing I want most in a future Batman film (not necessarily the next one) is Robin done right. There are so many ways to make Robin work, and I wish filmmakers would recognize them, utilize them, and not bastardize the concept of Robin the way the past films have.
Title: Re: The Dark Knight (SPOILERS START ON PAGE 3)
Post by: Tom on 28 Jul 2008, 00:58
(http://www.frankdecaro.com/recipes/photos/batman-and-robin/Batman%20Kiss.jpg)
Title: Re: The Dark Knight (SPOILERS START ON PAGE 3)
Post by: minorbird on 28 Jul 2008, 01:11
Less clothes, and you're spot on.
Title: Re: The Dark Knight (SPOILERS START ON PAGE 3)
Post by: Tom on 28 Jul 2008, 01:14
This Robin does work.
Title: Re: The Dark Knight (SPOILERS START ON PAGE 3)
Post by: minorbird on 28 Jul 2008, 03:07
Whether he likes it or not.
Title: Re: The Dark Knight (SPOILERS START ON PAGE 3)
Post by: StaedlerMars on 28 Jul 2008, 05:29
According to the novelisation and the screenplay, that is what happened.
Dent was only knocked unconscious after taking the fall with Batman.

[citation needed]

No citation, but I got the impression that he could still be alive. I looked it up and IMDB (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0468569/faq#.2.1.64) says that the movie script imlies he snapped his neck.
Title: Re: The Dark Knight (SPOILERS START ON PAGE 3)
Post by: Storm Rider on 28 Jul 2008, 09:40
...Snapping your neck is usually fatal, dude.
Title: Re: The Dark Knight (SPOILERS START ON PAGE 3)
Post by: Surgoshan on 28 Jul 2008, 13:35
I had a gym teacher who had, at 18, broken his neck.  At 35, he was still an active and damn fit individual.  A broken neck isn't fatal with proper medical care.  Unless, you know, it is fatal.
Title: Re: The Dark Knight (SPOILERS START ON PAGE 3)
Post by: Lines on 28 Jul 2008, 14:44
It depends on if you damage your spinal cord. If you do, you're shit out of luck and either dead or paralyzed.
Title: Re: The Dark Knight (SPOILERS START ON PAGE 3)
Post by: KvP on 28 Jul 2008, 14:52
C'mon Burnt Face Man (http://www.burntfaceman.com/) movie!

Looks like Batman could concievably (maybe possibly) dethrone Titanic as the highest domestically grossing film of all time (the record's somewhere around $600 million)
Title: Re: The Dark Knight (SPOILERS START ON PAGE 3)
Post by: imapiratearg on 28 Jul 2008, 14:57
Oh my god, Burnt Face Man.
Title: Re: The Dark Knight (SPOILERS START ON PAGE 3)
Post by: TheFuriousWombat on 28 Jul 2008, 15:43
Two-Face is among my favorite Batman villains and is way too major a character to be killed off in some side plot. I hope the Penguin comes in at some point b/che's pretty cool as well.
Title: Re: The Dark Knight (SPOILERS START ON PAGE 3)
Post by: KvP on 28 Jul 2008, 16:23
Oh my god, Burnt Face Man.
They could get Willem Dafoe to play Bastard Man! It'll be so rad.
Title: Re: The Dark Knight (SPOILERS START ON PAGE 3)
Post by: Alex C on 28 Jul 2008, 19:12
Don't discount the possible asian connection guys; it's not like the whole League of Shadows/Assassins would have to topple over without al Ghul, plus Batman kinda just traipsed over into Hong Kong and raised all kinds of holy hell. All sorts of room for a modified Lady Shiva or the Sensei to come calling, even if they do want to avoid Batman stories involving the extended bat family of characters.
Title: Re: The Dark Knight (SPOILERS START ON PAGE 3)
Post by: Hat on 28 Jul 2008, 20:55
I read somewhere that Christopher Nolan likes to decide the theme of the movie and then come up with the Villan so it would probably be more productive in trying to figure out what a good idea for the theme of the third movie would be and then figure out the best villan to try and suit that.

Also the best two parts of this movie by far were the pencil thing and the scene with the Joker looking very annoyed at his detonator while trying to blow up the hospital.
Title: Re: The Dark Knight (SPOILERS START ON PAGE 3)
Post by: Surgoshan on 28 Jul 2008, 21:25
Well... Batman as a hunted fugitive...  For some obscure reason, I think that will be the next movie.
Title: Re: The Dark Knight (SPOILERS START ON PAGE 3)
Post by: Johnny C on 28 Jul 2008, 23:16
According to the novelisation and the screenplay, that is what happened.
Dent was only knocked unconscious after taking the fall with Batman.

Saw the novelisation today.

You're full of shit and lies. Shitty... shit-lies.
Title: Re: The Dark Knight (SPOILERS START ON PAGE 3)
Post by: the-artful-dodger-rodger on 29 Jul 2008, 05:52
I would like to see the Joker again, but that probaby wont happen.

so I would like to the Riddler, not the stupid Jim Carey shit one. the ridder should be stone cold serious and calculatedly. my ideal, the gotham city hires the ridder to figure out who batman is, and in the process he becomes obsessed with batman, because he sees batman as his intellectual rival and the greatest puzzel. also they should get  Paul Bettany to play the riddler

I can see this happen because of  the more realistic approach Nolan is taking.
Title: Re: The Dark Knight (SPOILERS START ON PAGE 3)
Post by: johnny5 on 29 Jul 2008, 07:40
They should probably use the Penny Plunderer as the next villain

"Joe Coyne, a thief obsessed with penny-oriented crimes, starts his career selling newspapers for pennies. He is later caught stealing pennies."

DROP THOSE PENNIES
Title: Re: The Dark Knight (SPOILERS START ON PAGE 3)
Post by: KvP on 29 Jul 2008, 07:56
Clearly the best villain to use would be Calendar Man (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calendar_Man).
Title: Re: The Dark Knight (SPOILERS START ON PAGE 3)
Post by: Cartilage Head on 29 Jul 2008, 08:35
 Some villains are really dumb.
Title: Re: The Dark Knight (SPOILERS START ON PAGE 3)
Post by: JediBendu on 29 Jul 2008, 10:16
And I don't think The Riddler should be hired by Gotham City if he's going to be the next villain, that just wouldn't fit. If there's going to be any villain that's officially hired to get rid of Batman I would actually much rather have it be Deadshot. That would definitely provide a different kind of villain then we've seen in the first two Nolan Batman films, giving Batman a more physically capable villain to fight than most of the calculating villains there've been so far.

I don't think Deadshot could carry the entire film on his own, but I think he could be one of the more likely villains officially hired to kill or apprehend Batman, since he has ties in many of his stories to crime-fighting and the government anyway. Maybe some of the more corrupt factions in Gotham's government could hire Deadshot to kill Batman, after being frustrated by Gordon not taking care of it. He wouldn't be the main villain in the end, more than likely, and he wouldn't get an origin story, much like The Joker. I can see a Batman film opening with Deadshot interrupting a Batman operation and leading into a very action-packed sequence. Meanwhile, Batman could fight a truly criminal villain like The Ventriloquist & Scarface or The Mad Hatter who are threatening the city, while Deadshot threatens him at every turn. Maybe in the end he's finally turned away from killing Batman (maybe Gordon is able to take care of the officials who hired him and stop payment?) and he could end up helping Bats in the end?

Okay, so maybe that last part is a little cliched, you could take that or leave it. But anyway, in conclusion you should add Deadshot to the poll, goddamnit. The more I think about it the more right it sounds to me.

Plus, he's just badass.
Title: Re: The Dark Knight (SPOILERS START ON PAGE 3)
Post by: blanktom on 29 Jul 2008, 14:20
How about giving Batman an ally?!

Votes on who? A re-introduction of Robin seems unlikely...but Nolan could pull it off so well I'm sure.
Title: Re: The Dark Knight (SPOILERS START ON PAGE 3)
Post by: Bayley on 29 Jul 2008, 14:43
I need a huge disclaimer before making this post:

I very much enjoyed Heath's performance. I thought it was one of the only truly original character creations I've seen in a while, and I can go on and on about his performance, the Joker, the philosophy behind it, etc. No one could ever truly recreate what he did.

That being said.


If they were going to try to replace Heath and find someone to fill the shoes on this Joker, does anyone else see Johnny Depp at least half-pulling it off? A regrettable but at least somewhat acceptable replacement, for continuity's sake?

Think about Fear and Loathing, the first Pirates movie. He is pretty damn good at those sort of characters. He is pretty great at becoming the character's he plays. This might be a little harder because he has to recreate someone else's portrayal rather than invent the character himself, but he might be able to do it, no? I mean their facial bone structure is very similar. Those pictures of Heath before his death, with the facial scruff, the long hair? He actually looks quite similar to Depp. And as the role requires a great deal of make-up....


Thoughts, anyone? Try to suspend hatred of Depp for more recent career lame-ity. You know he can act.
Title: Re: The Dark Knight (SPOILERS START ON PAGE 3)
Post by: Ozymandias on 29 Jul 2008, 15:22
Fuck
the idea that because
Johnny
Depp can pull off weird and off-kilter performances, that means he automatically should. If anything, Heath's performance shows that there's potential for that kind of thing any any decent actor and
Depp
shouldn't be the go-to guy for "we need dark and weird".
Title: Re: The Dark Knight (SPOILERS START ON PAGE 3)
Post by: Hat on 29 Jul 2008, 16:05
Straight up Ozy, you are my dogg.

Not that I have anything against Johnny Depp, or even think that he wouldn't pull it off, but he is right on the money.
Title: Re: The Dark Knight (SPOILERS START ON PAGE 3)
Post by: Scandanavian War Machine on 29 Jul 2008, 16:16
stuff about Deadshot

i wanted to see Deadshot too but then i watchd the animated Gotham Knight which is aparently a sort of bridge between the two Nolan movies and one of the shorts actually had Deadshot being a real badass and hunting Batman but, of course, Batman caught him. this obviously doesn't rule him out but Deadshot being hired to kill Batman has already been done in this...universe? assuming they are the same universe, of course.

so yeah, i'm not sure if Nolan is considering those animated shorts canon for his universe or not. probably not. but he if is then Deadshot is probably out, unless he A)breaks out of jail or B)gets released by the police to kill Batman.

Johnny Depp

i love Johnny Depp and i think he is a pretty great actor but i don't think he is even remotely right for this Joker. And as much as i hate to say it...i think Brad Pitt could probably fill Ledger's shoes (collosal as they may be) but i'd rather they just left the Joker alone because Ledger was pretty much it for me...it just wouldn't feel right with anybody else, no matter how well they performed it.
Title: Re: The Dark Knight (SPOILERS START ON PAGE 3)
Post by: KvP on 29 Jul 2008, 16:23
How about giving Batman an ally?!

Votes on who? A re-introduction of Robin seems unlikely...but Nolan could pull it off so well I'm sure.
I believe Nolan's said that he will have no part of a Robin re-introduction. Wouldn't fit anyway. Batman's very much a solitary figure in this series. It's actually difficult to imagine that Superman exists in this universe.

And as far as I'm concerned the Joker is finished in this particular series.
Title: Re: The Dark Knight (SPOILERS START ON PAGE 3)
Post by: Lines on 29 Jul 2008, 17:27
No Robin. Batman has allies, even if they don't go out and help him fight. Though a lot of interesting story lines come out of having Robin, I don't really want a movie with Robin yet. I think there are so many other options out there that should be pursued instead.

Also, the only time I'd ever want to see Superman in a Batman movie is so Superman almost dies, like when he's almost killed by the nuke. But as that's a recent story line when it comes to Batman, I don't ever see that happening. Though I'd love to see Superman get his ass handed to him, it's probably best he doesn't come around, as it wouldn't fit with the movies trying to be anchored in reality.
Title: Re: The Dark Knight (SPOILERS START ON PAGE 3)
Post by: JediBendu on 29 Jul 2008, 22:19
Though I'd love to see Superman get his ass handed to him, it's probably best he doesn't come around, as it wouldn't fit with the movies trying to be anchored in reality.

Actually I personally would really love it if Warner Bros. started to kind of connect, at least imply that the DC movies take place in the same universe. Marvel seems to be doing pretty well with their films so far, people are already excited about Avengers and it's supporting films. Even though Warner Bros. hasn't really mined the DC universe to its full extent (it'll be a fucking tragedy if The Flash and Green Lantern films get made and suck, especially The Flash.)

Oh ya, and anybody who doesn't think Robin is a serious enough character, or doesn't fit with Batman. Well... you need to read more Batman, I guess. The whole appeal of Robin is the juxtaposition with Batman, and the balance he provides in Bruce/Batman's life. Both as a crime-fighting partner and a surrogate son. Even Nolan's Batman will feel the need for family eventually (and what other family member/ally should be introduced next if not the original?). For anyone who thinks Robin isn't serious enough: Dick Grayson is pretty much a direct parallel to Batman himself. Jason Todd was the centerpoint of one of the most emotionally scarring and important events in Bruce's life. And even the Batman comic that started the revolution of "darker comics" featured a Robin, this one a barely teenaged, red-headed female (see: The Dark Knight Returns.)

There is absolutely nothing wrong, at all, with Dick Grayson's Robin in particular. He is as much a part of Batman as someone like The Joker is. If Nolan doesn't want to do Robin, then, whatever, I don't agree with that decision, but it's not that big a deal. But if he truly can't successfully integrate the character, then, he's not even really doing Batman right, because dozens of comic book writers have pulled off that feat.
Title: Re: The Dark Knight (SPOILERS START ON PAGE 3)
Post by: Ozymandias on 29 Jul 2008, 22:38
Yeah, Marvel is doing a good job of tying their franchises together for this Avengers movie.

I wouldn't be surprised if SHIELD (or just General Ross) is mentioned in some small way as part of the Weapon X project in the Wolverine movie, just to connect the X-Men franchise into it in some small way.

A Justice League movie would be nifty if DC could ever get their act together and make some decent movies not starring Batman.
Title: Re: The Dark Knight (SPOILERS START ON PAGE 3)
Post by: RobbieOC on 29 Jul 2008, 22:48
Superman wasn't a travesty or anything. It just wasn't particularly fun...

I have heard rumors (from imdb) that if they were to make a Justice League, it would be using different actors for Batman and Superman... which seems kind of weird, and definitely risky, but also kind of cool. The only two actors I recognized were Common (for Green Lantern, obviously the John Stewart version) and Adam Brody for Flash. Both interesting choices, I'd say.
Title: Re: The Dark Knight (SPOILERS START ON PAGE 3)
Post by: Surgoshan on 29 Jul 2008, 23:42
Though I'd love to see Superman get his ass handed to him, it's probably best he doesn't come around, as it wouldn't fit with the movies trying to be anchored in reality.

