• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

The Dark Knight SPOILER THREAD

Status
Not open for further replies.
Linkzg said:
I'm intoxicated by how awesome Nolan is

I'm right there with you. It's like everything he says about movies and this series is spot on.

I thought that Nolan was lined up to do The Prisoner at some point, whether that be before or after he made the third Batman movie (assuming he does make the third Batman movie).
 
shagg_187 said:

Wait, only the BluRay version's getting a Batpod version? Phooey! Guess I'll have to buy it seperately down the road (still gotta buy the 1:18 Batmobile too at some point).

Here's a breakdown of what the different retail versions are in the US. http://www.slashfilm.com/2008/12/08/cool-stuff-dark-knight-dvdblu-ray-exclusives/

And a similiar breakdown for the Canadian retailers.

http://www.torontosun.com/entertainment/movies/2008/12/07/7659921-sun.html

The fact that there's a fullscreen version makes me laugh out loud.


Ninja99 said:
I wish TDK's special features were more in-depth, focused on the film's actors, characters, production, narrative themes, and significance to the rest of the Batman mythos. I couldn't care less about Batman's gadgets or episodes of "Gotham Cable's premier news program." (I mean really, did anyone at all walk out of the theater after seeing TDK and exclaim, "Wow, the gadgets fucking made that movie! Otherwise pretty much a train wreck.")

I want documentaries that give real insight into the process of making the film, into the people behind it, like Iron Man's fascinating seven-parter. (Hell, why not a tribute doc to Heath Ledger focusing on his invaluable cinematic contributions?) I want a commentary that does justice to the film, like Guillermo Del Toro's for Hellboy 2, in which the director shares his unique perspective, recounts relevant/funny/engaging anecdotes, and offers insight his creative process. I want to hear from the actors themselves about what drove their great performances, particularly Ledger's Joker. No doubt Christian Bale could offer tremendous insight into not only his own character but the rest of TDK's major players. He was present, after all, during the pivotal scenes between Batman and the Joker, and spent no insignificant amount of time with Aaron Eckhart. What incredible experiences those must have been. Why not draw on them for the BD/DVD?

It's simply Nolan's style...he wants to preserve some of the magic of film making, which I understand.

The DVDs of The Dark Knight come in a dizzying array of choices because of exclusive collectible packaging, depending on the version. But the extras are restrained. Nolan admitted he is wary of showing too much of how his films are made -- and not just because of the unique interest in Ledger.

"There is a real tension there for me," Nolan said in response to our question at the Q&A. Special effects "trickery" in early films was influenced by stage magicians, he said (and Nolan directed The Prestige, a 2006 period piece about magicians and their tricks).

"So there was very much a tradition of concealing things and not de-mystifying things and not spoiling things for the audience. I think that at the moment, with DVD in particular, in a funny sort of way we've swung too far in the other direction.

"There is so much information so instantly available about every aspect of how a film is made that I think we do risk, sometimes, taking out the magic of what a film needs to be for an audience to really appreciate it. Particularly when people are seeing a film for the first time.

"So, on my DVD releases, we've tried to strike a balance between giving people a product that they would be excited about in terms of the ancillary features -- the extras -- but not destroying the essence of what the movie is."

On all his films, Nolan said he routinely has arguments with his producers, including wife Emma Thomas, on how much making-of video he will allow others to shoot for DVD extras.

"I don't really like to do it and I was very grateful that Heath Ledger wouldn't allow it when he was performing. So I was able to use him as an excuse not to do it on those days (when Ledger was on set).

"So what remains of Heath's performance is really what he did for the camera -- as intended. I think there is something kind of wonderful about that."

http://lfpress.ca/newsstand/Today/SundayEnt/2008/12/07/7658486-sun.html
 
Heath was honoured in Australia for his performance as the Joker...hopefully it's the first of many.

