Dark Knight movie/plot discussion

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: jiffer

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.

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.)

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

 

[JEDI]

Originally posted by: aldamon

Originally posted by: JEDI

What do you think the premise of the 3rd movie will be?

I think there needs to be fallout from using a public company as a piggy bank to fund Batman, Inc. The extortion plot is only be the beginning IMO. Since the Riddler knows Batman's real identity, he'd be a natural fit for this kind of storyline. This would also fit with the fact Batman is now being actively hunted as a fugitive.

wait.. that guy that tried to blackmail Fox was/will become the riddler!??!?!

 

[BZeto]

Originally posted by: jiffer

Originally posted by: BZeto
The unrealistic aspects of it bothered me (I know its a comic book movie right?!?). When Batman was wailing on Joker in the interogation room, Joker didn't even bleed or show any signs of getting wounded... I mean Batman broke the glass with Jokers head for crying out loud.
Then towards the end when they're on the building and Batman shoots those blades in Jokers face, seconds later you wouldn't even know he did it.

Just out of curiosity, did you watch the Spider-Man movies, and were you bothered by the fact that a genetically-altered young man who weighs maybe 130 pounds expends at least 100,000 calories of energy a day doing the things he does and expels a ton or two of web from his body every day? Where does all of that matter and energy come from? It's physically impossible. He would have to be eating constantly, but he's too busy to eat and he can barely afford any food.

There's a difference between the obvious superhero aspects of these movies and simple bodily reactions like bleeding. And like KT was saying it's as if they did it to avoid the big "R". Honestly they're already showing the violent acts being done, how's a little blood gonna hurt?

 

[BassBomb]

Originally posted by: JEDI

Originally posted by: aldamon

Originally posted by: JEDI

What do you think the premise of the 3rd movie will be?

I think there needs to be fallout from using a public company as a piggy bank to fund Batman, Inc. The extortion plot is only be the beginning IMO. Since the Riddler knows Batman's real identity, he'd be a natural fit for this kind of storyline. This would also fit with the fact Batman is now being actively hunted as a fugitive.

wait.. that guy that tried to blackmail Fox was/will become the riddler!??!?!

That guy does not seem fitting

lets get jim carrey back!

 

[Aikouka]

I think you guys were talking about having The Catwoman in one of the future movies... here's a blurb I found on Wikipedia ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P..._(comics)#Nolan_Series ):

"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."

 

[JEDI]

Originally posted by: Aikouka
I think you guys were talking about having The Catwoman in one of the future movies... here's a blurb I found on Wikipedia ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P..._(comics)#Nolan_Series ):

"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."

i hope it's Harley Quinn

edit:
also, WTF is up w/Gordon having sons?!

Where is his daughter, Barbara, aka Batgirl?~!!?!?!?

 

[Ilmater]

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.


Yea.. so this batman was good.. They're more explosions..I liked it.. but it wasn't as good as the first which had better character development. In the first movie, it was about batman and his search in finding who he was. In this movie, the dark night, it can be argued that it was about good and evil... and a whole lot of explosions and sound.. maybe too much explosions and sound. the motif of "good and evil" was not really expounded on..

I'm first going to go grammar nazi on some of your errors. In order from top:

- What???
- were always reasonS
- there
- There are (you could use "there're" but that's not good either)

This is my proof that you're an idiot.

1) There were "reasons" why people died? Are you kidding me? Why did Rachel get put into the situation in the first place? Why were the people on the boats put in those situations? They didn't DO anything to get there. How about the people he dressed up as clowns in the building? They would have died for no reason as well. His plans were thwarted again and again, but he certainly TRIED to get completely innocent people killed. Your reasoning that his killings weren't up to your standards just because rather than slaughtering innocents in the streets at random he TRIED to blow them up by the hundreds or get them sniped by the police instead is so ridiculous I can't hardly find the words to express how stupid it is.