Actually I personally would really love it if Warner Bros. started to kind of connect, at least imply that the DC movies take place in the same universe. Marvel seems to be doing pretty well with their films so far, people are already excited about Avengers and it's supporting films. Even though Warner Bros. hasn't really mined the DC universe to its full extent (it'll be a fucking tragedy if The Flash and Green Lantern films get made and suck, especially The Flash.)
Meh.  When you start mixing franchises, you have to start retconning why the universes were in fact the same and why there wasn't any indication of that in the past.  Why hasn't Spider-Man* been fighting mutant baddies this whole time?  Have the thousands of mutants just been avoiding NYC for some reason?

Think about what it would mean in Nolan's Gotham.  Setting aside the fact that he'd utterly, utterly hate allowing Superman in his ultra-realistic universe, how would you explain the fact that Superman Returns established that Superman has in fact been flying all over the world, fighting crime, saving people from disasters, and posing for the camera, but hasn't shown up in horrifically crime-ridden Gotham?  I mean, he can, canonically, hear everything, and ridding Gotham of the Joker would have been right up his alley.

Seriously, mixing universes like that just sucks.  It works for the Avengers because a) Iron Man and the Hulk are so isolated and solitary in who and what they are that there's no wider universe implied beyond them (unlike the X-men).  They could bring Spidey in on it, too, for a similar reason.  b)  They've been planning it from the beginning, at least for the IM and IH movies (whereas Nolan has been planning on building an isolated world for the Batman). 

Mixing stories and characters only works well with careful planning, or with undeveloped worlds that can bear some glossing of details and mild bridging of plot-holes.  Colliding wildly differing worlds (Batman v. Superman, Spider-Man v. X-Men) just does not work.  Period.

And another thing, can you picture Superman's primary colors in Batman's brown-grey darkness?  No.

* Comma The Amazing.
Title: Re: The Dark Knight (SPOILERS START ON PAGE 3)
Post by: JediBendu on 30 Jul 2008, 00:00
Colliding worlds like Superman and Batman doesn't work?

I guess all the various comic books I have sitting around my room, and the more that I go buy every week, where the world of Batman and Superman not only collide but are the SAME, aren't just 50+ years of cross-franchise legacy, but just some shit that "doesn't work."

Let's couple that with the fact that the DC Animated Universe is the definitive adaptation of all DC work and crosses the worlds of Batman and Superman.

Don't say things that just simply aren't true. You can say it might not work with Nolan's films. But to say mixing Superman and Batman doesn't work is just ignorant. There's a fucking monthly comic book series all about Superman and Batman together. There are regular events where all the heroes get together and face Crises. There's a fucking Justice League, for god's sake.

That was a dumb thing for you to say. Period.

Sorry.
Title: Re: The Dark Knight (SPOILERS START ON PAGE 3)
Post by: Surgoshan on 30 Jul 2008, 00:13
The 1978 Superman movie made it canon that Superman can fly faster than the speed of light (and I've not seen this refuted).  The most recent movie made it clear that his hearing is exceptional to such a degree that, at the minimum, he can hear all of a city's conversations at a distance of several miles.  Thus he can cover the entire surface of the earth and detect all crimes as they occur in roughly eight minutes (with the speed of light as his speed).  Thus he makes Batman utterly superfluous because there's absolutely nothing for him to do unless a supervillain comes along that Superman needs to take a few minutes to deal with (Lex Luthor required roughly half an hour) and Batman needs to fill in for him.  Never mind that a world with Superman would be utterly cowed and tremble at his godlike presence and simply wouldn't commit crimes.

Superman is the most broken superhero ever.  He's awesome, yes, but he really has to stay in his own sandbox.
Title: Re: The Dark Knight (SPOILERS START ON PAGE 3)
Post by: JediBendu on 30 Jul 2008, 00:19
You do realize that the 1978 Superman movie is outdated completely when it comes to the extent of Superman's powers? That film, while not being canon to anything else except for that series of films, was made during a time when Superman's powers WERE broken even in the comics. But by now, they have actually been toned down considerably. He is FAR less powerful than he was back in the 70s.

And, as I already said, he doesn't stay in his own sandbox and it's proved very successful so far.

I mean I really hate that I'm nerding out this much but seriously, you're just wrong.
Title: Re: The Dark Knight (SPOILERS START ON PAGE 3)
Post by: johnny5 on 30 Jul 2008, 06:19
he meant it wouldn't work in the movies. seriously, when i'm watching my batman, the last thing i want is for superman to show up in his shiny mesh suit and start shooting lasers everywhere. now, if maybe they wanted him to hunt batman...i would watch batman kick superman's ass.
Title: Re: The Dark Knight (SPOILERS START ON PAGE 3)
Post by: JediBendu on 30 Jul 2008, 07:16
I don't think anyone suggested there be some kind of joint Superman/Batman movie, just a confirmation that the other DC movies exist together like the Marvel films are doing.

And I understand that he's saying it wouldn't work in the movies. But he simply said it in such a definitive "that will never work" kind of way that it was just kind of wrong (and also seems to believe that mixing worlds doesn't work in any medium, I at least didn't see him try to correct this). He also seems to think the 1978 movie is somehow canon and proof of some point regarding Superman, which is also wrong.
Title: Re: The Dark Knight (SPOILERS START ON PAGE 3)
Post by: Lines on 30 Jul 2008, 09:34
I guess I didn't make it clear enough that I dislike Superman. And no, bringing a super strength man from outer space would NOT fit with Nolan's Gotham. He's trying to make his characters believable and Superman just can't be made to be believable. He's a superhero, not a masked vigilante. It just wouldn't work in this particular series. If they make another movie with the both of them, hey, good for them, but I don't want Superman in these particular movies.

Also, I've read the comics. The last Robin is really annoying. The first two are involved in really good story lines, but as Nolan has already said he doesn't intend to use Robin, I'm not getting my hopes up. Maybe if they make a lot more movies, yes, I can see him being introduced, but this is still the beginning of Batman, so I don't see the need to rush in the sidekick when he's not really needed.
Title: Re: The Dark Knight (SPOILERS START ON PAGE 3)
Post by: Ozymandias on 30 Jul 2008, 09:40
Can I just say that I don't want a third movie?

That there doesn't really seem to be a need for it, to me.
Title: Re: The Dark Knight (SPOILERS START ON PAGE 3)
Post by: Alex C on 30 Jul 2008, 09:55
I feel much the same way. I'm fine with the idea of more sequels, but I suspect that they'll be more like entertaining victory laps rather than character defining dramas. With this movie they really did an excellent job of defining Batman's role as a relentless vigilante taking on a thankless job for the greater good. It's a battle that doesn't really cry out for resolution, since the eternal struggle part of the equation is such an integral part of the character. I could see them perhaps exploring the "How far is he willing to go?" angle some more, but it's hard to say how much mileage they could get out of that without severely undermining the character's redeeming qualities.
Title: Re: The Dark Knight (SPOILERS START ON PAGE 3)
Post by: Johnny C on 30 Jul 2008, 10:47
There wasn't a need for a second movie.

If Nolan wants to do a third, I'll personally trust that he has a good reason to do so.
Title: Re: The Dark Knight (SPOILERS START ON PAGE 3)
Post by: Muppet King on 30 Jul 2008, 10:48
Can I just say that I don't want a third movie?

That there doesn't really seem to be a need for it, to me.

I believe Nolan has said he doesn't intend to make a third.  He said he's open to the idea, but he never planned a third.  Of course my information is dated, so he could have changed his tune.
Title: Re: The Dark Knight (SPOILERS START ON PAGE 3)
Post by: britMonster on 30 Jul 2008, 11:10
I had heard it is supposed to be a trilogy. Not sure where I heard that from.

But also http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0974015/
Title: Re: The Dark Knight (SPOILERS START ON PAGE 3)
Post by: KvP on 30 Jul 2008, 11:25
There wasn't a need for a second movie.
Enh, don't know about that. Of course there wasn't a need for a sequel, but compared to the Dark Knight, Batman Begins was pretty droll. But then, I've always felt that Batman Begins was overrated.
Title: Re: The Dark Knight (SPOILERS START ON PAGE 3)
Post by: imapiratearg on 30 Jul 2008, 11:27
My sentiments exactly.
Title: Re: The Dark Knight (SPOILERS START ON PAGE 3)
Post by: Storm Rider on 30 Jul 2008, 15:55
Well, I read somewhere that Bale is under contract for two more Batman movies. Whether or not Nolan is directing, I don't know.

I agree in that I really think that it would be difficult to top what they pulled off with Dark Knight. Not only was the movie great, but I think they really used up the best of the Batman source material in this movie.
Title: Re: The Dark Knight (SPOILERS START ON PAGE 3)
Post by: britMonster on 30 Jul 2008, 23:24
I actually didn't like the first movie at all. This was my favourite movie of all times though.
Title: Re: The Dark Knight (SPOILERS START ON PAGE 3)
Post by: RedLion on 31 Jul 2008, 01:25
I've heard from different places that it was always intended to be a trilogy--nothing more and nothing less. No, i don't have links, but I've read it on a couple different sites when I came back from seeing The Dark Knight and wanted to know if there were any plans for another movie.
Title: Re: The Dark Knight (SPOILERS START ON PAGE 3)
Post by: tommydski on 31 Jul 2008, 06:15
I found this underwhelming but it got a bit better as it progressed. Not enough meat and a bit too much scene changing for its own good early on. Heath Ledger was actually really good as the Joker. For the opening hour or so it was killing me who he reminded me of. I was actually going crazy trying to work it out. Then when it hit me I actually couldn't believe the resemblance.

(http://i93.photobucket.com/albums/l44/ya_ya_ya/nardwuar.jpg)

Nardwuar (http://www.nardwuar.com/)! Give him the make-up and it's the same fucking guy.
Title: Re: The Dark Knight (SPOILERS START ON PAGE 3)
Post by: Jimmy the Squid on 31 Jul 2008, 06:39
Except that you don't want to beat Heath Ledger to death with a lead pipe.
Title: Re: The Dark Knight (SPOILERS START ON PAGE 3)
Post by: tommydski on 31 Jul 2008, 07:06
Why sho sherious?
Title: Re: The Dark Knight (SPOILERS START ON PAGE 3)
Post by: johnny5 on 31 Jul 2008, 07:20
Even if there wasn't a need for any sequels, everyone knew there would be more. Besides, the way the movies both ended, it practically said, hey, we're doing more movies. i would love to see 2 more though, instead of every franchise ending in 3 movies.
Title: Re: The Dark Knight (SPOILERS START ON PAGE 3)
Post by: Statik on 31 Jul 2008, 09:25
After many discussions with friends who have seen DK, and reading the posts on here, my personal belief is that Bane would be the logical choice for a (potential) third movie.  Given, I dont know the Batman comics as well as some, so there may be people I am missing, but, as mentioned before, the logical choices could be (with my own reasoning):

Harley - easily enough to explain where she came from.... possible to make a 2+ hour movie with just her as the sole (primary) villain?  I doubt it.  Easily explainable back story though... maybe a support villain role?

Riddler - It's possible to give him a legit/realistic back story... and while many people who enjoy the character might enjoy seeing him done well on the big screen, I don't think the masses would differentiate the Riddler from the Joker.  I mean, Riddler, from what I know, isn't nearly as sadistic as Joker is, but really, I think everyone who sees Riddler is going to automatically compare him to the Joker.  I would be shocked if the Nolans chose him for the third installment.

Bane - Given the finale of DK, I think Bane could be easily reworked to be a Bounty Hunter / Hitman / Mercenary, who is trying to catch / kill / break the batman for a reward / payday / fun, because the public / mob / inmates don't want the Batman around anymore.

I think, given Nolans direction with the new Batmans, to me, Bane seems like the logical choice (removing the whole Venom drug thing).  And personally I like the mask (maybe not a gimp mask) but I'm sure they could make it look cool, and probably give a good explanation for why he wears it.

My 2cents.

Also... Pencil Trick = awesome.   But I think the best scene with the Joker is still the one with him driving the cop car (As seen in the trailer) with his head out the window...  There was just something in that shot... I dunno what....
Title: Re: The Dark Knight (SPOILERS START ON PAGE 3)
Post by: JediBendu on 31 Jul 2008, 10:58
But I think the best scene with the Joker is still the one with him driving the cop car (As seen in the trailer) with his head out the window...  There was just something in that shot... I dunno what....

The way the camera moves in that shot just looks cool. They mounted it on the front of the car, I'm almost certain, so the background shifts while the foreground stayed stationary, pretty cool effect.
Title: Re: The Dark Knight (SPOILERS START ON PAGE 3)
Post by: Dimmukane on 31 Jul 2008, 11:39
If you ask me, that shot defines the Joker.  He is a man without cares, even while being chased by the cops.  He just looks like someone who is completely content with himself, regardless of what he is and does.
Title: Re: The Dark Knight (SPOILERS START ON PAGE 3)
Post by: Bayley on 31 Jul 2008, 14:05
yes i agree. i find it funny that his accomplishing ultimate personal liberation is only one step away from being entirely incompatible with society. less than one step, really. the second i cut in line at the supermarket, because i simply couldn't give a fuck whether or not YOU think that makes me an asshole, I have become (in the eyes of most people in line) completely out-of-step with their social order.

interesting, i guess. living peaceably with other people requires succumbing to social pressure to conform. it requires a certain amount of anxiety, a will to homogeny.


up the punx, smash the state and all that.
Title: Re: The Dark Knight (SPOILERS START ON PAGE 3)
Post by: Blue Kitty on 31 Jul 2008, 18:36
"'Producers are convinced that the role of The Riddler is perfect for Depp. Johnny's a pro. He'll be able to take direction and still make the character his own. And what better Penguin is there than Philip Seymour Hoffman?' a source said"
Title: Re: The Dark Knight (SPOILERS START ON PAGE 3)
Post by: Surgoshan on 31 Jul 2008, 18:40
The real reason for The Dark Knight's success. (http://www.portfolio.com/views/blogs/the-tech-observer/2008/07/28/hollywood-credits-anti-piracy-efforts-for-dark-knight-success?rss=true)  The MPAA's anti-piracy campaign.