Posthumous Award For Heath Ledger’s ‘The Dark Knight’
Submitted by Arun Gupta on Mon, 12/08/2008 - 12:39 Entertainment TNM Heath Ledger

The Australian Film Institute posthumously awarded Heath Ledger for his performance as the Joker in 'The Dark Knight', triumphing over other Australians like Eric Bana (The Other Boleyn Girl), Russell Crowe (American Gangster) and Jack Thompson (Leatherheads). Back in 2006, Ledger won the same award for his Oscar nominated performance in 'Brokeback Mountain'.

Ledger's immediate family i. e. Kim (father), Sally (mother) and Kate (sister), accepted the award from actor Michael Caton, as the A-list film and television crowd gave them a standing ovation. Fighting back tears, Kate Ledger voiced their emotions, saying: 'It's been without a doubt the most difficult year, losing such a loved family member. We are so proud of him and humbly accept this award on behalf of his beautiful daughter, who we will cherish forever.'

http://topnews.us/content/2669-posthumous-award-heath-ledger-s-dark-knight
 
Maybe Harley Quinn (Joker's "lover") could be in the next movie. She'll be none too happy with Batman.

Harley-tnba.jpg


And since she was close friends with Poison Ivy, she could be in it too.
 
Grimm Fandango said:
Maybe Harley Quinn (Joker's "lover") could be in the next movie. She'll be none too happy with Batman.

Harley-tnba.jpg


And since she was close friends with Poison Ivy, she could be in it too.

Oh wow.





Leave this shit to the professionals, OT.
 
Grimm Fandango said:
Maybe Harley Quinn (Joker's "lover") could be in the next movie. She'll be none too happy with Batman.

Harley-tnba.jpg


And since she was close friends with Poison Ivy, she could be in it too.

That could work but it would work a lot better with the Joker there.

If they do make a third batman it is not going to be good as the The Dark Knight. Especially since the internet will make it out to be the greatest movie of all time. If they do not make one it will be a great send off for these batman movies. Another thing I want to mention is that all the third book movies are usually not that good.
 
Instigator said:
Can't speak for Speed Racer, but Ironman was better than TDK.

Edit: Don't care about the other thread.

If it wasn't for the crappy ending, an argument could definitely be made for Iron Man. As it is, TDK was objectively better in every way except having Robert Downey motherfuckin' Junior.
 
Mr. Sam said:
If it wasn't for the crappy ending, an argument could definitely be made for Iron Man. As it is, TDK was objectively better in every way except having Robert Downey motherfuckin' Junior.

TDK had a crappier ending. People only remember Batman running from the police but not the whole borefest that was the showdown with Two-Face right before it. The whole Two-Face arc in itself was limited and unnecessary (interesting idea, but it feels like some of the extra fat they force onto most of those extended edition DVDs.

I have some reservations about the third arc of Ironman myself, but as a whole, the movie was just much more focused than TDK.
 
Instigator said:
TDK had a crappier ending. People only remember Batman running from the police but not the whole borefest that was the showdown with Two-Face right before it. The whole Two-Face arc in itself was limited and unnecessary (interesting idea, but it feels like some of the extra fat they force onto most of those extended edition DVDs.

I have some reservations about the third arc of Ironman myself, but as a whole, the movie was just much more focused than TDK.

I like you. I like you a lot.
 
Instigator said:
I have some reservations about the third arc of Ironman myself, but as a whole, the movie was just much more focused than TDK.

This is why I love you for your avatars, not necessarily for your opinion on movies. :P
 
Instigator said:
TDK had a crappier ending. People only remember Batman running from the police but not the whole borefest that was the showdown with Two-Face right before it. The whole Two-Face arc in itself was limited and unnecessary (interesting idea, but it feels like some of the extra fat they force onto most of those extended edition DVDs.

I have some reservations about the third arc of Ironman myself, but as a whole, the movie was just much more focused than TDK.

It was very necessary. It showed how Joker managed to corrupt Harvey Dent and return Gotham to what it once was. TDK isn't supposed to have a happy ending.
 
joshuagor44 said:
It was very necessary. It showed how Joker managed to corrupt Harvey Dent and return Gotham to what it once was. TDK isn't supposed to have a happy ending.