2) The movie's contrast of Batman vs. Joker was beautifully played out, and I have no doubt it flew over your head. Even so, there should have been enough of a thrill ride for you to not care about the intricacies of the plot. The Batman and the Joker are the perfect yin and yang for one another. Both had a troubled childhood, but one raised above it to become something better, the other fell deeper into the depths of insanity and chaos. The Joker loves to test Batman's sense of right and justice by placing him into unwinnable situations - such as being able to save either Dent or Rachel, but not both. These are the kinds of dilemmas that will haunt Batman forever... he gave up what he truly wanted for the sake of Gotham (he felt Harvey was Gotham's best chance for rising above their current situation), and if Gotham doesn't prove worthy, he'll have to struggle with that forever. I also loved Alfred's story about men who just want chaos for no good reason. That kind of drive for anarchy above any reasonable goal is the kind of thing that "No Country for Old Men" won an Oscar for... and of course you have to compare Chigurh to Two-Face.

The bottom line is, if anyone liked the first one and didn't think this was an upgrade, then I simply could never understand their reasoning for it. No way.

 

[K1052]

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!!

Batman didn't kill Ra's, Ra's plan killed Ra's.
He even said "I won't kill you, but I don't have to save you."

Also remember that Bruce wouldn't kill Ra's when he blew up/escaped the League of Shadows HQ even at the risk of his own life (hanging off cliff).

 

[LostUte]

Originally posted by: Ilmater

2) The Joker loves to test Batman's sense of right and justice by placing him into unwinnable situations - such as being able to save either Dent or Rachel, but not both. These are the kinds of dilemmas that will haunt Batman forever... he gave up what he truly wanted for the sake of Gotham (he felt Harvey was Gotham's best chance for rising above their current situation), and if Gotham doesn't prove worthy, he'll have to struggle with that forever.

He wanted to save Rachel, but the Joker switched the addresses.

 

[ElFenix]

what i liked about this comic book movie is that they don't bother explaining the origins of the joker. every other comic book movie villain has an origin story told on the screen. in this movie, the joker just is.

 

[eleison]

Originally posted by: K1052

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!!

Batman didn't kill Ra's, Ra's plan killed Ra's.
He even said "I won't kill you, but I don't have to save you."

Also remember that Bruce wouldn't kill Ra's when he blew up/escaped the League of Shadows HQ even at the risk of his own life (hanging off cliff).

So basically if a madman removes the rails from the tracks of a metro train, then goes and distracts the conductor so that the conductor would not be able to see the damaged tracks... than as its too late to stop the train, the madman jumps off leaving the conductor killed in the train wreck... You are saying he is not responsible for the death of the conductor????????? Yeaa... ok... whatever...

Oh when they were at the league of shadows, Bruce did not know that the man he saved was Ra's al Ghul.. In addition, there was no reason for Bruce to hurt the man. Batman had to murder Ra's al Ghul later because Ra's burnt down his house and hurt his gf, Rachel. Not to mention trying to poison the rest of the city.

In the dark knight, the joker does this and more.. but yet this batman does nothing but save the jokers life.. if I remember correctly at least twice!!!. This batman has a fetish for clowns. The original batman in the first movie would have killed the joker w/o compunction especially after the joker killed Rachel and hurt many of Bruce's friends. The first batman was a more interesting character.. the current batman is a Sunday morning cartoon hero for 7 year olds...

 

[FreshPrince]

Originally posted by: ElFenix
what i liked about this comic book movie is that they don't bother explaining the origins of the joker. every other comic book movie villain has an origin story told on the screen. in this movie, the joker just is.

I agree I wanted to see the back story, and I guess they were saving it for the next movie...not knowing that hedger would die on them...

now, it's a bit of a genius not to show us in this movie because that's the whole mystique about joker...his behavior is so unpredictable, his past should be as well. it's a shame we will never know now...unless they put it in the extended dvd version....crosses fingers...

it was frustrating that the joker was even messing with the audience when he gave 2 separate stories about how he got his scars on his face...does anyone think that he is so insane that he makes up the stories as he goes? maybe no one, not even he himself knows how he got it...

the story about how his step father gave it to him was pretty cool though...I really thought that was it until he told rachel about the other story with his wife.

 

[FreshPrince]

Originally posted by: LostUte

Originally posted by: Ilmater

2) The Joker loves to test Batman's sense of right and justice by placing him into unwinnable situations - such as being able to save either Dent or Rachel, but not both. These are the kinds of dilemmas that will haunt Batman forever... he gave up what he truly wanted for the sake of Gotham (he felt Harvey was Gotham's best chance for rising above their current situation), and if Gotham doesn't prove worthy, he'll have to struggle with that forever.