Yeah.  Right.
Title: Re: The Dark Knight (SPOILERS START ON PAGE 3)
Post by: Dimmukane on 31 Jul 2008, 19:18
"'Producers are convinced that the role of The Riddler is perfect for Depp. Johnny's a pro. He'll be able to take direction and still make the character his own. And what better Penguin is there than Philip Seymour Hoffman?' a source said"

I sure hope the producers fuck off.
Title: Re: The Dark Knight (SPOILERS START ON PAGE 3)
Post by: Alex C on 31 Jul 2008, 21:28
Were I a script writer I'd just go the opposite direction of Joker and throw in at least one control freak villain rather than a self-serving anarchist. Problem is, a lot of the more organized Batman villains kind of suck. Perhaps you could heavily modify an obscure character like Deacon Blackfire (personally, I'd just call him the Deacon). Basically, imagine a madman with a messiah complex commanding a vigilante army composed of misguided heroine shooting vagrants that consider Batman as something of an inspirational figure (just to give something Bale to mope about). You'd likely need another villain with more personal motives in there to help keep things interesting, but that's not really a big deal since Batman villains seem to come in pairs lately anyway.
Title: Re: The Dark Knight (SPOILERS START ON PAGE 3)
Post by: RobbieOC on 31 Jul 2008, 21:57
Or someone Batman is just physically unable to hang with? Bane has been mentioned, but wouldn't someone like Solomon Grundy be simpler/easier to put on screen?

I think he could be pretty cool, at least.
Title: Re: The Dark Knight (SPOILERS START ON PAGE 3)
Post by: Johnny C on 31 Jul 2008, 23:00
"'Producers are convinced that the role of The Riddler is perfect for Depp. Johnny's a pro. He'll be able to take direction and still make the character his own. And what better Penguin is there than Philip Seymour Hoffman?' a source said"

RGHHURGHHHHHHH
Title: Re: The Dark Knight (SPOILERS START ON PAGE 3)
Post by: Ozymandias on 31 Jul 2008, 23:04
We're looking at another Batman Forever, aren't we?
Title: Re: The Dark Knight (SPOILERS START ON PAGE 3)
Post by: RobbieOC on 01 Aug 2008, 01:00
Let's be glad it isn't Batman and Robin (yet).
Title: Re: The Dark Knight (SPOILERS START ON PAGE 3)
Post by: Dissy on 01 Aug 2008, 08:08
We're looking at another Batman Forever, aren't we?

I have an idea, Two-Face and David Cane.  There, no more Seal "Kiss from a Rose".

I don't think anybody has mentioned Cane yet.  Yes he is kinda a cross beween Bane and Deadshot (although he may be based off of Jason Bourne), but he works(ed) for Ra's al ghul.  Easy set up for the character, and we already have Two Face's background.
Title: Re: The Dark Knight (SPOILERS START ON PAGE 3)
Post by: Alex C on 01 Aug 2008, 18:21
Or someone Batman is just physically unable to hang with? Bane has been mentioned, but wouldn't someone like Solomon Grundy be simpler/easier to put on screen?

I think he could be pretty cool, at least.

Gah, good god, no. Solomon Grundy's a freakin' zombie. It's impossible for these movies to be realistic, of course, but it's very important for them to act as if they were anyway. Tossing the supernatural and comic book deaths into things could really undermine the suspension of disbelief they've managed to get up and going. I'd rather see them bring Bane into things if they go that route, although to be honest, I really, really hate Bane.
Title: Re: The Dark Knight (SPOILERS START ON PAGE 3)
Post by: Blue Kitty on 01 Aug 2008, 18:28
I don't think Grundy would work either.  It would be like combining the Incredible Hulk with The Dark Knight.
Title: Re: The Dark Knight (SPOILERS START ON PAGE 3)
Post by: Tom on 01 Aug 2008, 18:44
Solmon Grundy would only ever work if it was a trying to rule a crime syndicate and Gotham with fear through the use of Voodoo trickery. Grundy himself pretending to be a Baron Samedi-like figure.
Title: Re: The Dark Knight (SPOILERS START ON PAGE 3)
Post by: Surgoshan on 01 Aug 2008, 19:19
Possible villains, stories, and actors over on IGN.

Part one (http://au.comics.ign.com/articles/888/888464p1.html)
Part two (http://au.comics.ign.com/articles/891/891521p1.html)
Title: Re: The Dark Knight (SPOILERS START ON PAGE 3)
Post by: RedLion on 01 Aug 2008, 21:00
I can't buy the notion that Harvey Dent is dead until we know for certain he's not appearing in the third movie. I refuse to believe, at this point, that a fall of that height would kill anyone.
Title: Re: The Dark Knight (SPOILERS START ON PAGE 3)
Post by: Tom on 01 Aug 2008, 21:10
Having watched it again, nothing is actually implied about his state after the fall 'part from seeing him near motionless on the ground after it happened.
Title: Re: The Dark Knight (SPOILERS START ON PAGE 3)
Post by: Alex C on 01 Aug 2008, 21:46
I assumed he was dead because if he's not that would likely make up Batman's "Let's just blame all of this on me!" plan pointless.
Title: Re: The Dark Knight (SPOILERS START ON PAGE 3)
Post by: Surgoshan on 01 Aug 2008, 21:49
Well, a fall from the second story of a building (~ 20-30 feet) wouldn't kill someone in good health, though it would hurt like hell and probably break some bones.

Harvey Dent was, at the time of the fall, the exact opposite of someone in good health.  The man was showing bone.  He'd suffered major burns over half of his head and who knows how much of his torso.  Not only was he likely to die of even the most minor infection, but the slightest thing could kill him through shock.  

Burn victims are among the most fragile patients without adding loss of a fiance and "being ten foot from a gimongous explosion" to the list.

That is to say, assuming that someone survived such a fall is the best policy, unless they're in Harvey Dent's condition.  In that case, the default assumption is death, unless something later happens to convince you otherwise.
Title: Re: The Dark Knight (SPOILERS START ON PAGE 3)
Post by: De_El on 01 Aug 2008, 22:03
I assumed he was dead because if he's not that would likely make up Batman's "Let's just blame all of this on me!" plan pointless.

Untrue. Harvey was irrevocably changed from the so-called "white knight" he once was, and the idea was that that image was an important symbol of hope for the people of Gotham. Even if he is still alive, the public learning the truth about Dent is something Batman seriously wants to avoid.
Title: Re: The Dark Knight (SPOILERS START ON PAGE 3)
Post by: Alex C on 01 Aug 2008, 22:22
That's exactly my point though. If Harvey's dead the plan works out perfectly because Dent becomes a martyr and the people of Gotham have a nice closed casket ceremony and nobody is ever the wiser. If he's alive though? The man's a psychopath who needs to be sent to Arkham. How long can you keep THAT secret? He's not exactly the most cooperative guy in the world at this point. Maybe Batman thinks the plan is worth the gamble, but it seems pretty damn shakey to me.

Anyway though, I readily admit I could totally see him being alive in the next movie. Dark Knight was at the very least vague on the subject of his survival and I can see how it'd be supremely useful to keep the character around. I just find the idea that they could really hope to cover it up if he's alive a li'll odd, that's all.
Title: Re: The Dark Knight (SPOILERS START ON PAGE 3)
Post by: Johnny C on 01 Aug 2008, 23:38
In the novelization he's dead.

That might not mean anything but I assume it was made from the script and so he's dead.
Title: Re: The Dark Knight (SPOILERS START ON PAGE 3)
Post by: Storm Rider on 02 Aug 2008, 00:19
Considering that the Dark Knight ended with his funeral, I really don't think there's any way to bring him back in the future without it just feeling like a copout.
Title: Re: The Dark Knight (SPOILERS START ON PAGE 3)
Post by: KvP on 02 Aug 2008, 01:28
Gordon already faked his own (very public) death, why couldn't he do the same for Dent?

Honestly, as greatly dissatisfied as I am with the Dark Knight's use of Two Face, it might just be too much of a stretch to use him again. On to other, less compelling villains.
Title: Re: The Dark Knight (SPOILERS START ON PAGE 3)
Post by: tommydski on 02 Aug 2008, 08:38
He had to die at the end or the entire premise of the film made no sense. He doesn't need to comeback either. He wasn't really a 'villain' in this film and he wouldn't work as one in the next. He did kill a bunch of people but it wasn't random, there was method to his madness. He was very specifically targeting the people who he felt were responsible for the death of his fiancée. To bring him back in the next film as a straight up bank robbing maniac would be a poor decisions and I don't think the Nolans make many of those.

If they make another film, I'm sure the new villains will be well chosen. The biggest question on my mind will be if they try to introduce a Robin character. I think Dark Victory will be the most likely inspiration for the potential third film but as we've seen they tend to pick up little aspects from the Loeb/Sale run rather than make whole-sale adaptations. Personally, after seeing the farcical and borderline offensive film adaptations of 300 and Sin City, I think it's an entirely sensible to use this method. We could be looking at a reinterpretation of the Hangman plot.
Title: Re: The Dark Knight (SPOILERS START ON PAGE 3)
Post by: KvP on 02 Aug 2008, 14:01
Forgot to say, I saw the movie in IMAX a few nights back, and it was pretty impressive even when I had to sit in the first row off to the side (you can definitely get motion sickness watching IMAX films) as far as I'm concerned if you're going to be talking about a film you best see it twice.

So, second time around, the things I liked I liked more, but the little nagging things never went away, and I noticed more of them this time. Dark Knight remains the movie with the most plot seams / gaps / holes I've ever noticed. For instance, if this universe has any rules at all, Mr. Reese has to make an appearance in the third movie, as he apparently had legitimate enough claims to knowing who Batman is to get on television, and we can certainly assume that the third movie will contain a plot about people trying to figure out the identity of the Batman. But the universe really doesn't have any rules beyond what makes a thriller, and Reese won't make an appearance because that would be far too easy. If the Joker can manage to rig an entire hospital with cheap explosives unnoticed (and the cops wouldn't use the fucking explosive detectors they used on the bridges to find the explosives in the hospital) and crash a high-society fundraiser high on a skyscraper without getting even threatened by the cops, or blow up a firetruck on a street cleared by the cops without anybody noticing (and why the fuck couldn't they go around a different way that was clearly shown instead of falling into the obvious trap?), then characters can mysteriously disappear, whatever. I don't know why it irks me so much in this particular case. Probably because Nolan set the movies up as not particularly fantastical and thus the relatively common leaps of logic that come with movies like this stand out more than they usually would. Were it not for the uniformly fantastic performances I wouldn't really like the Dark Knight.

And man, Nolan needs to get a second unit guy to handle his hand-to-hand scenes or something. Just awfully shot.

Also, if Bruce Wayne got a really bad sore throat, would people suddenly realize he was Batman?
Title: Re: The Dark Knight (SPOILERS START ON PAGE 3)
Post by: Cartilage Head on 02 Aug 2008, 14:25
 Heh.

 Also the guys who hired the Joker probably have a shitload of cops on their payroll.
Title: Re: The Dark Knight (SPOILERS START ON PAGE 3)
Post by: Johnny C on 02 Aug 2008, 16:01
Also, if Bruce Wayne got a really bad sore throat, would people suddenly realize he was Batman?

(http://i.somethingawful.com/u/docevil/ff/000072808/bss.jpg)
Title: Re: The Dark Knight (SPOILERS START ON PAGE 3)
Post by: KvP on 02 Aug 2008, 17:30
Hey, there's a good angle for the third 'un: Bruce Wayne as fedora'd, pencil-mustached mafioso.
Title: Re: The Dark Knight (SPOILERS START ON PAGE 3)
Post by: Vendetagainst on 02 Aug 2008, 17:34
fedoras are amazing.
Title: Re: The Dark Knight (SPOILERS START ON PAGE 3)
Post by: Tom on 02 Aug 2008, 23:35
A pretty funny article about IMDB complaints regarding the Joker's sex appeal and Gyllenhal's lack of it:

http://www.avclub.com/content/blog/imdbates_the_dark_knight
Title: Re: The Dark Knight (SPOILERS START ON PAGE 3)
Post by: RedLion on 02 Aug 2008, 23:43
Considering that the Dark Knight ended with his funeral, I really don't think there's any way to bring him back in the future without it just feeling like a copout.

I think it would be perfectly plausible for them to have done a fake burial while locking up Dent in Arkham.
Title: Re: The Dark Knight (SPOILERS START ON PAGE 3)
Post by: Johnny C on 03 Aug 2008, 03:23
NO

FUCK IT

DENT IS DEAD AS SHIT

HE IS DEADER THAN DEAD HAS EVER BEEN

HE IS SUPER FUCKING DEAD

IF THERE WERE SUPERPOWERS IN THE NOLAN UNIVERSE HIS WOULD BE "HALF-HIDEOUS" AND ALSO "TREMENDOUSLY DEAD"

STOP FUCKING SAYING HE'S NOT DEAD

LET NOLAN DECIDE WHERE THE SERIES IS GOING

NO SUITS, NO FANS






CHRIST
Title: Re: The Dark Knight (SPOILERS START ON PAGE 3)
Post by: Eris on 03 Aug 2008, 04:00
I was in a book shop recently that had one of those "Making of" books for The Dark Night. It also had the script in it. The fact that it says "Dent lays on the ground after the fall, DEAD" makes it pretty obvious to me that he is not alive.

Y'know, because it is the goddamn script and is available to everyone. If they bring him back to life by saying "Surprise, he wasn't actually dead!" there will be a lot of complaints from the people who bought the book and read the script in the book and saw it say directly that he was dead.


Oh, apparently over 50 clown masks were created for the film. Also, one of the prelim character designs for the joker had bright green short spikey hair. I am glad they didn't go with that one.
Title: Re: The Dark Knight (SPOILERS START ON PAGE 3)
Post by: Johnny C on 03 Aug 2008, 04:07
it would have made him so edgy though
Title: Re: The Dark Knight (SPOILERS START ON PAGE 3)
Post by: tommydski on 03 Aug 2008, 10:27
I think it would be perfectly plausible for them to have done a fake burial

Likewise with Heath Ledger.

I mean they buried the dude but come on, nobody believes he's really dead right. Blatent marketing ploy.
Title: Re: The Dark Knight (SPOILERS START ON PAGE 3)
Post by: Tom on 04 Aug 2008, 00:41
This has confused me to no end, Eckhart apparently said he would like to do the third

http://www.imdb.com/news/ni0265713/
Title: Re: The Dark Knight (SPOILERS START ON PAGE 3)
Post by: Lines on 04 Aug 2008, 08:02
He could just be saying that or he could be saying that because Dent isn't dead. We'll never know. ...Until the 3rd movie.
Title: Re: The Dark Knight (SPOILERS START ON PAGE 3)
Post by: Jackie Blue on 04 Aug 2008, 12:40
Guys guys guys.