Then it did it badly. Either leave that for a sequel or do it more quickly if you stick to one movie for that particular story (trim the ferry sequence, for example, it's not like TDK didn't waste time elsewhere). It wasted a villain, Darth Maul style.
 
The DVDs of The Dark Knight come in a dizzying array of choices because of exclusive collectible packaging, depending on the version. But the extras are restrained. Nolan admitted he is wary of showing too much of how his films are made -- and not just because of the unique interest in Ledger.

"There is a real tension there for me," Nolan said in response to our question at the Q&A. Special effects "trickery" in early films was influenced by stage magicians, he said (and Nolan directed The Prestige, a 2006 period piece about magicians and their tricks).

"So there was very much a tradition of concealing things and not de-mystifying things and not spoiling things for the audience. I think that at the moment, with DVD in particular, in a funny sort of way we've swung too far in the other direction.

"There is so much information so instantly available about every aspect of how a film is made that I think we do risk, sometimes, taking out the magic of what a film needs to be for an audience to really appreciate it. Particularly when people are seeing a film for the first time.

"So, on my DVD releases, we've tried to strike a balance between giving people a product that they would be excited about in terms of the ancillary features -- the extras -- but not destroying the essence of what the movie is."

On all his films, Nolan said he routinely has arguments with his producers, including wife Emma Thomas, on how much making-of video he will allow others to shoot for DVD extras.

"I don't really like to do it and I was very grateful that Heath Ledger wouldn't allow it when he was performing. So I was able to use him as an excuse not to do it on those days (when Ledger was on set).

"So what remains of Heath's performance is really what he did for the camera -- as intended. I think there is something kind of wonderful about that."


Im' kind of glad about this, gives that mystique to his performance
 
I totally understand where you're coming from Instigator. On my second viewing, it made a little more sense, though. I still think the movie would've been absolutely perfect if it just ended with the Joker's escape from the police station. But I like totally dark endings.
 
CajoleJuice said:
I totally understand where you're coming from Instigator. On my second viewing, it made a little more sense, though. I still think the movie would've been absolutely perfect if it just ended with the Joker's escape from the police station. But I like totally dark endings.

That's not an ending though. :lol
 
Instigator said:
TDK had a crappier ending. People only remember Batman running from the police but not the whole borefest that was the showdown with Two-Face right before it. The whole Two-Face arc in itself was limited and unnecessary (interesting idea, but it feels like some of the extra fat they force onto most of those extended edition DVDs.

I have some reservations about the third arc of Ironman myself, but as a whole, the movie was just much more focused than TDK.

The Dark Knight had a WAY better ending than Iron Man. Iron Man could have had an amazing ending, but they chose to have an end fight that was utterly unsatisfying and entirely anti-climactic. The actual last moment of the movie, i.e. RDJ's last line, is awesome, but the stuff that preceded it was wholly boring.

The Two-Face arc was entirely necessary. It was the Joker's effect upon Gotham personified, a face attached to an intangible concept, the ultimate end of the anarchy that the Joker had created. The Two-Face showdown was incredibly well done, especially with the way that Eckhart showed the contrast between his earlier character and that character.

Iron Man was more focused, yes, but it also limited itself in doing this and didn't explore the political or philosophical gray areas that are covered in The Dark Knight. It also had writing that was not nearly as sharp (except for RDJ's lines) and acting that was worse, for the most part (except, again, for RDJ).

So, in conclusion, your opinion is wrong and I have just spent a couple of minutes trying to disprove a person's opinion, thus cementing myself as being yet another internet contrarian. Yay.
 
Instigator said:
I realize I'm argung against the hive mind of GAF, I don't mind though. :D

Don't worry, I'm with you. In fact, while I really enjoy Ledger's performance, I don't think it was the best representation of The Joker I've seen. The Animated Series is still the definitive vision put to film/tv.
 
