Originally posted by: eleison
Originally posted by: Feldenak
Originally posted by: eleison
Originally posted by: Feldenak
Originally posted by: eleison
The only character that had was really flesh out was the joker. But then, I excepted the joker to be a more evil character -- more unstable. But for some reason, it seemed like the joker had a man crush on batman and that batman had a man crush on the joker. Come on batman.. just kill the joker already or vice versa!!! Also, the joker never really was unstable.. there were always reason why he killed someone.. E.g., time ran out for batman to do this or that.. so blablbabab had to die. Or this guys a criminal, so he'll do the pencil trick.. Everybody the joker killed.. they're was a reason. I like my crazies to be crazies.. to kill with no rhyme or reason.. in which case, this joker did not fit the bill.
The can't kill each other because they both need the other. You can't have chaos without order and vice versa.
Just because The Joker's "insane" doesn't mean he does things without rhyme or reason.
Thats weak sauce. They dont need each other. If the joker was dead, batman can get back to his "real life"... Remember that was what he was planning to do via Arthur dent. If the joker killed batman, then there will surely be another hero or the world would fall into utter chaos.. which the joker liked according to his speeches chaos.
All in all, it was a man crush by both characters. It just doesn't make sense otherwise: "Oh, I cann't try to kill you because you are my exact opposite!!!!"
"He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you."
That's why Batman can't kill The Joker. If he kills The Joker, he becomes what he is fighting. The Joker can't kill Batman because he would rather corrupt Batman towards the side of chaos. It's not a man crush as you describe. It's an internal struggle within Batman to stick with his moral code even when it's not convenient or easy.
Weak... in the first movie, by not saving Ra's al Ghul from the train wreck which batman created himself and by engaging in fighing with Ra agul on the train in order to draw attention away from the ultimate crash .. Batman did in fact commit murder. In the first movie.. batman was a monster -- deep and dark. In this movie, he's more of a saturday morning cartoon hero with a man crush. Minus well give both batman and the joker a dildo and a hotel room for the night because..... This batman's gay!!
Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
Originally posted by: jiffer
He was on his way to becoming Two-Face even before he lost Rachel. Remember when he was interrogating the guy who disguised himself as a cop to shoot the mayor? Batman had to intervene because Harvey was about to cross over to the dark side. (He was upset because he thought that Gordon had died, and he didn't think that playing by the rules was doing any good.) Remember when Bruce told Alfred that he was retiring as Batman because he realized that he has to become just like a villain in order to fight the villains? Harvey was faced with the same choice, but unlike Batman, Harvey wanted to throw morality out the window because "doing the right thing" only got people killed, and the only way to fight crime was to put aside compunction and toss the coin, because chance is in control of everyone's lives, anyway. His grief at losing Rachel, losing half his face, and losing the fight against chaos pushed him over the edge, but he was already standing at the edge before he "lost everything". Maybe some of the cops in Gordon's unit recognized that about Harvey, and that's why they knew that deep down, Harvey was always "two-faced". (In these movies, even criminals have terrific insights into other people's character.)Originally posted by: sygyzy
2. What is Harvey Dent so upset about that makes him change to Two-Face? Is it that they chose to save him instead of Rachel? Or that there were corrupt people on the force? There were corrupt cops alluded to in the rest of the movie and Dent didn't seem concerned at all. He was all chipper about it.
Not quite. When Dent was interrogating the false officer, he was still using his two-headed coin. It was always going to come up "heads" and "prevent" him from beating the criminal. Batman didn't know that though, which is why he reacted. Dent was simply using the criminal's fear, all the while knowing full well that the coin was never going to come up tails. (This is reprised when Dent is being taken into custody as Batman and he tells Rachel that he flipped a coin to make the decision, then tosses her the double-headed coin.)
He only becomes Two-Face after losing Rachel.