HARVEY DENT is dead.

TWO-FACE is not.

DUH.

(I don't necessarily agree with this rationale, but a friend of mine swears by it and says it fits with one of the comic mythologies somehow.)
Title: Re: The Dark Knight (SPOILERS START ON PAGE 3)
Post by: KvP on 04 Aug 2008, 12:47
That'd be the Dark Knight Returns continuity, I think. They graft up his disfigured face and in so doing give Two-Face complete control over Dent forever, which was interesting because you'd naturally assume that the disfigured side of him would represent Two-Face and the non-disfigured side would represent Dent. That's been done in other comics but he usually re-fucks up his face.

Not that it really matters, "Dent" died when his face got burnt. In the Dark Knight there's no Harvey Dent / Two-Face dichotomy to speak of. When Dent becomes Two-Face, he is Two-Face. There's no internal conflict, no struggle between the sides. He's just a psycho. Which I didn't like, but I suppose it fits better in the Nolan universe.
Title: Re: The Dark Knight (SPOILERS START ON PAGE 3)
Post by: Johnny C on 04 Aug 2008, 13:08
The internal conflict is reduced to the coin.

He is psychotic but still bound by a vestige of his old self.
Title: Re: The Dark Knight (SPOILERS START ON PAGE 3)
Post by: KvP on 04 Aug 2008, 13:38
Honestly, I think we're being disingenuous when we say Dent "becomes" Two-Face. They're the same character, and the change is a (stretched, depending on your perspective) logical progression. The case has been made for Dent having a "dark side" shown earlier in the film but I think that's really just smoke. Dent is completely in control, for instance, when he captures the schizophrenic and plays russian roulette with him. He's never going to be in the position to cross the line, because he knows his coin doesn't have tails and thus he'll never kill the guy. Dent in the film is not like Dent in the comics, who becomes schizophrenic and exhibits multiple personalities. Dent in the film believes in himself and his ability to make things right the right way, by bending but not breaking the rules. By killing Dawes the Joker breaks Dent's spirit and convinces him that he can never do what he promised himself he'd do as DA. So Dent lashes out in resentment, just like the Joker wants him to.

The coin toss isn't a manifestation of who Dent was before his loss, nor is it a part of him that wants to do the right thing. Dent believes he is powerless, that his choices don't matter, so he leaves them to the coin. Two-Face is just Dent without faith or restraint.

That's my take on it, anyway.
Title: Re: The Dark Knight (SPOILERS START ON PAGE 3)
Post by: Dissy on 05 Aug 2008, 07:34
Fuck KvP, Spoiler Alert much?

I always felt that in the comics Harvey Dent was in control of himself.  Did he know that he had schizophrenia?  Probably, but did we know?  Not until after the scarification.  Dent/Two-Face chosethe 2 headed coin, because, 1.) He now has two heads as he sees it, 2.) In his insanity, he believes that everything is Black and White, Good and Evil, Life and Death, Two sides of a coin.  Initially, he looses every sense of moral ambiguity, there is only the duality of everything.
Title: Re: The Dark Knight (SPOILERS START ON PAGE 3)
Post by: KvP on 05 Aug 2008, 07:44
I felt I was covered by the "SPOILERS START ON PAGE 3" in the title of the thread. This is the 4th page, after all.
Title: Re: The Dark Knight (SPOILERS START ON PAGE 3)
Post by: Lines on 05 Aug 2008, 08:26
Actually, it's the 6th and there have been many spoilers since page 3. People have been warned.
Title: Re: The Dark Knight (SPOILERS START ON PAGE 3)
Post by: johnny5 on 05 Aug 2008, 09:57
Mr. Reese has to make an appearance in the third movie, as he apparently had legitimate enough claims to knowing who Batman is to get on television,

i kind of thought he was resolved when he got saved by bruce wayne. however i could see him coming back in a minor role - perhaps as a hostage.


 
Quote
If the Joker can manage to rig an entire hospital with cheap explosives unnoticed (and the cops wouldn't use the fucking explosive detectors they used on the bridges to find the explosives in the hospital)

the joker rigged the explosives beforehand and then called into the TV show, telling everyone to kill Reese or he blows up a hospital. the cops would have no time to check every hospital for the explosives.

 
Quote
and crash a high-society fundraiser high on a skyscraper without getting even threatened by the cops

cops are on their payroll/got ambushed and killed (remember seeing the cop show his badge before the joker got out of the elevator?)

Quote
or blow up a firetruck on a street cleared by the cops without anybody noticing (and why the fuck couldn't they go around a different way that was clearly shown instead of falling into the obvious trap?)

i agree with this. at first i thought the cop in the passenger seat might be a mob guy, as he diverts the entire route to lower 5th instead of the other side of the road. however, in the end, it turned out Gordon had planned the whole thing and was using Dent as the bait, remember?

overall i don't think there were many huge holes in the story.
Title: Re: The Dark Knight (SPOILERS START ON PAGE 3)
Post by: pilsner on 05 Aug 2008, 16:55
Aside from the whole what happened when the Joker was left alone in a room with a whole bunch of defenseless but very wealthy Gothamites after he threw Rachel out the window thing.  Also, wouldn't it have made more sense for Batman to shoot Joker's big rig with rockets rather than jump into the way of the bazooka shot?  Seems like a better bet, plus you'd think rockets would go faster than the battank with its booster.  Sure it might not have wrecked the big rig, but you'd think it would have ruined the shot at least as effectively as diving in the way.  Oh and Harvey Dent's magical ability to waltz through Gotham in the middle of the day and infiltrate the mob boss's heavily guarded car. 

But yeah it had a lot fewer plot holes than the first one.  And it's a comic book movie.  Which I just saw for a second time on IMAX.  So totally worth it.
Title: Re: The Dark Knight (SPOILERS START ON PAGE 3)
Post by: tommydski on 05 Aug 2008, 19:32
Plus Dent somehow escaped unhurt after shooting the mob bosses' driver.
Title: Re: The Dark Knight (SPOILERS START ON PAGE 3)
Post by: Thy Dungeonman on 05 Aug 2008, 19:44
Well, he did put on his seatbelt.
Title: Re: The Dark Knight (SPOILERS START ON PAGE 3)
Post by: Scarychips on 05 Aug 2008, 20:01
The case has been made for Dent having a "dark side" shown earlier in the film but I think that's really just smoke. Dent is completely in control, for instance, when he captures the schizophrenic and plays russian roulette with him. He's never going to be in the position to cross the line, because he knows his coin doesn't have tails and thus he'll never kill the guy. Dent in the film is not like Dent in the comics, who becomes schizophrenic and exhibits multiple personalities. Dent in the film believes in himself and his ability to make things right the right way, by bending but not breaking the rules. By killing Dawes the Joker breaks Dent's spirit and convinces him that he can never do what he promised himself he'd do as DA. So Dent lashes out in resentment, just like the Joker wants him to.

The coin toss isn't a manifestation of who Dent was before his loss, nor is it a part of him that wants to do the right thing. Dent believes he is powerless, that his choices don't matter, so he leaves them to the coin. Two-Face is just Dent without faith or restraint.

At the point where he is playing the russian roulette, there's no face and tails, it's burn and not burn. He still had a "chance" of killing himself.
Title: Re: The Dark Knight (SPOILERS START ON PAGE 3)
Post by: Blue Kitty on 05 Aug 2008, 20:24
More speculation (http://uk.movies.ign.com/articles/895/895050p1.html)
Title: Re: The Dark Knight (SPOILERS START ON PAGE 3)
Post by: Cartilage Head on 05 Aug 2008, 20:32
 If the Riddler is the next villain, hopefully it will be along with Hush. What I would mostly like, though, is a movie with Hangman. That would be perfect for Nolan's Batman.
Title: Re: The Dark Knight (SPOILERS START ON PAGE 3)
Post by: KvP on 05 Aug 2008, 22:24
The case has been made for Dent having a "dark side" shown earlier in the film but I think that's really just smoke. Dent is completely in control, for instance, when he captures the schizophrenic and plays russian roulette with him. He's never going to be in the position to cross the line, because he knows his coin doesn't have tails and thus he'll never kill the guy. Dent in the film is not like Dent in the comics, who becomes schizophrenic and exhibits multiple personalities. Dent in the film believes in himself and his ability to make things right the right way, by bending but not breaking the rules. By killing Dawes the Joker breaks Dent's spirit and convinces him that he can never do what he promised himself he'd do as DA. So Dent lashes out in resentment, just like the Joker wants him to.

The coin toss isn't a manifestation of who Dent was before his loss, nor is it a part of him that wants to do the right thing. Dent believes he is powerless, that his choices don't matter, so he leaves them to the coin. Two-Face is just Dent without faith or restraint.

At the point where he is playing the russian roulette, there's no face and tails, it's burn and not burn. He still had a "chance" of killing himself.
No no, I'm talking pre-burn, when he captures the schizophrenic dude after Gordon is "shot".

Plus Dent somehow escaped unhurt after shooting the mob bosses' driver.
He unbuckles his seatbelt! So what if you don't see him come out of the car?

You know what else, how can Harvey Dent speak coherently when missing half his lips and having a giant hole in his face?

Man, fuck this movie!

More speculation (http://uk.movies.ign.com/articles/895/895050p1.html)
Even now that The Dark Knight is probably the biggest movie of the last 10 years (cept for Spiderman, maybe) I'd really prefer it if they stayed on their present course and kept "names" away from these movies. The best actors in these films have been supporting characters (Michael Caine, Morgan Freeman, Gary Oldman etc etc) The main characters haven't been unknowns by any means, but hell, less than a year ago people were wondering if Heath Ledger could hack it, because they only knew him as a stoic gay cowboy. They could certainly pay for Will Smith or Angelina Jolie or Tom Cruise, but if they were going to have any roles that those actors could be cast in, I'd rather they just get Aaron Eckhart to play them all. Get Brendan Gleeson, or Andre Braugher, or fuckin'... Walton Goggins, I don't know.

I think Guy Pearce would be a good actor to throw in the mix, just a random thought. Maybe Riddler, but that would be way too Memento.
Title: Re: The Dark Knight (SPOILERS START ON PAGE 3)
Post by: RobbieOC on 05 Aug 2008, 22:42
If the Riddler is the next villain, hopefully it will be along with Hush. What I would mostly like, though, is a movie with Hangman. That would be perfect for Nolan's Batman.

I kind of like the way Riddler is portrayed in Hush, but I kind of dislike the character of Hush. If they played the Riddler that way, I'd be totally happy, but they could find a better partner for him than Hush. Even though, I guess, visually Hush would be a pretty easy villain to portray on screen.
Title: Re: The Dark Knight (SPOILERS START ON PAGE 3)
Post by: Johnny C on 05 Aug 2008, 23:09
More speculation (http://uk.movies.ign.com/articles/895/895050p1.html)

I will fuck the Devil out of IGN.
Title: Re: The Dark Knight (SPOILERS START ON PAGE 3)
Post by: Storm Rider on 05 Aug 2008, 23:47
You'll have to kill Rupert Murdoch to do that.

Which I would not mind at all, for the record.
Title: Re: The Dark Knight (SPOILERS START ON PAGE 3)
Post by: RedLion on 06 Aug 2008, 01:27
So...how does the actress who played catwoman on TV mentioning that she thinks Jolie would make a good catwoman any sort of basis for speculation about what will be in the next movie? The woman's not related to the movies in any way, nor does she have any information about it. She was giving an opinion--just like we're all doing on here. Why is it being made such a big deal of?
Title: Re: The Dark Knight (SPOILERS START ON PAGE 3)
Post by: tommydski on 06 Aug 2008, 07:48
I have another bit of minutiae that puzzled me. At the end Harvey points the gun at Batman and flips his coin which has one charred 'dark side' and a light side. It lands with the light side facing up, which in accordance to his other flips means that he should spare Batman. Instead he shoots him. He then turns the gun on himself and flips again. This time he gets the same result (light side up) but he doesn't shoot himself.

Can anyone shed any light on that? Does the light side of the coin just mean he does what he thinks is 'right' or 'fair'?
Title: Re: The Dark Knight (SPOILERS START ON PAGE 3)
Post by: johnny5 on 06 Aug 2008, 08:12
hmm good point. that's possible. at first, i thought batman lost because it landed clean side up, which would mean it would be dark side up if he turned in on his hand (except he was holding a gun). that theory doesn't hold up for himself though...unless he was thinking the charred side meant he'd stay alive (i mean, i think for him staying alive would be worst thing possible for him and personally, i think he was getting weaker/less rational on account of the whole...burn/pain thing. parts of his face were flaking off on his pillow and suit!).
Title: Re: The Dark Knight (SPOILERS START ON PAGE 3)
Post by: KvP on 06 Aug 2008, 12:15
Hmmmm, did Batman's flip really end up lightside up? That doesn't make much sense, since he explicitly states his deal to the Joker in the hospital, and every flip up until that point fits that paradigm (though you don't see Ramirez's result)
Title: Re: The Dark Knight (SPOILERS START ON PAGE 3)
Post by: Jackie Blue on 06 Aug 2008, 12:41
They should get Natalie Portman to play Robin.

...what?  There have been female Robins.
Title: Re: The Dark Knight (SPOILERS START ON PAGE 3)
Post by: Scandanavian War Machine on 06 Aug 2008, 12:46
that's the first suggestion for Robin that i've actually thought "yeah, that could work."

she just looks a Robin.
Title: Re: The Dark Knight (SPOILERS START ON PAGE 3)
Post by: tommydski on 06 Aug 2008, 12:51
I actually just went back and watched that scene frame by frame again. First time around it looks like two light side endings but I took screen caps for good measure.

(http://i75.photobucket.com/albums/i318/tommydski/Flip.jpg)

It's not until you actually see the two results side by side that you realise there's a difference. So I was wrong, it's dark then light.
Title: Re: The Dark Knight (SPOILERS START ON PAGE 3)
Post by: pilsner on 06 Aug 2008, 13:01
that's the first suggestion for Robin that i've actually thought "yeah, that could work."

she just looks a Robin.