CajoleJuice said:
Yes it is! Joker owned everyone!

Joker drives away in the cop car, Batman has woman he cared about killed, Harvey has his "you're not sorry, not yet" moment where he's shown as Two Face. The end.

Things left open:
- the money man
- the mob still out there
- where will the Joker go/do? Gonna end the movie with him still at large? (would have been tricky then with Ledger's death. At least this ending gives them the excuse that Joker is in jail/Arkham)

Meh, would have opened the door for a third movie with Two Face, but then we wouldn't have gotten the awesome Nurse Joker scene, the Joker's final speech upside down, the Ferrari getting smashed (or was it a Porsche? I don't know cars).

As far as Two Face is concerned, it would have been interesting to simply have had him kill Maroni and Wertz, but then what about Ramirez? What about revenge on Gordon and Batman? I will admit that the third act is not as satisfying for Two Face, being that he was a pretty awesome character in the comic and cartoon. But in Nolan's universe, Two Face's role is not to be a great villain, but to show the Joker's success in bringing the white knight of Gotham down, which Batman tried to undo by taking the blame.

Completely satisfying? You be the judge. But that's how I see that final act. The more I think about how to change it for the better, the more questions it raises and I just leave thinking "Nolan is better at this than me, I'll trust his judgment."

DoctorWho said:
Don't worry, I'm with you. In fact, while I really enjoy Ledger's performance, I don't think it was the best representation of The Joker I've seen. The Animated Series is still the definitive vision put to film/tv.

Joker's scene in Batman Beyond: Return of the Joker that is a flashback may be tied with Ledger's for the epitome of what I think of when I think of the Joker. Darkness and humor all mixed into one.
 
Skiptastic said:
Joker's scene in Batman Beyond: Return of the Joker that is a flashback may be tied with Ledger's for the epitome of what I think of when I think of the Joker. Darkness and humor all mixed into one.

I think one of the best Joker moments in Heath's performance was the hostage scene. He really captured the character when he was able to go back and forth from laughing and joking around, to being super serious and intimidating. That's how to Joker acts.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G1jhJB8bqZk
 
Instigator said:
I realize I'm argung against the hive mind of GAF, I don't mind though. :D
Instigator said:
Then it did it badly. Either leave that for a sequel or do it more quickly if you stick to one movie for that particular story (trim the ferry sequence, for example, it's not like TDK didn't waste time elsewhere). It wasted a villain, Darth Maul style.


Excuse me sir, this thread has a quota of one for "crazy dissenting asshole" and said quota is filled by me. Snooze 'ya lose!

And your wrong. Harvey falling from grace and dying is a heart-wrenching modern tragedy. It was just another layer that made The Dark Knight an incredible and dare I say transcendent experience.

Darth Maul was just a douche in a shitty movie directed by a shitty douchebag wrapped up in his own 'genius'.
 
While I do agree that the movie ending with Joker's escape would have been better, I would have been pissed off big time and I'm glad it didn't end that way. I'm glad that it concluded instead of leaving off for the third movie. I don't think Two-Face and more Joker could have carried an entire movie, so just the brief bits at the end were worth it. And really, Two-Face wasn't his own villain here, he was another part of Joker's plan. This was actually a good move on Nolan's part since instead of having two villains that failed in the past, it's a hierarchy. Begins was the same way with Falcone under Scarecrow under Ra's -- all were essentially part of the same plan. A lot less messy in the end.

Seriously tho, I can't see how anyone would think that the Two-Face presented here could carry an entire movie, or even have a bigger role than he had. His motivation here wasn't to be a crime boss, it was just revenge for Rachael's Death. He wasn't a wasted villain because he didn't have more to him.
 
Mr. Sam said:
I thought it was me.

You dissent about the quality of the movie in general, so I suppose you win.
I dissent about the quality of the movie compared to other movies. This town ain't big enough for the both of us. *Wild West noises*

Actually you can have it, but it sure as hell ain't that busta ass buster a couple posts back.
 