ZV
Originally posted by: eleison
Originally posted by: Feldenak
Originally posted by: eleison
Originally posted by: Feldenak
Originally posted by: eleison
The only character that had was really flesh out was the joker. But then, I excepted the joker to be a more evil character -- more unstable. But for some reason, it seemed like the joker had a man crush on batman and that batman had a man crush on the joker. Come on batman.. just kill the joker already or vice versa!!! Also, the joker never really was unstable.. there were always reason why he killed someone.. E.g., time ran out for batman to do this or that.. so blablbabab had to die. Or this guys a criminal, so he'll do the pencil trick.. Everybody the joker killed.. they're was a reason. I like my crazies to be crazies.. to kill with no rhyme or reason.. in which case, this joker did not fit the bill.
The can't kill each other because they both need the other. You can't have chaos without order and vice versa.
Just because The Joker's "insane" doesn't mean he does things without rhyme or reason.
Thats weak sauce. They dont need each other. If the joker was dead, batman can get back to his "real life"... Remember that was what he was planning to do via Arthur dent. If the joker killed batman, then there will surely be another hero or the world would fall into utter chaos.. which the joker liked according to his speeches chaos.
All in all, it was a man crush by both characters. It just doesn't make sense otherwise: "Oh, I cann't try to kill you because you are my exact opposite!!!!"
"He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you."
That's why Batman can't kill The Joker. If he kills The Joker, he becomes what he is fighting. The Joker can't kill Batman because he would rather corrupt Batman towards the side of chaos. It's not a man crush as you describe. It's an internal struggle within Batman to stick with his moral code even when it's not convenient or easy.
Weak... in the first movie, by not saving Ra's al Ghul from the train wreck which batman created himself and by engaging in fighing with Ra agul on the train in order to draw attention away from the ultimate crash .. Batman did in fact commit murder. In the first movie.. batman was a monster -- deep and dark. In this movie, he's more of a saturday morning cartoon hero with a man crush. Minus well give both batman and the joker a dildo and a hotel room for the night because..... This batman's gay!!
Originally posted by: bunnyfubbles
Originally posted by: eleison
Originally posted by: Feldenak
Originally posted by: eleison
Originally posted by: Feldenak
Originally posted by: eleison
The only character that had was really flesh out was the joker. But then, I excepted the joker to be a more evil character -- more unstable. But for some reason, it seemed like the joker had a man crush on batman and that batman had a man crush on the joker. Come on batman.. just kill the joker already or vice versa!!! Also, the joker never really was unstable.. there were always reason why he killed someone.. E.g., time ran out for batman to do this or that.. so blablbabab had to die. Or this guys a criminal, so he'll do the pencil trick.. Everybody the joker killed.. they're was a reason. I like my crazies to be crazies.. to kill with no rhyme or reason.. in which case, this joker did not fit the bill.
The can't kill each other because they both need the other. You can't have chaos without order and vice versa.
Just because The Joker's "insane" doesn't mean he does things without rhyme or reason.
Thats weak sauce. They dont need each other. If the joker was dead, batman can get back to his "real life"... Remember that was what he was planning to do via Arthur dent. If the joker killed batman, then there will surely be another hero or the world would fall into utter chaos.. which the joker liked according to his speeches chaos.
All in all, it was a man crush by both characters. It just doesn't make sense otherwise: "Oh, I cann't try to kill you because you are my exact opposite!!!!"
"He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you."
That's why Batman can't kill The Joker. If he kills The Joker, he becomes what he is fighting. The Joker can't kill Batman because he would rather corrupt Batman towards the side of chaos. It's not a man crush as you describe. It's an internal struggle within Batman to stick with his moral code even when it's not convenient or easy.
Weak... in the first movie, by not saving Ra's al Ghul from the train wreck which batman created himself and by engaging in fighing with Ra agul on the train in order to draw attention away from the ultimate crash .. Batman did in fact commit murder. In the first movie.. batman was a monster -- deep and dark. In this movie, he's more of a saturday morning cartoon hero with a man crush. Minus well give both batman and the joker a dildo and a hotel room for the night because..... This batman's gay!!
On the contrary, if Batman knew that Gordon was going to blow up the rail with the batmobile then why did he go to the train in the first place? To try and save Ra's! Gordon in the batmobile was only a last resort (otherwise Batman would have done it), instead Batman was going to try and stop the train himself and possibly save Ra's al Ghul - but Ra's didn't want to be saved and thus made his own choice.