As in Robin in Batman: The Dark Knight Returns.  For sure. 
Title: Re: The Dark Knight (SPOILERS START ON PAGE 3)
Post by: Vendetagainst on 06 Aug 2008, 15:14
I was ten minutes into watching the Dark Knight (a process which took about five hours of work on the pirate bay) when the storm from hell knocked out the power. This is very upsetting  :x
Title: Re: The Dark Knight (SPOILERS START ON PAGE 3)
Post by: Vendetagainst on 06 Aug 2008, 21:16
Sorry for the double post, but I just finished the movie. I thought it was incredible, I loved it. I thought that the irony of the Peace dollar being used to determine whether someone lives or dies was brilliant. Heath was awesome. I am far too pumped right now to write out a fair step-by-step description of the pros and cons of this movie. I also liked how much of the architecture I recognized (I was on that bridge three days ago and my mom used to work at that "hospital" that was blown up!). If this was an ebay purchase I would totally give it an A followed by an annoying number of plus signs.
Title: Re: The Dark Knight (SPOILERS START ON PAGE 3)
Post by: Tergon on 06 Aug 2008, 21:57
I've seen it twice.  I watched it on the first available screening, which was awesome.  Then I watched it again with my Dad a week later (he called me up and asked me to go with him, as he felt that a 47-year-old man couldn't really go to a Superhero movie alone and not look creepy).
Both times it was awesome.  I've got to rate it as one of the very best movies I've ever seen, and that's not just the fanboy speaking.  The writing was excellent, and all the parts were brilliantly done, especially Ledger.  I admit freely I was wondering if he'd pull it off, but I'm sorry I ever doubted it now.

As for the next villians, while signs do seem to point toward The Riddler, I'd like to see a Penguin-Freeze teamup.  They both have the "ice" theme, and it seems a logical choice now.  Begins was about becoming Batman; Dark Knight was about choosing to remain Batman; the next one should be about choosing to remain Bruce Wayne as well, and Penguin is one of the few villians who'd challenge Bruce instead of Batman.
I'm seeing a rival corporation, like Cobblepot Industries or something, making a power play against Wayne Enterprises.  Penguin is what Bruce would be if he used his wealth and influence for personal gain... maybe even more of an evil counterpart to Lucius Fox than Bruce Wayne.
Freeze would start out as just a regular, if infamous, hitman.  Have him making money to fund research on his dying wife if you wanna make him tragic.  He's hired by Penguin to take out either Bruce or Batman, whicever way it goes; naturally he fails and is badly injured.  Penguin, deciding the deal wasn't made properly, changes the wounded man into the ice-themed cyborg thing he's going to become.  Freeze and Batman clash, with Penguin trying to catch both outlaws and become a hero in the process while destroying Wayne Enterprises in the crossfire.

...yeah, I don't know.  The plot slammed its way into my head about 30 minutes after I watched The Dark Knight.  Which says something about either my sanity or the quality of the film.  But I am excited.
Title: Re: The Dark Knight (SPOILERS START ON PAGE 3)
Post by: Dissy on 09 Aug 2008, 17:35
Ooh, Fuck yea!

I dragged my parents to the IMAX to see this (I didn't want to pay, I'm a cheap bastard when I want to be).  The opening scene comes up, and my dad just looks at me, and says "I think you made an excellent choice."  Heath was excellent. Eckhardt was amazing.  Morgan Freeman was underused, unfortunately.  The plot was excellent, the shots were excellent, acting was superb.  My parents were amazed, my sister was indifferent to the whole thing.
Title: Re: The Dark Knight (SPOILERS START ON PAGE 3)
Post by: Jackie Blue on 09 Aug 2008, 18:40
One of my friends insists that the Penguin is definitely in heavy consideration for the next one, and that he will be brought in as an international arms dealer.

And if they get Philip Seymour Hoffman to play him, that would be fucking perfect.

If they do the Riddler, I think they should just have Jim Carrey play him again.  He was about the only good thing the third old Batman movie had going, and since his acting chops have gotten so much better I could totally see him doing a darker version of the role.  Basically a Professor Moriarty type.
Title: Re: The Dark Knight (SPOILERS START ON PAGE 3)
Post by: KvP on 09 Aug 2008, 19:51
I disagree. Have you seen The Number 23? That's his "thriller acting".

As for The Penguin, I don't know. Even with Two-Face and all, a deformed club owner / mobster / gun runner / whatever seems a bit grotesque. Plus it'd be hard to come up with a reason to call him "The Penguin" that wasn't dumb. And PSH, eh, didn't he play pretty much the same character in Mission Impossible 3?

As much as I found the Joker to be a not particularly interesting comics villain, they made him work quite for the Dark Knight. So they could surprise me. But none of the Big Name Batman villains look very promising to me from here on in. Riddler, maybe, but that depends on the character concept. Bane... just not enough zazz for me. Frankly it's going to be hard in any case to follow up the Joker. I don't really expect them to create a villain, but there's certainly a better chance of that happening than in any of the reference-a-minute Marvel movies.
Title: Re: The Dark Knight (SPOILERS START ON PAGE 3)
Post by: De_El on 09 Aug 2008, 22:07
As much as I found the Joker to be a not particularly interesting comics villain

Vuh-vuh-vuh-vuh-vuh-buh Whaaaaaat? What Batman comics have you been reading, anyway?
Title: Re: The Dark Knight (SPOILERS START ON PAGE 3)
Post by: Surgoshan on 09 Aug 2008, 22:33
As much as I found the Joker to be a not particularly interesting comics villain

Vuh-vuh-vuh-vuh-vuh-buh Whaaaaaat? What Batman comics have you been reading, anyway?

For the most part, the Joker has been done very, very poorly.  Hell, for most of his existence his purpose was to embarrass people.  That's all.  And his "crimes" were called "boners".  The version from the TV show was closest to his original incarnation -- a purple-suited ass.  The vile foil who truly challenges the Batman is a creation of the 80s, I believe.
Title: Re: The Dark Knight (SPOILERS START ON PAGE 3)
Post by: KvP on 09 Aug 2008, 23:14
Basically. Way back when Batman was just a detective in a costume, with a pistol and everything. I liked Nolan's / Ledger's relatively unadorned Joker, a head case who isn't "Super Sane!" or fond of gags or anything, but isn't unrelentingly grim or some Chighur-like Manifestation of Evil either.

And despite the excellent Animated Series, Batman is one of my least favorite comic heroes, so in general I'm cool to most of the stuff. If it was all like the Dark Knight I'd like it much much more. If DC decided to make a Batman comic in the Nolan universe I'd buy it. Ironically, for the abundance of Marvel films having been and being made none of them have really been as good as the Dark Knight, and DC up until this point has been seen as the fuck-ups (granted, Superman Returns was not that great) I still maintain that the first two X-Men films were pretty good, but given the tone of Marvel movies I don't see any of them ever really being this good. They're just not this... ambitious, I guess. Iron Man was fun but it had just about one viewing's worth of it. I have no interest in the Avengers, but I'm very interested in seeing where Nolan takes the third Batman film.
Title: Re: The Dark Knight (SPOILERS START ON PAGE 3)
Post by: tommydski on 10 Aug 2008, 03:20
And if they get Philip Seymour Hoffman to play him, that would be fucking perfect.

Too tall! That also bugged me when he played Truman Capote. He's quite a tall man.

If they do the Riddler, I think they should just have Jim Carrey play him again.  He was about the only good thing the third old Batman movie had going, and since his acting chops have gotten so much better I could totally see him doing a darker version of the role.  Basically a Professor Moriarty type.

I actually read this perfectly seriously like three times before I realised you were joking.

Title: Re: The Dark Knight (SPOILERS START ON PAGE 3)
Post by: sean on 10 Aug 2008, 17:04
Tommy I'm pretty sure they can manipulate a person on camera so it appears they are shorter. Like, I'm pretty sure Elijah Wood isn't actually three or four feet tall like he appers in Lord of the Rings. Though maybe he is a short dude, I dunno. I just think with a large enough budget height would not really be an issue. Hoffman probably would make at least a resonable Penguin.
Title: Re: The Dark Knight (SPOILERS START ON PAGE 3)
Post by: Jackie Blue on 10 Aug 2008, 23:19
The Riddler as a dark, OCD, Rube Goldberg-and-puzzle-obsessed ex-scientist would basically fit into the Nolanverse perfectly, I think.
Title: Re: The Dark Knight (SPOILERS START ON PAGE 3)
Post by: Tergon on 11 Aug 2008, 00:38
Only problem I see with a realistic Riddler is how, exactly, he'd challenge Batman.  The Nolan series is so gritty and, well, bloodthirsty.  A guy who steals diamonds while leaving bizzare clues about it... there's ways to make that realistic, but I can't think of many ways he could actually pose a THREAT to Batman.  The only way I can think of is a possible Brains 'n Brawn teamup with another villian, but I can only see a cliche like that hurting the film.

I know, re-imagined versions and all, but still.  How do you keep the Riddler in style, but still make him dangerous enough for the new series?
Title: Re: The Dark Knight (SPOILERS START ON PAGE 3)
Post by: Lines on 11 Aug 2008, 08:17
Hoffman is around 5'10, but they could make him look shorter. But I agree with Tommy, in Capote it was a bit weird and didn't completely work. Besides, Elijah Woods is 5'6 and I'm sure it's easier to make him appear to be much shorter, since most of the other actors in LotR were taller than he was anyways. But they did it with John Rhys-Davies and he's 6'1. He was rather convincing.
Title: Re: The Dark Knight (SPOILERS START ON PAGE 3)
Post by: Johnny C on 11 Aug 2008, 10:04
Don't forget about Martin Short's magnum opus, Clifford (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clifford_(film)).
Title: Re: The Dark Knight (SPOILERS START ON PAGE 3)
Post by: KvP on 11 Aug 2008, 14:58
I'm pretty sure Elijah Wood isn't actually three or four feet tall like he appers in Lord of the Rings. Though maybe he is a short dude, I dunno.
Elijah Wood's pretty damn small. I think most of the camera trickery in LOtR was used to make John Rhys Davies into a dwarf. That elf guy had to stand on a lot of boxes.

*bah, curse you Lindsey.
Title: Re: The Dark Knight (SPOILERS START ON PAGE 3)
Post by: sean on 11 Aug 2008, 15:15
Oh, I actually thought John Rhys-Davies was a short dude. I would of used him as an example if I didn't think that.

The more you know!
Title: Re: The Dark Knight (SPOILERS START ON PAGE 3)
Post by: Vendetagainst on 11 Aug 2008, 15:16
...The more time you spend curled up in a ball.
Title: Re: The Dark Knight (SPOILERS START ON PAGE 3)
Post by: Border Reiver on 11 Aug 2008, 15:18
John Rhys-Davies was actually one of the taller actors in the movies.  I think that Mr. Lee was probably the only one taller.
Title: Re: The Dark Knight (SPOILERS START ON PAGE 3)
Post by: Dissy on 13 Aug 2008, 07:55
One of my friends insists that the Penguin is definitely in heavy consideration for the next one, and that he will be brought in as an international arms dealer.

Has no one read the interview with Nolan saying he would never, ever use the penguin?  He called him a "too-far fetched character."
Title: Re: The Dark Knight (SPOILERS START ON PAGE 3)
Post by: knives on 13 Aug 2008, 15:05
For the most part, the Joker has been done very, very poorly.  Hell, for most of his existence his purpose was to embarrass people.  That's all.  And his "crimes" were called "boners".  The version from the TV show was closest to his original incarnation -- a purple-suited ass.  The vile foil who truly challenges the Batman is a creation of the 80s, I believe.
While I agree he's been mostly done poorly He started off real similar to the dark knight version. For a good example look at the laughing fish episode from the old teevee show. It's based on one of the earlier comics.
Title: Re: The Dark Knight (SPOILERS START ON PAGE 3)
Post by: JediBendu on 14 Aug 2008, 07:21
 
For the most part, the Joker has been done very, very poorly.  Hell, for most of his existence his purpose was to embarrass people.  That's all.  And his "crimes" were called "boners".  The version from the TV show was closest to his original incarnation -- a purple-suited ass.  The vile foil who truly challenges the Batman is a creation of the 80s, I believe.

The Joker was really only very light in the 50s and 60s, when all of Batman was pretty light anyway.

In the first appearances of The Joker he was pretty dark and ominous. The debut Joker story back in like 1940 or some shit was Batman trying to stop The Joker from murdering prominent Gotham citizens.

Around the same time that Batman got really campy and the Bat-family included Ace the Bathound and the Batmite was when Joker was essentially just a criminal prankster.

So ya, no, the TV version is absolutely nothing like the "original incarnation" but just like the version from the comics at the time. Basically like everything on that TV show was just like Batman comics had been for a while.

You could kind of make a case for the fact that The Joker hasn't always been the foil to Batman, that has been explored more in the past few decades than ever before, but that's just a result of his prominence and longevity as a Batman villain, and not really a result of some fresh and "new" tone from the 80s that's actually about 60 years old.
Title: Re: The Dark Knight (SPOILERS START ON PAGE 3)
Post by: Jimmy the Squid on 14 Aug 2008, 07:42
I think the Joker's longevity as a villain comes down to the fact that as a dude who is totally without superpowers he still manages to convey a certain level of creepiness. Even if he's just creating criminal pranks the fact that there is an evil clown running around the city pretty much doing whatever he wants is kind of a freaky thought. Even when he was campy he was incredibly threatening if you read him from the perspective of what he is capable of actually doing.
Title: Re: The Dark Knight (SPOILERS START ON PAGE 3)
Post by: JediBendu on 14 Aug 2008, 07:59
Exactly. The Joker is such a great villain because he could do anything at anytime and for any reason.
Title: Re: The Dark Knight (SPOILERS START ON PAGE 3)
Post by: Jimmy the Squid on 14 Aug 2008, 18:23
Going to the IMAX tomorrow night with Est and Eris to see this again.

Rad.
Title: Re: The Dark Knight (SPOILERS START ON PAGE 3)
Post by: Blue Kitty on 15 Aug 2008, 23:38
And now, it is once again time for random speculation

(http://img171.imageshack.us/img171/4420/speculationna0.jpg)

indeed
Title: Re: The Dark Knight (SPOILERS START ON PAGE 3)
Post by: Ozymandias on 15 Aug 2008, 23:52
Damn, some people on the internets are talented.
Title: Re: The Dark Knight (SPOILERS START ON PAGE 3)
Post by: Tom on 16 Aug 2008, 00:01
I wish I was.
Title: Re: The Dark Knight (SPOILERS START ON PAGE 3)
Post by: imagist42 on 16 Aug 2008, 01:02
Oh God that has me salivating.