DoctorWho said:
Don't worry, I'm with you. In fact, while I really enjoy Ledger's performance, I don't think it was the best representation of The Joker I've seen. The Animated Series is still the definitive vision put to film/tv.

Caesar Romero's moustache is rolling in its grave :D
 
Instigator said:
Can't speak for Speed Racer, but Ironman was better than TDK.

Edit: Don't care about the other thread.

:lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol

Are you fucking kidding me? Iron Man was generic popcorn shit.
 
I've met people who think Iron Man is a better movie than TDK. They're comic book nerds. They've been with the characters for 20+ years. I haven't I read comics, but I don't care about the DC vs Marvel stuff or really superheroes at all anymore. But as far as Iron Man goes, I think it's absolutely the best comic book movie out there that follows the old formula. It seems to try to bring in all sorts of elements, plotlines and characters to faithfully recreate what went on in the books on screen. Superman pioneered it, X-Men brought it back, and Spider-Man made it mainstream.

The Batman films though... They don't really do this. Bruce doesn't even see The Mark of Zorro in Batman Begins (or maybe it is in play-form and I missed something). The Dark Knight borrows a bit from The Killing Joke (all it takes is one bad day), and probably elsewhere, but it stands on its own. The Joker is similar, yet different from the other incarnations of the character. The aforementioned that love Iron Man don't really care for Heath Ledger as the Joker. They think it's a fine performance, but they don't think it's really the Joker. They even prefer Jack Nicholson's cartoonish villainy over Heath Ledger's dark humor.

I dunno. I see Iron Man as the pinnacle of comic book popcorn films (though the two Donner Supermans were great), and TDK is in its own category. It doesn't feel like a comic book movie to me.
 
Linkzg said:
Seriously tho, I can't see how anyone would think that the Two-Face presented here could carry an entire movie, or even have a bigger role than he had. His motivation here wasn't to be a crime boss, it was just revenge for Rachael's Death. He wasn't a wasted villain because he didn't have more to him.

I think it would have worked if they planned far ahead enough to have casted for Dent in Begins and had him in a two movie arc parallel to Batman. The problem for me was that he was with Rachel so briefly in the movie, it's harder for me to believe his turn. It would have been better if Dent was more part of Bruce Wayne's story and less as part of the Joker's plot.
 
AniHawk said:
I've met people who think Iron Man is a better movie than TDK. They're comic book nerds. They've been with the characters for 20+ years. I haven't I read comics, but I don't care about the DC vs Marvel stuff or really superheroes at all anymore. But as far as Iron Man goes, I think it's absolutely the best comic book movie out there that follows the old formula. It seems to try to bring in all sorts of elements, plotlines and characters to faithfully recreate what went on in the books on screen. Superman pioneered it, X-Men brought it back, and Spider-Man made it mainstream.

The Batman films though... They don't really do this. Bruce doesn't even see The Mark of Zorro in Batman Begins (or maybe it is in play-form and I missed something). The Dark Knight borrows a bit from The Killing Joke (all it takes is one bad day), and probably elsewhere, but it stands on its own. The Joker is similar, yet different from the other incarnations of the character. The aforementioned that love Iron Man don't really care for Heath Ledger as the Joker. They think it's a fine performance, but they don't think it's really the Joker. They even prefer Jack Nicholson's cartoonish villainy over Heath Ledger's dark humor.

I dunno. I see Iron Man as the pinnacle of comic book popcorn films (though the two Donner Supermans were great), and TDK is in its own category. It doesn't feel like a comic book movie to me.


Exactly, and that's all I'm saying. Iron Man is fine for what it is, but if someone is saying it's a better movie, script / directing wise, than I'll say that person doesn't really know his movies. Maybe that's just me though.

I really didn't like the Iron Man movie, but that's probably because the only connection I have with Iron Man is a 2d PSX action game called Iron Man vs Manowar ( which was awesome. But yeah TDK isn't really a comic book movie at all, it's a very mature film as well.
 