Originally posted by: JohnCU
Originally posted by: bunnyfubbles
Originally posted by: eleison
Originally posted by: Feldenak
Originally posted by: eleison
Originally posted by: Feldenak
Originally posted by: eleison
The only character that had was really flesh out was the joker. But then, I excepted the joker to be a more evil character -- more unstable. But for some reason, it seemed like the joker had a man crush on batman and that batman had a man crush on the joker. Come on batman.. just kill the joker already or vice versa!!! Also, the joker never really was unstable.. there were always reason why he killed someone.. E.g., time ran out for batman to do this or that.. so blablbabab had to die. Or this guys a criminal, so he'll do the pencil trick.. Everybody the joker killed.. they're was a reason. I like my crazies to be crazies.. to kill with no rhyme or reason.. in which case, this joker did not fit the bill.
The can't kill each other because they both need the other. You can't have chaos without order and vice versa.
Just because The Joker's "insane" doesn't mean he does things without rhyme or reason.
Thats weak sauce. They dont need each other. If the joker was dead, batman can get back to his "real life"... Remember that was what he was planning to do via Arthur dent. If the joker killed batman, then there will surely be another hero or the world would fall into utter chaos.. which the joker liked according to his speeches chaos.
All in all, it was a man crush by both characters. It just doesn't make sense otherwise: "Oh, I cann't try to kill you because you are my exact opposite!!!!"
"He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you."
That's why Batman can't kill The Joker. If he kills The Joker, he becomes what he is fighting. The Joker can't kill Batman because he would rather corrupt Batman towards the side of chaos. It's not a man crush as you describe. It's an internal struggle within Batman to stick with his moral code even when it's not convenient or easy.
Weak... in the first movie, by not saving Ra's al Ghul from the train wreck which batman created himself and by engaging in fighing with Ra agul on the train in order to draw attention away from the ultimate crash .. Batman did in fact commit murder. In the first movie.. batman was a monster -- deep and dark. In this movie, he's more of a saturday morning cartoon hero with a man crush. Minus well give both batman and the joker a dildo and a hotel room for the night because..... This batman's gay!!
On the contrary, if Batman knew that Gordon was going to blow up the rail with the batmobile then why did he go to the train in the first place? To try and save Ra's! Gordon in the batmobile was only a last resort (otherwise Batman would have done it), instead Batman was going to try and stop the train himself and possibly save Ra's al Ghul - but Ra's didn't want to be saved and thus made his own choice.
batman didn't want to stop the train. ras asked him about that and he says something like who says i wanted to stop it and it shows where he disabled the controls.
Originally posted by: JoeFahey
Wow, amazing film. I just saw it last night. I want to see it again, and possibly on Imax.
If you have seen it on Imax, was it noticeably better? I think I read that they used special cameras for it.
Originally posted by: slag
decent movie. Probably worth the 10 bucks for the ticket, because it was definitely action packed and long.
Things i didnt like
1. cant stand how batman talks. cant stand how his voice is or how his mouth moves
2. Just freaking let the joker drop to his death already. What batman needs to realize is that if one person dies, it will save hundreds. The joker has shown he has no respect for humanity so just get rid of him already. By saving his life (he clearly wants to die), all batman does is allow the joker to kill more people.
3. The twoface part in the hospital--never would happen like that. Twoface would have smoked his ass given the chance. The joker clearly killed his girlfriend, no two ways about it, so it makes no sense for twoface to go after the corrupt cop instead of just killing the joker when he had the chance. This part really really bothered me in the movie.
I don't see why its the best damn movie ever that people are making it out to be. When I left the theatre, I didn't have the urge to see it again any time soon. I guess I just dont like the current batman. Bring back Michael Keaton and make the movies like the first two were. Those were good batman movies. I don't like the whole dark and dingy movie theme of the last two batmans at all.