Also I loved this movie (although I won't even begin to say it's my all time favorite), but I really felt like it should have been two movies instead. Not because I wanted Two-Face to have his own movie (and in fact, I think his whole progression works perfectly in tune with Joker's, being one who's calculative and yet, ultimately, a servant of chaos, Joker trying to use him to show people who they really can be underneath and whatnot) but because even at two and a half hours the entire movie felt rushed. As others have said, the gaps between scenes are sometimes too much of a stretch (especially after Joker pushes Rachel out the window and Batman jumps after her, there is simply no logical progression in my head that leads from that to the next scene without some important action stopping Joker from turning the place inside-out looking for Dent), and I don't know if anyone else sensed this but I felt that almost every single line in the movie was delivered in a very hurried manner. It was as if they got the lines down pat and then the Nolans said "okay now I need you to do that twice as fast, we're short on time." There were almost no pauses in conversations and no downtime between important sequences except for the too often-used "let's build obvious suspense" scenes with that absolutely annoying sound that's (as best I can tell) a cross between awful chords on poor string samples and nails on a chalkboard. I just would have liked better pacing, particularly at the beginning of the movie (more Joker exposition less hilarious Hong Kong hi-jinks please) and as Dent transforms (for lack of a better word) into Two-Face. Someone speculated that there must be a three- or four-hour cut of this movie out there? I almost would have taken it ending at two hours with Joker driving the cop car into the night and Dent in a hospital bed, then picking up again with more time invested in both Dent and Bruce (Jesus Christ does the man not care that the woman he loved and thought loved him just died? He had like six seconds of grief) coming to grips with what has happened, and Joker continuing to attempt smaller "social experiments," growing more and more frustrated as they continue to fail (the people still looking up to their White Knight, who they idealize as some kind of martyr, calling for him to return and finish the fight for their city) until he is finally driven to unleashing Two-Face on the streets and pulling the boat incident.

Oh why oh why did I just spend so long typing all this out I should just go to bed now...
Title: Re: The Dark Knight (SPOILERS START ON PAGE 3)
Post by: Jimmy the Squid on 16 Aug 2008, 07:43
I just saw the film again at the IMAX. It was really great and I can't wait for the next one, hopefully they won't use the Riddler and they'll go for a better villain like Bane or something. Or maybe, as Est suggested after we got out of the theatre, that because Ledger won't be able to do the Joker again they actually will revive Harvey Two Face which is what I'm hoping for. He's too good a villain to let him be killed off like that.
Title: Re: The Dark Knight (SPOILERS START ON PAGE 3)
Post by: Faker on 16 Aug 2008, 08:45
Love that Dark Knight Returns poster, although I'd prefer that particular title was reserved for an adaptation of the Miller graphic novel.

I'd quite like to see a Nolan take on the Riddler, but hell, my faith in Nolan is such that they could name the most ridiculous villain from the rogues gallery, and I wouldn't worry cause I'm sure they could reinterpret as something kick-ass.

Also not sure if anyone else has mentioned this, but the batman that never begun (http://io9.com/5035704/joss-whedons-batman-movie-that-never-was).

Sounds potentially brilliant. A new villain, opens the story out with even the hardcore fans unsure of what could happen (although possibly bitching about something new being featured ahead of their own favorite). A plot set in Arkham Asylum, just has loads of potential for all kinds of dark creepiness, with Batman off home territory to a certain degree, forced to fight on the villains turf.
Title: Re: The Dark Knight (SPOILERS START ON PAGE 3)
Post by: Tom on 16 Aug 2008, 15:12
I'd love if we had a Nolan-Whedon team up. Give Batman a reason to be in Arkham, i.e. visiting a friend, and then he can run into the some more of the Asylum's inmates.
Title: Re: The Dark Knight (SPOILERS START ON PAGE 3)
Post by: KvP on 16 Aug 2008, 20:26
Actually that sounds just about exactly like the Batman game they're making.
Title: Re: The Dark Knight (SPOILERS START ON PAGE 3)
Post by: Ozymandias on 16 Aug 2008, 20:36
Yeah, Batman: Arkham Asylum sounds decent, actually. It'd be neat if a good DC game came out one of these days.
Title: Re: The Dark Knight (SPOILERS START ON PAGE 3)
Post by: Jackie Blue on 16 Aug 2008, 21:36
The NES Batman game was good.

Title: Re: The Dark Knight (SPOILERS START ON PAGE 3)
Post by: Scandanavian War Machine on 16 Aug 2008, 21:57
i am surprisingly excited for that Arkham Asylum game. there was a decent-sized spread about it in the new Game Informer and man, it sounds rad.
Title: Re: The Dark Knight (SPOILERS START ON PAGE 3)
Post by: Storm Rider on 16 Aug 2008, 23:22
It'd be the first decent Eidos game in a while, too.
Title: Re: The Dark Knight (SPOILERS START ON PAGE 3)
Post by: britMonster on 18 Aug 2008, 12:40
Hmmmm, did Batman's flip really end up lightside up? That doesn't make much sense, since he explicitly states his deal to the Joker in the hospital, and every flip up until that point fits that paradigm (though you don't see Ramirez's result)

He wasn't flipping it over on his hand. It landed charred side up when he shot batman. It landed good side up when he didn't shoot himself. He caught it in his hand and went with that result.

Hoffman is around 5'10, but they could make him look shorter. But I agree with Tommy, in Capote it was a bit weird and didn't completely work. Besides, Elijah Woods is 5'6 and I'm sure it's easier to make him appear to be much shorter, since most of the other actors in LotR were taller than he was anyways. But they did it with John Rhys-Davies and he's 6'1. He was rather convincing.

They had Elijah stand in a hole or something when they weren't showing his feet.
Title: Re: The Dark Knight (SPOILERS START ON PAGE 3)
Post by: Sylens21 on 18 Aug 2008, 13:42
Wait, what?  Arkham Asylum game?

Like, based on the graphic novel of the same name?  Or completely original idea?  Either way, I just became excited again.

Too much excitement in one day might make me combust, though.  Gotta tone it down.
Title: Re: The Dark Knight (SPOILERS START ON PAGE 3)
Post by: Ozymandias on 18 Aug 2008, 14:00
Both.

I was reading the Game Informer article about it yesterday, and it sounds really great.

It's heavily based on the various Arkham Asylum comics(including A Serious House on Serious Earth) about the history of the place and the various people inside it, but the story itself is completely original (and being written by Paul Dini), about the Joker intentionally getting sent to Arkham, breaking free, and unleashing Batman's entire rogues gallery upon him as he tries to get to something hidden deep inside the asylum. They teased that they're going to get the Batman: TAS cast for the voice acting. It uses an open world system similar to a Metroid or Castlevania game, instead of a GTA, taking place entirely in the asylum. The gameplay sounds really inspired and Batman-y. Most of the puzzles require detective work and the use of gadgets and such to find clues, the combat has loads of options to play through the game, opting for using gadgets, skulking in the shadows and taking thugs out quickly, or just going one-on-one against them and beating the crap out of them.
Title: Re: The Dark Knight (SPOILERS START ON PAGE 3)
Post by: Sylens21 on 18 Aug 2008, 15:31
[nerdgasm]Hurrrrrr[/nerdgasm]
Title: Re: The Dark Knight (SPOILERS START ON PAGE 3)
Post by: Scandanavian War Machine on 18 Aug 2008, 15:41
yeah, pretty much.
Title: Re: The Dark Knight (SPOILERS START ON PAGE 3)
Post by: KvP on 18 Aug 2008, 15:57
It sounds like Condemned. If it turns out like that game I'm going to end up seriously bored.
Title: Re: The Dark Knight (SPOILERS START ON PAGE 3)
Post by: Jackie Blue on 18 Aug 2008, 16:20
From reading the article, it sounds like Condemned only good instead of kind of crappy.
Title: Re: The Dark Knight (SPOILERS START ON PAGE 3)
Post by: KvP on 18 Aug 2008, 17:06
I don't know, I think the best outcome would be for it to be totally unlike Condemned in every way except that you can make Batman slam Jagermeister and throw the bottles at people.

The comparison that's been thrown around the most so far is Chronicles of Riddick: Escape From Butcher Bay aka Chronicles of Riddick: The Only Good Licensed Game to Come Out Since Goldeneye and the Only Licensed Game That's Vastly Superior to it's Source Material. As far as FPSes go that was a pretty creative little game, even if it was a bit harsh on the eyes.

Definite buy if they get the Animated Series VAs, though. Mark Hamill and Ron Perlman? I do believe my head is getting light.
Title: Re: The Dark Knight (SPOILERS START ON PAGE 3)
Post by: J-cob9000 on 18 Aug 2008, 17:34
I'm going to completely ignore you all and say this.

I'm going to see it again tomorrow.
yay.
Title: Re: The Dark Knight (SPOILERS START ON PAGE 3)
Post by: öde on 18 Aug 2008, 21:16
I'm going to completely ignore you all

Then why are you posting on the forum? Talking and not listening doesn't make a community.
Title: Re: The Dark Knight (SPOILERS START ON PAGE 3)
Post by: Jimmy the Squid on 18 Aug 2008, 23:09
It's no good man, he's just going to ignore you.
Title: Re: The Dark Knight (SPOILERS START ON PAGE 3)
Post by: 0bsessions on 19 Aug 2008, 06:56
The comparison that's been thrown around the most so far is Chronicles of Riddick: Escape From Butcher Bay aka Chronicles of Riddick: The Only Good Licensed Game to Come Out Since Goldeneye and the Only Licensed Game That's Vastly Superior to it's Source Material

Man, that is way untrue. The vast majority of Star Wars games to come out since Dark Forces have ranged from good to excellent with some crap thrown in and X-Men Legends/Marvel Ultimate Alliance, Ultimate Spider-Man and Hulk: Ultimate Destruction were all great.
Title: Re: The Dark Knight (SPOILERS START ON PAGE 3)
Post by: KvP on 19 Aug 2008, 07:52
Of course when I say "licensed" here I mean "tie-in", which none of those really are (it depends on which Star Wars games you're talking about, but the games having to directly do with the movies have been mediocre at best.) The Marvel games seemed to be mostly derivative of the comics rather than the films.
Title: Re: The Dark Knight (SPOILERS START ON PAGE 3)
Post by: Scarychips on 19 Aug 2008, 08:36
You're forgetting the Lego Star Wars. Those were good.
Title: Re: The Dark Knight (SPOILERS START ON PAGE 3)
Post by: KvP on 19 Aug 2008, 08:42
They were good, for being incorporeal.
Title: Re: The Dark Knight (SPOILERS START ON PAGE 3)
Post by: 0bsessions on 19 Aug 2008, 08:48
Licensed and tie-in are two very different things, Johny, you can't really fault my statement based upon your miswording.

Though if we'd like to go just movie tie-in games, Spider-Man 2 was pretty excellent.
Title: Re: The Dark Knight (SPOILERS START ON PAGE 3)
Post by: KvP on 19 Aug 2008, 08:57
You're right, I wasn't very careful with my wording.

The Spiderman games were pretty good, I suppose, up until 3, which seemed to be typical tie-in fare.
Title: Re: The Dark Knight (SPOILERS START ON PAGE 3)
Post by: Surgoshan on 19 Aug 2008, 19:01
I played the first spider-man game.  I still have it.  It's dreck. 

The second game is video game gold.  As far as I'm concerned, it's perfectly executed.

I've not played the third, but I hear it follows the path of the second and that its flaws are all due to being rushed to coincide with the movie (camera problems and etc that could have been dealt with had their been more thorough testing, I think).

In other words, you're pretty much right.
Title: Re: The Dark Knight (SPOILERS START ON PAGE 3)
Post by: Dissy on 20 Aug 2008, 14:08
So, am I the only person to hate the Spidey games and like Rise of Sin Tzu?
Title: Re: The Dark Knight (SPOILERS START ON PAGE 3)
Post by: sean on 20 Aug 2008, 14:20
No, the first Spider-Man game was pretty bad.

Also, is dreck good or bad?
Title: Re: The Dark Knight (SPOILERS START ON PAGE 3)
Post by: KvP on 20 Aug 2008, 14:35
bad.
Title: Re: The Dark Knight (SPOILERS START ON PAGE 3)
Post by: Blue Kitty on 20 Aug 2008, 17:06
I liked the first Spidey game, loved the fact that you could also play as the Green Goblin.  Loved the second, played the hell out of it and beat everything in it.  Hated the third one, wouldn't even get past the 1st stage I disliked it so much.

The one I love the most was Ultimate Spider-man.  It was pretty much the second one with a graphical update and some what followed the plot of the Ultimate Spider-man comics (which Bendis is now doing in the comics).
Title: Re: The Dark Knight (SPOILERS START ON PAGE 3)
Post by: Sylens21 on 20 Aug 2008, 23:05
I could not stand Ultimate Spider-Man, both the game and the comics.  They changed way too much stuff, and a lot of it doesn't make any sense.  I realize the Ultimates universe is different than the regualr Marvel universe, but come on, the Venom symbiote was created in a lab??  Peter Parker was Carnage?  That was way too much liberty right there.

However, I have to agree, Spider-Man 2 was the best one in the series.  And Spider-man 3 is alright if it's on the Wii.  The swinging parts, anyway.  I still haven't finished it, though.  Couldn't bring myself to.

Speaking of Spider-Man games...

(http://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k294/Sylens/cleatus.jpg)
Title: Re: The Dark Knight (SPOILERS START ON PAGE 3)
Post by: Ozymandias on 21 Aug 2008, 00:48
There is nothing about Carnage that ever deserves enough thought to be angry that they changed his backstory ever.

The only emotions that are acceptable about Carnage are a general apathy or mild disgust at that era of comics.
Title: Re: The Dark Knight (SPOILERS START ON PAGE 3)
Post by: Tom on 21 Aug 2008, 00:56
But things were just so edgy then. :-D
Title: Re: The Dark Knight (SPOILERS START ON PAGE 3)
Post by: carrotosaurus on 21 Aug 2008, 05:52
Edgy, just like the entire 2099 universe.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v299/partyongarth/2099Cling.jpg)

Title: Re: The Dark Knight (SPOILERS START ON PAGE 3)
Post by: 0bsessions on 21 Aug 2008, 06:57
Man. That's just nuts. Ultimate Spider-Man is the best Spider-Man since the seventies and probably consistently the best long-running superhero comic in general since its inception. Comes part and parcel with a single writer sticking with it for close to 150 issues now, though (Which is pretty much completely unheard of these days).