MMaRsu said:
Exactly, and that's all I'm saying. Iron Man is fine for what it is, but if someone is saying it's a better movie, script / directing wise, than I'll say that person doesn't really know his movies. Maybe that's just me though.

Gee, so many excuses, how about it's a better movie because it is more enjoyable? You know, the main reason why people watch movies? Better directing/script certainly can contribute to the overall enjoyment, that's for sure, but not my ultimate argument to end all arguments.

I really didn't like the Iron Man movie, but that's probably because the only connection I have with Iron Man is a 2d PSX action game called Iron Man vs Manowar ( which was awesome. But yeah TDK isn't really a comic book movie at all, it's a very mature film as well.

Make up your mind. you like it or not?

I never picked up a IM comic myself or even the PSOne game for that matter and before ever entertaining the thought of going to see IM, I was under the impression this was one of the lesser Marvel properties, a poor man's Batman and probably Hollywood hitting the bottom of the barrel in comic book adaptations. But early word of mouth and recomendations from friends made me reconsider so I took a chance and bang, I was surprised and impressed by the movie.

I was and still am a big fan of Batman Begins, and in bits and pieces, TDK is quite similar, but the overall package didn't quite deliver (I wasn't really impressed by Heath Ledger). And pitting TDK against a lean and straightforward example like Ironman, it simply made the movie more of an overblown, pretentious mess runing 30 minutes too long.
 
Nolan says he is jotting notes and doing some rough outlines for a third story, but he hasn't yet found anything he's willing to commit to film, despite Warner Bros.' eagerness to get a new film underway.

"It was obvious when the box office was so big ($530 million domestically) that we had underestimated how ready fans were to reboot the franchise," he says. "The worst thing you could do now that you've gotten the plane back in the air is mess up the landing.



just the fact that he is jotting down ideas and working on a outline lets me sleep easy at night.

i know i will never be satisfied enough. i dont know why i have this weird fascination with all things batman. i love batman. i need more batman. and then i need some more :(
 
IMO, The Dark Knight was more of a character piece (which is most suitable for Batman). It requires more thought involvement - and even a little bit of character background knowledge, from the viewer for maximum enjoyment. It is not simply a sit back and let your senses get massaged type of popcorn flick. One film being stronger in that area does not make it a better film over all. I think films should be judged on the success of their merits, not comparatively.
 
effzee said:
Nolan says he is jotting notes and doing some rough outlines for a third story, but he hasn't yet found anything he's willing to commit to film, despite Warner Bros.' eagerness to get a new film underway.

"It was obvious when the box office was so big ($530 million domestically) that we had underestimated how ready fans were to reboot the franchise," he says. "The worst thing you could do now that you've gotten the plane back in the air is mess up the landing.



just the fact that he is jotting down ideas and working on a outline lets me sleep easy at night.

i know i will never be satisfied enough. i dont know why i have this weird fascination with all things batman. i love batman. i need more batman. and then i need some more :(
yea, I'm gonna need those notes.
 
Extollere said:
IMO, The Dark Knight was more of a character piece (which is most suitable for Batman). It requires more thought involvement - and even a little bit of character background knowledge, from the viewer for maximum enjoyment. It is not simply a sit back and let your senses get massaged type of popcorn flick. One film being stronger in that area does not make it a better film over all. I think films should be judged on the success of their merits, not comparatively.

Even as a brainless, simple-minded action movie, Iron Man wasn't all that entertaining for me.
 
thinking further about a possible 3rd movie...

i really like the idea of the phantasm character because it would be a more personal bruce wayne story and not a large scale gotham story.

the dark knight and batman begins are fundamentally different movies. and while they are both great, i do not think you can make a dark knight 2, especially if the third is the last one nolan makes. the story has to revert back to bruce/batman. i was catching up on batman begins again this past weekend and to me its the best origins movie ever. it just captures everything that is bruce wayne, his childhood, his relation wtih alfred, and his growth from a vengeful self centered youth to a crime fighting mastermind who finds a way to channel his anger into something positive is done perfectly.