How is Joker going to kill any more people when he's locked up in a cell for the rest of his life? Who's to say the justice system won't have him executed? Either way, it's not up for Batman to decide, and that's what keeps him from becoming a true criminal vigilante.Originally posted by: slag
2. Just freaking let the joker drop to his death already. What batman needs to realize is that if one person dies, it will save hundreds. The joker has shown he has no respect for humanity so just get rid of him already. By saving his life (he clearly wants to die), all batman does is allow the joker to kill more people.
The problem here is that you're thinking like a logical person, whereas Harvey was driven into madness by the Joker. The Joker's trap could have killed him but it didn't so he gave the Joker the same chance that was given to him to live. He did the same for everyone else. Also, I wouldn't have been surprised if the Joker left himself an out, ie a backfiring or exploding gun if things didn't go his way...it really would have fit his style.3. The twoface part in the hospital--never would happen like that. Twoface would have smoked his ass given the chance. The joker clearly killed his girlfriend, no two ways about it, so it makes no sense for twoface to go after the corrupt cop instead of just killing the joker when he had the chance. This part really really bothered me in the movie.
Its because they're good movies, not just Batman or comic book movies. The first Batman was pretty good, but I think you're living off of what is probably boyhood nostalgia, as Batman Returns is absolute campy silliness that springs the even further downturn of the next two movies that follow.I don't see why its the best damn movie ever that people are making it out to be. When I left the theatre, I didn't have the urge to see it again any time soon. I guess I just dont like the current batman. Bring back Michael Keaton and make the movies like the first two were. Those were good batman movies. I don't like the whole dark and dingy movie theme of the last two batmans at all.
bunnyfubbles already gave you a response similar to the one I'm about to give you, but I would like to reiterate what I consider to be the main point. Before Harvey Dent lost "everything", he believed that people "make their own luck". He knew that his two-headed coin would always come up heads, so he obviously did not believe in chance. After he lost "everything", he changed his mind. He and Rachel both had a 50/50 chance to survive. You could have flipped a coin to decide which of them would live and which of them would die. He decided that no one is ever in control, and we are all at the mercy of luck. So he decided to let his "new" coin, which really did have two different sides, decide the fate of everyone he wanted to punish. I'm sorry that it bothered you when Harvey didn't kill the Joker, but if he had made that decision and acted on it (like a normal person would), he would not be Two-Face. Two-Face is the kind of character who is meant to perplex everyone, because it IS strange and disturbing for a person to flip a coin instead of following his heart's desire and making his own decisions. That's the point.Originally posted by: slag
. The twoface part in the hospital--never would happen like that. Twoface would have smoked his ass given the chance. The joker clearly killed his girlfriend, no two ways about it, so it makes no sense for twoface to go after the corrupt cop instead of just killing the joker when he had the chance. This part really really bothered me in the movie.
Originally posted by: jiffer
bunnyfubbles already gave you a response similar to the one I'm about to give you, but I would like to reiterate what I consider to be the main point. Before Harvey Dent lost "everything", he believed that people "make their own luck". He knew that his two-headed coin would always come up heads, so he obviously did not believe in chance. After he lost "everything", he changed his mind. He and Rachel both had a 50/50 chance to survive. You could have flipped a coin to decide which of them would live and which of them would die. He decided that no one is ever in control, and we are all at the mercy of luck. So he decided to let his "new" coin, which really did have two different sides, decide the fate of everyone he wanted to punish. I'm sorry that it bothered you when Harvey didn't kill the Joker, but if he had made that decision and acted on it (like a normal person would), he would not be Two-Face. Two-Face is the kind of character who is meant to perplex everyone, because it IS strange and disturbing for a person to flip a coin instead of following his heart's desire and making his own decisions. That's the point.Originally posted by: slag
. The twoface part in the hospital--never would happen like that. Twoface would have smoked his ass given the chance. The joker clearly killed his girlfriend, no two ways about it, so it makes no sense for twoface to go after the corrupt cop instead of just killing the joker when he had the chance. This part really really bothered me in the movie.
Originally posted by: jiffer
Thanks, huynhc.