But seriously. You hate the liberties? Man, the liberties are why it's so great. Spider-Man dealing with aliens was retarded. Absolutely retarded. That's why Venom and Carnage were idiotic characters. The changes they made actually made it vaguely interesting. Not to mention, what exactly were they supposed to do? Re-tell twenty year old comics? That would be kind of a lot of stupid, considering the comic it'd be retelling were pretty shit to begin with.
Title: Re: The Dark Knight (SPOILERS START ON PAGE 3)
Post by: johnny5 on 21 Aug 2008, 08:18
i only have a few collected editions of ultimate spiderman but i generally enjoy them. i just don't like the art - too many talking heads. putting them in hs was a good move although their idea of highschool is still a bit off
Title: Re: The Dark Knight (SPOILERS START ON PAGE 3)
Post by: Sylens21 on 21 Aug 2008, 08:53
I do like the HS thing, but everything else they did with the series just seems wrong.  It's like what they did with the third movie.  Emo Peter, scrawny Venom, no mo' MJ?  I guess maybe I'm just a sucker for the original stuff, though I do appreciate some new ideas.  I just don't like when my favorite series are molested like a creepy uncle's niece.
Title: Re: The Dark Knight (SPOILERS START ON PAGE 3)
Post by: ALoveSupreme on 21 Aug 2008, 10:11
Not to step into a conversation (and hopefully this hasn't already been covered... I wasn't terribly thrilled at the idea of scrolling through 8 pages of conversation), but I just put in a vote for "other" on the villians list. 

One, I read or heard that Christopher Nolan wasn't interested in pursuing a villian that has already been portrayed in a previous film.  A friend was telling me about the character Black Mask.  The concept of the character seems to fit with the darker tone the franchise is going for, and he seems to be a bit of a parallel to Bruce's character as far as wealth and business sense goes.  I'm not entirely familiar with Black Mask but what I read it seems pretty cool (kidnappings, a mask made from his parent's coffin!). 

Just thought I'd throw two cents in.
Title: Re: The Dark Knight (SPOILERS START ON PAGE 3)
Post by: Blue Kitty on 21 Aug 2008, 17:06
Edgy, just like the entire 2099 universe.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v299/partyongarth/2099Cling.jpg)

Man, don't knock Miguel, he is by far my favorite Spider-man.  I was psyched when I learned he joined the Exiles, but they seem to have gotten rid of him.
Title: Re: The Dark Knight (SPOILERS START ON PAGE 3)
Post by: carrotosaurus on 22 Aug 2008, 06:20
Wasn't knocking it, along with Hulk 2099 and Doom 2099, those were really awesome books. Just a little too over the top sometimes. The early 90s was a great time for Marvel.
Title: Re: The Dark Knight (SPOILERS START ON PAGE 3)
Post by: 0bsessions on 22 Aug 2008, 07:25
Early nineties Marvel was hit and miss. While the X-Men franchise was at a bit of a peak and 2099 was well received, most everything else was in the shitter. The Avengers were meh, Spider-Man was well on its way to the worst it's ever been (And hopefully ever will be) and the Fantastic Four kept getting more and more idiotic.
Title: Re: The Dark Knight (SPOILERS START ON PAGE 3)
Post by: Scandanavian War Machine on 22 Aug 2008, 08:49
i actually liked Spiderman 2099. that was back when i still read comics and it was pretty interesting and definitely unique.

the suit made of nanobots? my adolescent mind swooned at the idea.
Title: Re: The Dark Knight (SPOILERS START ON PAGE 3)
Post by: Mad Cat on 22 Aug 2008, 13:54
For the next Batman movie villains, how about a team up of Edward Nygma and Temple Fugate? The Riddler x Clock King. Maybe throw Clayface in there just because he's never been seen in the Batman movies yet, and I think they could do a lot of great SFX with him on screen.
Title: Re: The Dark Knight (SPOILERS START ON PAGE 3)
Post by: maxusy3k on 25 Aug 2008, 08:42
Terrifying speculation (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/celebritynews/2612613/Cher-to-play-Catwoman-in-next-Batman-film.html) about the new movie.

At least, I hope / assume it's just speculation.
Title: Re: The Dark Knight (SPOILERS START ON PAGE 3)
Post by: 0bsessions on 25 Aug 2008, 08:46
Sounds like a load of bullshit for me. For one, Depp and a third movie are both things that have never been confirmed and this one's claiming they have.

Beyond that, I wouldn't take much thought on it, anyway. I remember being filled with trepidation when I heard the dude from The Order was going to be playing the Joker.
Title: Re: The Dark Knight (SPOILERS START ON PAGE 3)
Post by: Faker on 25 Aug 2008, 09:52
Yeah, I call shenanigans on that story, and I really don't see "The Caped Crusader" as the title, doesn't really fit in with Nolans take on Batman.
Title: Re: The Dark Knight (SPOILERS START ON PAGE 3)
Post by: johnny5 on 25 Aug 2008, 09:56
it might be dark and terrifying if they made her catwoman but made her take off her wigs. and then of course give her a guy bulge. (i'm saying she's a man, man)
Title: Re: The Dark Knight (SPOILERS START ON PAGE 3)
Post by: Johnny C on 25 Aug 2008, 12:18
Why does everyone hate Venom and Carnage and drool like idiots over Bane, I don't fucking get it.
Title: Re: The Dark Knight (SPOILERS START ON PAGE 3)
Post by: Scandanavian War Machine on 25 Aug 2008, 12:23
i don't get it either.

i always liked Venom and, yes, even Carnage. he was an escaped lunatic with an alien symbiote, for godssakes. what's cooler?
Title: Re: The Dark Knight (SPOILERS START ON PAGE 3)
Post by: 0bsessions on 25 Aug 2008, 12:51
Well, considering that I'm the only one primarily falling under both opinions, I'll assume that that remark was made at me:

Johnny, I've been reading comic books for the better part of sixteen years now. That's a full two thirds of my life. In that time, I've found very few characters who were more a shallow, two-dimensional cliche of the time in which they were created. As much as characters like Wolverine and Punisher became cliches in the fact that many characters emulated them and thus the genre centered around rip-offs and homages to them, Carnage was a character who was created to reflect the popular effect of the time. There is literally no substance to him. He is merely a batshit guy with super powers. There have been precious few additions to the character that make him anything more than that. He is a character that has been around for over fifteen years and that's still all he is, a pale impersonation of the Joker and Venom. He fails to grow as a character because the template he was created upon had little to no room for development. There's a reason that, for all his notoriety, he's only ever had one real major storyline involvement, albeit a pretty remarkably terrible one that was actually outdone by a video game tie-in. Since Maximum Carnage, Carnage has barely been a presence of consequence.

Venom, well, he at least had some vague potential. The original idea was to create a kind of flip side to Spider-Man. This was a relatively new idea at the time. Unfortunately, Marvel botched it all to Hell. From his inception, he was a raving moron who hated Spider-Man because he caught a serial killer that ended up proving a story he covered to be false. He was incredibly powerful and he came out of nowhere to suddenly start beating on Spider-Man and going after him mercilessly for no good reason in some utter garbage deus ex bullshit. The initial idea behind the concept was for the Venom symbiote to be the real antagonist, jumping from host to host trying to kill or re-merge with Spider-Man after their separation and that could've been entertaining and sustainable. Unfortunately, Marvel blew the whole thing. He was too popular, so they decided to stick with Brock and turn him into essentially the Punisher with spider powers, again, a cliched product of the times. Over recent years, some depth has been added to Brock, but this didn't occur until right before Brock and Venom were separated, and Venom's new host is essentially a rerun of Carnage (He is currently bonded to Mac Gargan, formerly known as Scorpion). In effect, Brock has regained some semblance of interest, but Venom is still a pile of shit.

Bane was similar to Venom in his inception, but DC actually stuck to their guns on it in a rather ballsy manner. Bane reveled in his simplicity, while having some inner depth. Bane was a true threat to Batman that DC had been building for a while. He was a behind the scenes presence that had been working his way into the Gotham scene for a while before Knightfall occurred. He was blended into Batman's rogues gallery and set up naturally as an extreme threat, compared to Venom being shoehorned into the Spider-Man franchise. He was a much denser and much more enjoyable character.

I like my villains with depth or at least a great character. Magneto is an all time great. He's not some cheap thug, he wants to subjugate humanity because he feels they'll round his people up and slaughter them like humans did to his own family (He was a Jewish boy in Auschwitz).

I'll admit, something could come along and change my mind about some shitty characters. I'm of the mind that there's no such thing as an inherently terrible character, as a great writer could always come along and make something out of them (Such as Magneto, who began life as a total joke), but as yet, Venom has had very little forward movement and Carnage is, to this day, a joke who happened to look cool.
Title: Re: The Dark Knight (SPOILERS START ON PAGE 3)
Post by: KvP on 25 Aug 2008, 12:54
*blah, long post is long

General antipathy for Todd McFarlane and his Character With Many Slightly Varying Faces (Venom, Carnage, Spawn, I guess you could throw Necrid in there if you wanted to, there's probably more) I would imagine. Venom and Carnage appealed to me when I was 8 because they looked cool, Carnage especially, and Venom was an "anti-hero" who could kill people and that was cool I guess, but nothing about them sang "great character" to me. They haven't aged well.
Title: Re: The Dark Knight (SPOILERS START ON PAGE 3)
Post by: 0bsessions on 25 Aug 2008, 13:07
McFarlane actually had shit all to do with Carnage and very little to do with the creation of Venom. The former was created by David Michelinie and designed by Mark Bagley, Venom was created, overall, by Michelinie and was merely aesthetically designed by McFarlane (And even that was a pretty worthless contribution, he was basically just taking a prior design and following Michelinie's direction of making him big and then he added teeth and a long tongue). The only reason Venom ever took off was because he was associated with McFarlane, who was very hot at the time, and the only reason Carnage took off was because of his relation to Venom.

And, as you note John, the anti-hero thing played a big part. Teens ate up the anti-hero angle because it seemed tough. The popularity of Wolverine led to this trend and Venom was one of the bigger examples of what was wrong with it. It resulted in a ton of overall lame characters who became oversaturated because teens ate up the "hero who kills" mentality. Venom had the fortune of being one of the early adopters to this bandwagon. If he'd debuted maybe two years later than he did, he would've sunk into obscurity with the rest of the failed attempts to capitalize on the fad.
Title: Re: The Dark Knight (SPOILERS START ON PAGE 3)
Post by: Johnny C on 25 Aug 2008, 15:25
I wasn't saying I didn't think that Carnage, Venom or their shitspawn weren't atrocious villains, so that remark wasn't directed squarely at you. It's just that Bane was shitty from the beginning.

Pictures can sum up how I feel better than words can though.

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/c1/Batman497.png)
Title: Re: The Dark Knight (SPOILERS START ON PAGE 3)
Post by: Johnny C on 25 Aug 2008, 15:27
Seriously if a picture says a thousand words that one just says X-TREME a thousand times.
Title: Re: The Dark Knight (SPOILERS START ON PAGE 3)
Post by: RobbieOC on 25 Aug 2008, 15:58
But man, look at those neck muscles! He's so awesome!

Title: Re: The Dark Knight (SPOILERS START ON PAGE 3)
Post by: Johnny C on 25 Aug 2008, 16:52
I went to get a smoothie and return a film, and while I was doing that I came up with some ways to make Bane more x-treme.

Title: Re: The Dark Knight (SPOILERS START ON PAGE 3)
Post by: Scandanavian War Machine on 25 Aug 2008, 16:54
why is there a t-rex in the background of that picture?
Title: Re: The Dark Knight (SPOILERS START ON PAGE 3)
Post by: Blue Kitty on 25 Aug 2008, 17:16
Cause it is set in the Bat Cave.

What the hell is up with Mysterio now anyway?  He killed himself in Daredevil, now he is back, and then there are two guys running around as him.  One from the Evil That Men Do, and the other who decided to become his successor.  What the hell?
Title: Re: The Dark Knight (SPOILERS START ON PAGE 3)
Post by: sean on 25 Aug 2008, 17:37
...

I mean, I am not a comic book reader, but why the hell would there be a T-Rex in the bat cave? That makes no sense.
Title: Re: The Dark Knight (SPOILERS START ON PAGE 3)
Post by: KvP on 25 Aug 2008, 17:42
Seriously if a picture says a thousand words that one just says X-TREME a thousand times.
I wish to commend you for your keen observation that comic book villains are ridiculous.
Title: Re: The Dark Knight (SPOILERS START ON PAGE 3)
Post by: Johnny C on 25 Aug 2008, 18:03
...

I mean, I am not a comic book reader, but why the hell would there be a T-Rex in the bat cave? That makes no sense.

I assume it's part of his Rogue's Gallery Museum or what have you in the Batcave but really it just makes it more kickin' rad don't you think?

Gnarly!!!!!!
Title: Re: The Dark Knight (SPOILERS START ON PAGE 3)
Post by: Alex C on 25 Aug 2008, 18:24
I'm with Johnny C on this one. Knightfall is the comic book equivalent of Prince of Persia II. To paraphrase Zero Punctuation, they still went and stuck their dick in the pudding when they chose that cover and aesthetic. It doesn't matter how finely tuned the underpinnings are if someone can't even approach your product without feeling like a collossal tool.
Title: Re: The Dark Knight (SPOILERS START ON PAGE 3)
Post by: KvP on 25 Aug 2008, 18:25
Man fuck you, The Shadow and the Flame was better than the first.
Title: Re: The Dark Knight (SPOILERS START ON PAGE 3)
Post by: Alex C on 25 Aug 2008, 18:28
Fine, fine. It's like PoP:tWW. Point stands.
Title: Re: The Dark Knight (SPOILERS START ON PAGE 3)
Post by: 0bsessions on 25 Aug 2008, 19:01
Johnny, I shit you not, most of those jokes you made are real supervillains.

BK, the original Mysterio, Quentin Beck, is dead. He's the one featured in that Daredevil arc. The Mysterio who appeared for a while after that was his cousin or some such nonsense (In reality, the cousin angle was a hastily thrown together explanation for an editorial gaffe where Mysterio showed up in Spider-Man like two months after killing himself in Daredevil). The third Mysterio is the dude from Evil That Men Do.

All three actually showed up in a Civil War tie-in of Friendly Neighborhood Spider-Man where the ETMD Mysterio took over the school Parker worked in, the cousin of Beck Mysterio appeared to fight the so-called imposter and the original showed up as a kind of zombie thing.
Title: Re: The Dark Knight (SPOILERS START ON PAGE 3)
Post by: Blue Kitty on 25 Aug 2008, 19:45
I know, that was what confused the hell out of me.
Title: Re: The Dark Knight (SPOILERS START ON PAGE 3)
Post by: Dissy on 26 Aug 2008, 14:56
All three actually showed up in a Civil War tie-in of Friendly Neighborhood Spider-Man where the ETMD Mysterio took over the school Parker worked in, the cousin of Beck Mysterio appeared to fight the so-called imposter and the original showed up as a kind of zombie thing.