He wanted to save Rachel, but the Joker switched the addresses.

did he?

why did the batman later say he wanted to save dent because he was the ray of hope that the city needed then? maybe batman was smarter than joker and anticipated that Joker would switch the addresses so he switched back? I dunno...it just never seem that it bothered the batman when he walked in to pull dent out of the warehouse....dent on the otherhand was so mad that they didn't save rachel. rachel...well she was very suprised...she thought bruce would save her...

did anyone catch this though? when batman was beating up the joker in the room, joker said something to the effect that he thought batman was dent, jumping out and saving rachel like that....so does this mean joker figured out that bruce is batman? wouldn't that be the only reason he would switch the addresses? otherwise, it does not make sense for the joker to switch the address on batman...

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: eleison

Originally posted by: K1052

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!!

Batman didn't kill Ra's, Ra's plan killed Ra's.
He even said "I won't kill you, but I don't have to save you."

Also remember that Bruce wouldn't kill Ra's when he blew up/escaped the League of Shadows HQ even at the risk of his own life (hanging off cliff).

So basically if a madman removes the rails from the tracks of a metro train, then goes and distracts the conductor so that the conductor would not be able to see the damaged tracks... than as its too late to stop the train, the madman jumps off leaving the conductor killed in the train wreck... You are saying he is not responsible for the death of the conductor????????? Yeaa... ok... whatever...

Oh when they were at the league of shadows, Bruce did not know that the man he saved was Ra's al Ghul.. In addition, there was no reason for Bruce to hurt the man. Batman had to murder Ra's al Ghul later because Ra's burnt down his house and hurt his gf, Rachel. Not to mention trying to poison the rest of the city.

In the dark knight, the joker does this and more.. but yet this batman does nothing but save the jokers life.. if I remember correctly at least twice!!!. This batman has a fetish for clowns. The original batman in the first movie would have killed the joker w/o compunction especially after the joker killed Rachel and hurt many of Bruce's friends. The first batman was a more interesting character.. the current batman is a Sunday morning cartoon hero for 7 year olds...

Ras put himself on that train. Batman's duty is to stop him, which he did. He chose not to kill him, so Ra's died of his own plan. He endangered everyone in that city. Those are the people that Batman cares about, not Ras.

 

[hdeck]

Originally posted by: FreshPrince

Originally posted by: LostUte

Originally posted by: Ilmater

2) The Joker loves to test Batman's sense of right and justice by placing him into unwinnable situations - such as being able to save either Dent or Rachel, but not both. These are the kinds of dilemmas that will haunt Batman forever... he gave up what he truly wanted for the sake of Gotham (he felt Harvey was Gotham's best chance for rising above their current situation), and if Gotham doesn't prove worthy, he'll have to struggle with that forever.

He wanted to save Rachel, but the Joker switched the addresses.

did he?

why did the batman later say he wanted to save dent because he was the ray of hope that the city needed then? maybe batman was smarter than joker and anticipated that Joker would switch the addresses so he switched back? I dunno...it just never seem that it bothered the batman when he walked in to pull dent out of the warehouse....dent on the otherhand was so mad that they didn't save rachel. rachel...well she was very suprised...she thought bruce would save her...

did anyone catch this though? when batman was beating up the joker in the room, joker said something to the effect that he thought batman was dent, jumping out and saving rachel like that....so does this mean joker figured out that bruce is batman? wouldn't that be the only reason he would switch the addresses? otherwise, it does not make sense for the joker to switch the address on batman...

they were just saying that to save face, like it was intentional. joker gave the wrong addresses and batman DEFINITELY wanted to save rachel and not dent.

 

[Gothgar]

Saw it last night... it was a great movie, but it is not what everyone is saying it was.

Joker stole the movie yet he had (too) little screen time in my opinion.

 

[Jawo]

the movie in IMAX was simply amazing! Ledger was so complex and multilayered...too bad that's his last since was was awesome. The one thing I was wondering about was why was the two face coin dated 1992? IIRC

 

[aldamon]

Originally posted by: JEDI

Originally posted by: aldamon

Originally posted by: JEDI

What do you think the premise of the 3rd movie will be?