I think a lot of people are expecting this movie to be the type of movie in which the good guy wins and basks in his triumph, and we all come out of the the theater feeling jubilant and satisfied because the good guy kicked the bad guy's ass. Batman Begins was like that to some extent. It ended on an upbeat note because Batman was confident that he and Gordon could "bring Gotham back", although Gordon had his doubts. But The Dark Knight is not like that at all. This movie shows that being a superhero takes its toll on an ordinary human being who thinks he can be one, and he must endure some serious setbacks if he wants to fight crime. He's learning the hard way that there are going to be some casualties. The challenges that Batman faced in this movie made him question his own abilities, and he even began to question whether he was doing the right thing. He even found himself becoming something he didn't want to be. Were you a little bit shocked when he resorted to torturing his enemies? Pulling Flass one hundred feet up in the air by one leg in the first movie was one thing, since he was pretty much unharmed; but beating up the Joker in the interrogation room and breaking Sal Maroni's legs crossed the line. Batman was disgusted with himself afterwards, and he wondered if he was going to end up being no better than the criminals. He knew that he couldn't be a "white knight". So in this movie, he became the "dark knight"--not a hero, but a guardian who can't show his face in the light of day. Being Batman is a dirty job, and it will take all the strength and endurance he can muster if he wants to continue. Fortunately, he has friends like Alfred, Lucius, and Gordon to help him, to understand him, and to give him guidance. At least he's not alone. If he were, he might not be able to take it anymore. His "victories" came at a terrible price.
And then there's the Joker, a supervillain who is living proof that no one will ever be able to eradicate the source of evil. And there's Two-Face, who was living proof that even good guys can be pushed to the dark side.
When you walk out of the theater, you can be thrilled because you just watched a great movie. But this movie is not intended to make you feel good. You're supposed to be unhappy with a lot of things.
Originally posted by: jiffer
bunnyfubbles already gave you a response similar to the one I'm about to give you, but I would like to reiterate what I consider to be the main point. Before Harvey Dent lost "everything", he believed that people "make their own luck". He knew that his two-headed coin would always come up heads, so he obviously did not believe in chance. After he lost "everything", he changed his mind. He and Rachel both had a 50/50 chance to survive. You could have flipped a coin to decide which of them would live and which of them would die. He decided that no one is ever in control, and we are all at the mercy of luck. So he decided to let his "new" coin, which really did have two different sides, decide the fate of everyone he wanted to punish. I'm sorry that it bothered you when Harvey didn't kill the Joker, but if he had made that decision and acted on it (like a normal person would), he would not be Two-Face. Two-Face is the kind of character who is meant to perplex everyone, because it IS strange and disturbing for a person to flip a coin instead of following his heart's desire and making his own decisions. That's the point.Originally posted by: slag
. The twoface part in the hospital--never would happen like that. Twoface would have smoked his ass given the chance. The joker clearly killed his girlfriend, no two ways about it, so it makes no sense for twoface to go after the corrupt cop instead of just killing the joker when he had the chance. This part really really bothered me in the movie.
Originally posted by: slag
I'll disagree. Since the explosion when his face was burned off, he's had time alone to stew and plot his revenge against the joker. All he wants to do is kill the joker for killing his girlfriend. 5 minutes of dialogue between the joker and Dent before the joker hands him the gun is not going to change Harvey's mind about the situation. Harvey just lost "everything" and he will gain revenge on the joker.
Originally posted by: shocksyde
Originally posted by: slag
I'll disagree. Since the explosion when his face was burned off, he's had time alone to stew and plot his revenge against the joker. All he wants to do is kill the joker for killing his girlfriend. 5 minutes of dialogue between the joker and Dent before the joker hands him the gun is not going to change Harvey's mind about the situation. Harvey just lost "everything" and he will gain revenge on the joker.
Dent was obviously driven to insanity by that point. What makes you think he'd make rational decisions?
I'll even wager that he was more pissed at Batman than the Joker. Batman never did tell him that he meant to save Rachel.
Originally posted by: JoeFahey
One small part that I must have missed was when Batman was riding down the street on his bike towards joker who was just standing alone in the middle of the street with that sweet automatic. Batman misses him or something, and crashes, and almost get beaten up pretty bad by Joker. How did this happen? What did the Joker do to make him fall?