Yes, but is Beck really dead then?  Or was it all a dream, or perhaps a new fourth Mysterio?  [sarcarsm]DRAMA![/sarcasm]

Actually, Bane was always meant as an Anti-Batman, and they have handled him well thus far.  Bane being this giant muscle-looking dude was the only flaw with him.  Although, I thought Cane was better, and his angle probably would fit into Nolan's universe better, League of Shadows already introduced, revenge for killing Ra's.  He could have the funding to send several other villians (like Deathshot, Killer Croc Versiom 1.0, etc) after Bats, while trying to finish the job Bats originally was supposed to do fro the League.
Title: Re: The Dark Knight (SPOILERS START ON PAGE 3)
Post by: axerton on 30 Aug 2008, 04:20
Well I finally got around to seeing The Dark Knight. Firstly, who the fuck takes little kids to see a film like this? Onto things that actually have to do with the film. Overall I thought it was great, not amazingly, fantastically, Oh-my-god-spontaneous-orgasm great, just great. I'm really glad they got rid of twoface at the end, just because it means I wont have to put up with looking at that CGI any more, that was the only thing in the entire film that broke my suspension of disbelief. Though I had a bit of trouble understanding why Batman's sonar vision was able to help him see that entire abandoned building, I mean what was there a mobile phone straightly placed in every room so that he could see?

Probably my favorite bits of the film were the pencil trick, and "The first hit should never go to the head, it makes them all fuzzy and they don't feel the next couple of hits."

As for any sequels I would really like something where the police and the government are the main villains, but I can't really see how that would have any real plot, or satisfactory conclusion.

What I see as far more likely is that being a fugitive is so difficult that Wayne has to retire the batsuit, and this either leads to such a rise in general crime rates that they have to make a request for batman to come back, though this might be a little to Hancock-esk, or the city lives normally until a new main villain appears causing batman to have to come out of retirement and fight both the police and the new villain.

either that or Gordon's continued support of batman is exposed and he is fired, to be replaced by someone completely bent, possibly the girl from this one, who twoface let live. 
Title: Re: The Dark Knight (SPOILERS START ON PAGE 3)
Post by: Blue Kitty on 04 Sep 2008, 17:43
I know it is sort of old hat now, but Aaron Eckhart has come out to say that Harvey Dent/Two Face is dead.

Quote
"I asked Chris that question. He goes, 'You're dead.' Before I could even get the question out of my mouth, 'Hey Chris, am I...' 'You're dead.' "
Title: Re: The Dark Knight (SPOILERS START ON PAGE 3)
Post by: ampersandwitch on 04 Sep 2008, 18:51
What does he know
Title: Re: The Dark Knight (SPOILERS START ON PAGE 3)
Post by: Surgoshan on 04 Sep 2008, 19:32
Seriously.   Kirsten Dunst thinks Spider-man* should die and MJ should have his genetically altered babies.

*  Comma the amazing.
Title: Re: The Dark Knight (SPOILERS START ON PAGE 3)
Post by: 0bsessions on 04 Sep 2008, 19:38
For the record, it's not like Eckhart came out and decided this. Upon attempting to ask Nolan about Two Face, Nolan immediately cut the guy off and said "No, he's dead. Not coming back. Dead. Dead forever."

If I were to believe that from anyone, it'd be Nolan.
Title: Re: The Dark Knight (SPOILERS START ON PAGE 3)
Post by: ampersandwitch on 04 Sep 2008, 19:39
Eckhart has the best judgement
Title: Re: The Dark Knight (SPOILERS START ON PAGE 3)
Post by: RedLion on 08 Sep 2008, 18:16
Michael Caine says (http://splashpage.mtv.com/2008/09/08/dark-knight-exclusive-michael-caine-says-johnny-depp-is-the-riddler-philip-seymour-hoffman-is-the-penguin/) it's going to be Depp playing The Riddler and P.S.H. playing The Penguin.
Title: Re: The Dark Knight (SPOILERS START ON PAGE 3)
Post by: KvP on 08 Sep 2008, 18:19
Ugh if it's true. Hopefully Nolan can rein in Depp. I don't need another Willy Wonka.
Title: Re: The Dark Knight (SPOILERS START ON PAGE 3)
Post by: CarrionMan on 08 Sep 2008, 18:22
I think Schwarzenegger should play Dr. Freeze again. Just for kicks.
Title: Re: The Dark Knight (SPOILERS START ON PAGE 3)
Post by: RedLion on 08 Sep 2008, 18:33
LETS KICK SOME ICE (http://fr.youtube.com/watch?v=VNaDZIrxh-0)
Title: Re: The Dark Knight (SPOILERS START ON PAGE 3)
Post by: Dimmukane on 08 Sep 2008, 19:40
That was just an executive who mouthed off to him...they're probably pushing Nolan to do something like that, but until I hear it as coming from Nolan himself, I won't believe any rumors.
Title: Re: The Dark Knight (SPOILERS START ON PAGE 3)
Post by: Surgoshan on 08 Sep 2008, 20:55
Quote
“When Christopher [Nolan] said we were going to do ‘The Dark Knight’ next, I didn’t what that meant in Batman terms,”

It's hard to take something seriously as a journalistic source when they produce dreck like that sentence.

I'm pretty sure they meant it to be:
Quote
“When Christopher [Nolan] said we were going to do ‘The Dark Knight’ next, I didn’t know what that meant in Batman terms,”

Seriously, don't they hire editors over there?  Okay, how about just proofreaders?  For shit's sake.
Title: Re: The Dark Knight (SPOILERS START ON PAGE 3)
Post by: Alex C on 08 Sep 2008, 23:19
Could be worse. My local newspaper once accidentally cut the word "victims" out of a story so the end of a sentence read something like "long history of supporting rape."
Title: Re: The Dark Knight (SPOILERS START ON PAGE 3)
Post by: Bayley on 09 Sep 2008, 13:46
Could be worse. My local newspaper once accidentally cut the word "victims" out of a story so the end of a sentence read something like "long history of supporting rape."


i lol'ed.
Title: Re: The Dark Knight (SPOILERS START ON PAGE 3)
Post by: Betagold on 11 Sep 2008, 14:12
I say we cast Jim Carrey as the riddler again.  Just for kicks.

Seriously, I really hope they don't cast Johnny Depp.
Title: Re: The Dark Knight (SPOILERS START ON PAGE 3)
Post by: TheFuriousWombat on 11 Sep 2008, 19:33
Depp as the Riddler is just so.....easy. It would be a bad choice because it would be blatant type-casting and therefore blatantly unoriginal and uninteresting. Depp's interpretation will surely be something we've seen a million times before from Johnny Depp. The great thing about Ledger's performance was that it was totally out of left field for him, which is part of the reason why it was so frightening/unsettling and compelling. Depp as the Riddler would lack that element completely and the whole time we'd be like, "oh look, it's Johnny Depp." As for Ledger, I was consistently like, "holy shit the Joker is terrifying and psychotic and really pretty mesmerizing." Topping Ledger is going to be nigh impossible and type casting someone for the next role is not the way to do it. Even if there wasn't some sort of pressure to top Ledger, Depp would still be a bad choice. I know you were joking, but I honestly think Jim Carey would be a better choice for the Riddler than Depp at this point. Carey at least has come into his own somewhat and made some very good movies and played something of a variety of roles. I'd pick him over Depp any day and if Nolan really does go with Depp, and I find it hard to believe he actually will, I'll be severally disappointed. 
Title: Re: The Dark Knight (SPOILERS START ON PAGE 3)
Post by: carrotosaurus on 12 Sep 2008, 07:54
I completely agree. Depp is the same character in everything. Also, I think the Riddler would be a mediocre villain choice.
Title: Re: The Dark Knight (SPOILERS START ON PAGE 3)
Post by: Alex C on 12 Sep 2008, 08:24
Um, what? I mean, I know this is all mostly in jest, but damn. Johnny Depp would be too big of a distraction for you because he's too distinctively Johnny Depp but this would be less of a problem with Jim Carrey? The same Jim Carrey who is mostly tly good at mugging, physical comedy and a schizoid send up of golly gee whiz innocence? That's not to rip on Carrey, by the way; he's excellent at choosing parts that play to his strengths, but I just find the idea that'd he'd be less distracting than Depp to be a bit of a stretch-- the guy's not exactly a chameleon. Eternal Sunshine was good and all, but it wasn't that big of a stretch for him either. Same with the Majestic, which was essentially a Capra homage. At least Depp has Gilbert Grape, Donnie Brasco (decent movie) and Blow (boring movie but not really Depp's fault) to give him a little breathing room from the kinds of parts he normally plays. Jim Carrey has, god help him, the Number 23, a movie I've never seen people enjoy without the MST3K treatment.

Anyway, neither Depp nor the Riddler would be my first choice, but if they went that route I could easily see it being a non-apocalyptic scenario depending on how they handled it.
Title: Re: The Dark Knight (SPOILERS START ON PAGE 3)
Post by: Dimmukane on 12 Sep 2008, 08:57
True story:  I was really burnt out after 4/20 (we played bong chess) and fell asleep during that movie.  I still knew what happened though, which is odd.
Title: Re: The Dark Knight (SPOILERS START ON PAGE 3)
Post by: TheFuriousWombat on 12 Sep 2008, 09:18
No one's complained about Philip Seymour Hoffman playing the Penguin yet. I think there's a reason for this. My theory: Because he would be awesome as the Penguin.
Title: Re: The Dark Knight (SPOILERS START ON PAGE 3)
Post by: Dimmukane on 12 Sep 2008, 09:23
People were talking about him being a penguin before Dark Knight even came out, actually.  Not the producers, mind you, just the fans trying to guess how Nolan would do it.
Title: Re: The Dark Knight (SPOILERS START ON PAGE 3)
Post by: carrotosaurus on 12 Sep 2008, 10:16
I think the important thing to keep in mind here is Depp hasn't had a unique role in ages, and every movie he's done in the last 5 or so years he's just been relying on his offbeat charm to get him through every role. Then again, he's not as bad as Hugh Grant.
Title: Re: The Dark Knight (SPOILERS START ON PAGE 3)
Post by: Scandanavian War Machine on 12 Sep 2008, 10:30
True story:  I was really burnt out after 4/20 (we played bong chess) and fell asleep during that movie.  I still knew what happened though, which is odd.

what is bong chess?!

I MUST KNOW
Title: Re: The Dark Knight (SPOILERS START ON PAGE 3)
Post by: Dimmukane on 12 Sep 2008, 10:42
It's when you take a couple ounces, a package of rolling papers, a 5-pack of Dutch Masters, duct tape, 15 people, and all the glass or Macgyver'd paraphernalia that those people own. 

1. Get everyone and everything together.
2. Have people start rolling joints and blunts and/or Macgyvering some more paraphernalia.
3. You make an 8x8 grid on the carpet/tarp with the duct tape.
4. The biggest pieces/bongs are the kings/queens, then the bishops, knights and rooks in that order.
5. Pawns can be whatever, but by this point if you haven't used up the blunts they're either bowls or joints.
6. The two people who contributed the most amount of plant are team captains, and get to pick two others to help them out.
7. When a piece is taken, it is lit by the team that took it, passed to the other team, and then around the circle of spectators.
8. When the game is over, the winning team starts the remaining pieces and passes them again to the other team and around to the spectators.
9. Order 12 Pizzas and watch The Sword in the Stone.

Side note: we had a 2.5 foot homemade bong, two gravity bongs, 3 1-footers, a zong, 7 or 8 blunts, 6 bowls, 1 bubbler, and the rest joints.  Afterwards we smoked some more (a friend of mine, who can be seen in one of the videos in the skateboard thread in ILF, had a quarter of Northern Lights) and just did whatever.
Title: Re: The Dark Knight (SPOILERS START ON PAGE 3)
Post by: Scandanavian War Machine on 12 Sep 2008, 11:03
whoa
Title: Re: The Dark Knight (SPOILERS START ON PAGE 3)
Post by: Dimmukane on 12 Sep 2008, 11:07
I should also add that we won.  In 20 moves or so, no less.
Title: Re: The Dark Knight (SPOILERS START ON PAGE 3)
Post by: TheFuriousWombat on 12 Sep 2008, 12:43
holy...
Title: Re: The Dark Knight (SPOILERS START ON PAGE 3)
Post by: Surgoshan on 12 Sep 2008, 16:56
I completely agree. Depp is the same character in everything. Also, I think the Riddler would be a mediocre villain choice.

Captain Jack Sparrow <> Raoul Duke (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raoul_Duke)

Check out fear and loathing.
Title: Re: The Dark Knight (SPOILERS START ON PAGE 3)
Post by: Tom on 12 Sep 2008, 17:32
Raoul Duke is infinitely better than Cap'n Jack.
Title: Re: The Dark Knight (SPOILERS START ON PAGE 3)
Post by: Dimmukane on 12 Sep 2008, 17:44
I think that's meant to signify 'not equal to'.
Title: Re: The Dark Knight (SPOILERS START ON PAGE 3)
Post by: Surgoshan on 12 Sep 2008, 18:28
That's what it means, yes.  My point was that Johnny Depp has played multiple characters.  Yes, he's played the same three characters in those three Disney movies.  And he's been given a lot of dark roles (Sweeney Todd, Sleepy Hollow, Edward Scissor Hands), but he hasn't always played the same character.  If you think he can only play one character, watch an episode of 21 Jump Street, jump to Fear and Loathing, then get high with Captain Jack*.  He's a damn fine actor.  Plus, he's really good.

*  Damn I'm good.  Get the link?  Get it?
Title: Re: The Dark Knight (SPOILERS START ON PAGE 3)
Post by: Dimmukane on 12 Sep 2008, 20:09
As long as that ridiculous leotard isn't involved, this could work.  I also kind of see Robert Carlyle being able to do this.
Title: Re: The Dark Knight (SPOILERS START ON PAGE 3)
Post by: johnny5 on 13 Sep 2008, 15:50
i seriously think we should just forget the riddler and penguin. use deadshot as a small character...wasn't there a batman storyline that involved him against some kind of corrupt mayor or something? that would be more realistic
Title: Re: The Dark Knight (SPOILERS START ON PAGE 3)
Post by: Surgoshan on 13 Sep 2008, 16:19
I think the riddler is a pretty obvious choice, actually.  Recast him as a PI brought in by the city to help catch the batman.
Title: Re: The Dark Knight (SPOILERS START ON PAGE 3)
Post by: Vendetagainst on 13 Sep 2008, 16:35
I think we need the Eggman and a mechanical spider if we want a really good film.