I think there needs to be fallout from using a public company as a piggy bank to fund Batman, Inc. The extortion plot is only be the beginning IMO. Since the Riddler knows Batman's real identity, he'd be a natural fit for this kind of storyline. This would also fit with the fact Batman is now being actively hunted as a fugitive.

wait.. that guy that tried to blackmail Fox was/will become the riddler!??!?!

Nah. I know some people are coming to that conclusion because of a coincidence with his name, but I meant if a pion like that can find out Batman's ID, a supervillain could, too. The Riddler knows Batman's ID in the comic book.

 

[jiffer]

Originally posted by: Jawo
the movie in IMAX was simply amazing! Ledger was so complex and multilayered...too bad that's his last since was was awesome. The one thing I was wondering about was why was the two face coin dated 1992? IIRC

I think it's a Peace Liberty silver dollar dated 1922, like this one:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/custo...ages_0?ie=UTF8&index=0

Harvey Dent's coin is two-headed, of course. (It's a novelty coin created by using parts from two separate coins, which is not as rare as you might think).

I don't know if there's any significance to the year 1922, though. Did anything related to the comics happen that year?

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: jiffer

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.

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.)

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

As I recall, Dent was pointing a loaded gun at the criminal's head. (The criminal was defenseless and completely at Dent's mercy.) Do you consider that "playing by the rules"? Would the people of Gotham still consider Dent to be a "white knight" if they could see him doing that? Personally, I think it's a sign that he was leaning toward the dark side at that moment. At the very least, his character lost some of its glowing sheen, and he showed his "other" face that Batman didn't want anyone to see.

 

[anxi80]

Originally posted by: jiffer
At the very least, his character lost some of its glowing sheen, and he showed his "other" face that Batman didn't want anyone to see.

of course whats to stop the joker from screaming to high heaven to the cops/inmates/people in the courthouse that harvey dent was going around killing people. test the residue on his hands, test the gun, and so much for batman being the fall guy. with the exception of the blowing up of the boats, he had an exceptional track record of calling his shots. i guess thats where that whole suspension of disbelief thing comes in handy.

 

[RbSX]

Originally posted by: Gobadgrs
Right before the bomb went off and killed Rachel, wasn't batman going to save her? Did Joker give him the wrong address so he ended up saving Harvey?

Bingo.

 

[DigitalCancer]

My girlfriend and I absolutely loved the movie and we plan on seeing it again (maybe tonight). There were SOOO many people at our theatre for the midnight showing it was insane, 1100 total for 3 viewings in our theatre of 14.

My question...what was up with the ScareCrow having such a tiny and in-significant part in the beginning of the movie and not to be seen again? He didn't become a good guy in the first movie did he? It's been awhile since I've seen it and I need to watch it again but holding out for a BluRay copy. ^_^

 

[Ilmater]

Originally posted by: eleison
So basically if a madman removes the rails from the tracks of a metro train, then goes and distracts the conductor so that the conductor would not be able to see the damaged tracks... than as its too late to stop the train, the madman jumps off leaving the conductor killed in the train wreck... You are saying he is not responsible for the death of the conductor????????? Yeaa... ok... whatever...

Wrong. Again, you're an idiot. Ra's put himself on the train. Batman's #1 goal was to stop the train from reaching its destination, and therefore save people. In order to do that, he had to distract Ra's so he wouldn't stop the train. If Ra's had just let the train go assuming/hoping it would make it safely, he wouldn't have to be involved, and Batman would have tried to capture him alive. Instead, he put his life in danger by being there. That's Ra's' choice.

 

[KeithTalent]

Originally posted by: DigitalCancer
My girlfriend and I absolutely loved the movie and we plan on seeing it again (maybe tonight). There were SOOO many people at our theatre for the midnight showing it was insane, 1100 total for 3 viewings in our theatre of 14.

My question...what was up with the ScareCrow having such a tiny and in-significant part in the beginning of the movie and not to be seen again? He didn't become a good guy in the first movie did he? It's been awhile since I've seen it and I need to watch it again but holding out for a BluRay copy. ^_^

I bought the Blu-ray yesterday. It's only $23.99 for it around here right now.

KT

 

[prontospyder]

Did they explain how Rachel got captured? I thought she was staying at the Wayne Penthouse - the safest part of the city?