Originally posted by: MrMaster
I can't read all of this but I just want to say Maggie is the "girl next door." I've heard it at work and I've read it here that she isn't gorgous. She isn't suppose to be. Bruce can have all the models in the world but would settle for the girl next door if he had a chance.
Originally posted by: jiffer
Thanks, huynhc.
I think a lot of people are expecting this movie to be the type of movie in which the good guy wins and basks in his triumph, and we all come out of the the theater feeling jubilant and satisfied because the good guy kicked the bad guy's ass. Batman Begins was like that to some extent. It ended on an upbeat note because Batman was confident that he and Gordon could "bring Gotham back", although Gordon had his doubts. But The Dark Knight is not like that at all. This movie shows that being a superhero takes its toll on an ordinary human being who thinks he can be one, and he must endure some serious setbacks if he wants to fight crime. He's learning the hard way that there are going to be some casualties. The challenges that Batman faced in this movie made him question his own abilities, and he even began to question whether he was doing the right thing. He even found himself becoming something he didn't want to be. Were you a little bit shocked when he resorted to torturing his enemies? Pulling Flass one hundred feet up in the air by one leg in the first movie was one thing, since he was pretty much unharmed; but beating up the Joker in the interrogation room and breaking Sal Maroni's legs crossed the line. Batman was disgusted with himself afterwards, and he wondered if he was going to end up being no better than the criminals. He knew that he couldn't be a "white knight". So in this movie, he became the "dark knight"--not a hero, but a guardian who can't show his face in the light of day. Being Batman is a dirty job, and it will take all the strength and endurance he can muster if he wants to continue. Fortunately, he has friends like Alfred, Lucius, and Gordon to help him, to understand him, and to give him guidance. At least he's not alone. If he were, he might not be able to take it anymore. His "victories" came at a terrible price.
And then there's the Joker, a supervillain who is living proof that no one will ever be able to eradicate the source of evil. And there's Two-Face, who was living proof that even good guys can be pushed to the dark side.
When you walk out of the theater, you can be thrilled because you just watched a great movie. But this movie is not intended to make you feel good. You're supposed to be unhappy with a lot of things.
Originally posted by: Queasy
Originally posted by: MrMaster
I can't read all of this but I just want to say Maggie is the "girl next door." I've heard it at work and I've read it here that she isn't gorgous. She isn't suppose to be. Bruce can have all the models in the world but would settle for the girl next door if he had a chance.
Well, I though Katie Holmes had the 'girl next door' look. She was just so lifeless in Batman Begin (IMO). Maggie is way more animated and a better actress than Katie Holmes but there were times when she looked way older than she actually is.
Originally posted by: mrSHEiK124
Originally posted by: Queasy
Originally posted by: MrMaster
I can't read all of this but I just want to say Maggie is the "girl next door." I've heard it at work and I've read it here that she isn't gorgous. She isn't suppose to be. Bruce can have all the models in the world but would settle for the girl next door if he had a chance.
Well, I though Katie Holmes had the 'girl next door' look. She was just so lifeless in Batman Begin (IMO). Maggie is way more animated and a better actress than Katie Holmes but there were times when she looked way older than she actually is.
I've heard Droopy and Miss Piggy both accurately used to describe how bad she really looked in some scenes.
Originally posted by: Fingolfin269
Originally posted by: mrSHEiK124
Originally posted by: Queasy
Originally posted by: MrMaster
I can't read all of this but I just want to say Maggie is the "girl next door." I've heard it at work and I've read it here that she isn't gorgous. She isn't suppose to be. Bruce can have all the models in the world but would settle for the girl next door if he had a chance.
Well, I though Katie Holmes had the 'girl next door' look. She was just so lifeless in Batman Begin (IMO). Maggie is way more animated and a better actress than Katie Holmes but there were times when she looked way older than she actually is.
I've heard Droopy and Miss Piggy both accurately used to describe how bad she really looked in some scenes.
Wow, some people have some extremely high standards.