i want to see something similar in the third movie. the phantasm offers that possibility. with the city labeling him a criminal, the mob wiped out, the joker arrested, and the love of his life gone they can not go back to another villain holding the city hostage.

the only problem would be introducing such a character, esp if its a love interest. secondly as much as i love the mask of the phantasm, it is pretty obvious who the phantasm is right from the start. still i could see it working as a love from his past (maybe from his days at Princeton?) who makes him seriously question quitting. i know this was sort of what the dark knight was about but i don't think they fleshed it out as effectively compared to the stories of dent and the joker. basically bruce was working to end batman but it did not work out that way. but maybe now they can really explore that story line further and in more detail.

maybe he sees the city not needing him especially since the major players are behind bars. the story could work around alfred trying really hard to get bruce to live a normal life by convincing him he has done his part to avenge his parents death. he has cleaned up the city and made his father proud.

one of the most powerful batman scenes ever, IMO, is from mask of the phantasm. the one where bruce is shown in front of his parents grave asking/begging for their permission to stop being what he has become and how he feels. and how he needs love in his life. and then they cut back to batman spying on her having dinner with some new guy.

but whatever they do decide to do it cant be what 24 tried to do and failed miserably at....MORE EXPLOSIONS AND MORE DEATHS! it can still be just as dark/gritty but more personal.

ON A SIDE NOTE....i love how nolan has captured the image of batman. just how he glides through the air.
 
effzee said:
thinking further about a possible 3rd movie...

i really like the idea of the phantasm character because it would be a more personal bruce wayne story and not a large scale gotham story.

the dark knight and batman begins are fundamentally different movies. and while they are both great, i do not think you can make a dark knight 2, especially if the third is the last one nolan makes. the story has to revert back to bruce/batman. i was catching up on batman begins again this past weekend and to me its the best origins movie ever. it just captures everything that is bruce wayne, his childhood, his relation wtih alfred, and his growth from a vengeful self centered youth to a crime fighting mastermind who finds a way to channel his anger into something positive is done perfectly.

i want to see something similar in the third movie. the phantasm offers that possibility. with the city labeling him a criminal, the mob wiped out, the joker arrested, and the love of his life gone they can not go back to another villain holding the city hostage.

the only problem would be introducing such a character, esp if its a love interest. secondly as much as i love the mask of the phantasm, it is pretty obvious who the phantasm is right from the start. still i could see it working as a love from his past (maybe from his days at Princeton?) who makes him seriously question quitting. maybe he sees the city not needing him especially since the major players are behind bars. the story could work around alfred trying really hard to get bruce to live a normal life by convincing him he has done his part to avenge his parents death. he has cleaned up the city and made his father proud.

one of the most powerful batman scenes ever, IMO, is from mask of the phantasm. the one where bruce is shown in front of his parents grave asking/begging for their permission to stop being what he has become and how he feels. and how he needs love in his life. and then they cut back to batman spying on her having dinner with some new guy.

but whatever they do decide to do it cant be what 24 tried to do and failed miserably at....MORE EXPLOSIONS AND MORE DEATHS! it can still be just as dark/gritty but more personal.

ON A SIDE NOTE....i love how nolan has captured the image of batman. just how he glides through the air.

Talia al Ghul
 
Blader5489 said:
Talia al Ghul


you would have to set up a introduction which could take up half the movie.

the beauty of the Rachel character was or the phantasm could be is that its someone from his past.

he was gone from Gotham when he went to school. maybe a GF or friend from his college days.
 
effzee said:
maybe he sees the city not needing him especially since the major players are behind bars. the story could work around alfred trying really hard to get bruce to live a normal life by convincing him he has done his part to avenge his parents death. he has cleaned up the city and made his father proud.
I don't think this Alfred would ever let Bruce let go of Batman, with the exception being a "the jig is up!" scenario a la TDK where they thought they had to reveal themselves.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom