The Dark Knight

[Lightknight924]

Joker, by Heath Ledger, was a rise from the comic book joker and the original view of joker entirely.

[Lightknight924]

Spoiler: I realized that the guy in the beginning with the sack over his face in the parking lot near the van with the cut out eyes, was scarecrow.

[WhisperOfOblivion]

Spoilers ahead. Stop reading if you don't want to be spoiled ;P

Odds are, Harvey is dead -- otherwise Batman's sacrifice here would be worthless. The whole idea here is that they can't "let the Joker win." As cool as Two-Face was, they are likely going to keep him dead if there is ever a third movie. A lot of his motivation derived from the events of the movie pertaining to Rachel, and it just doesn't seem to make sense to keep that going for another entire sequel. Not all dead characters come back to life, despite what you may think -- I think Harvey's dead, dead, dead. They wrapped up his story nicely, and I think that's indeed the end of it.

I find it really interesting that, even though Joker says he never plans or schemes, his brilliance at predicting how people will act makes him a mastermind at scheming. Joker's strength lies in his ability to cause chaos in his favor, while screwing over everyone else's plans at the same time, and I love that they showed this side to him. I felt that Nicholson's Joker from the first Batman movie didn't quite make this obvious. Joker is supposed to be a crazed psychopath known for his cunning, lack of empathy, and overall creepy/disturbing demeanor, and I absolutely love the way Ledger pulled this off. I'm extremely upset that we won't be receiving any further performances from Heath... I honestly don't know how you can replace such a well-crafted character.

The scene where Batman is "interrogating" the Joker gave me hard chills, because you could really feel the brunt of the Joker's wrath. Even at Batman relentlessly beats the **** out of him, he just laughs it off, because, as he says, "[Batman] has absolutely nothing to threaten him with," while the lives of two others are in danger of being blown to bits in minutes. That scene, I think, is very classic Joker, and call me crazy, but I was like tearing/smiling like mad during that scene from its sheer awesomeness, haha. It was absolutely perfect. You could really feel Batman getting pissed the hell off at this crazy dude, who's able to orchestrate madness, even when locked up.

I also liked the downfall of Harvey Dent. For someone so dedicated to justice and locking evil up behind bars, it's amazing to see that he was capable of madness. The scene where he's flipping his coin/threatening to kill the schizophrenic guy was pretty intense.

Gosh there are just too many things about this movie I could go on and on about. I just thought so many things were done so perfectly. The character development, the action, the music, the stunts, the plot, the comic relief... it was all so great. Gordon's speech at the end was also very well done.

This movie deserves a 10/10... easily the best in the Batman series so far. It's going to be extremely hard to top if they ever make a sequel.

As for villains, I doubt we're going to see people like Mr. Freeze or Clayface. A trend among the villains so far is that they carry a certain element of realism. R.A.G. was believable, as was Scarecrow (simply using biological/chemical warfare, in a sense), and Joker is believable as an extremely intelligent/crazed criminal. The least realistic so far is Two-Face, but only because of the physical injuries involved, but it's still a relatively minor point. All of the villains so far still "fall within the reasonable realm of reality," but guys like Clayface and Mr. Freeze really would not, and I think it'd cheapen a lot of what makes Nolan's Batman movies so great. Besides, I don't think I could handle another movie where Mr. Freeze cracks ice jokes/puns every other sentence.

If there were indeed a sequel, it'd probably involve villains like The Riddler, Deadshot, Bane, etc. The problem is that the more well-known villains of Batman are few in number -- outside of those, the villains become a bit lamer and lesser known. But regardless of whatever Nolan does, if he does indeed make a sequel, I am confident he'll do it correctly.

[Afrombean]

On the topic of future villains:

I read somewhere that Nolan doesn't want to do villains that have already been done, which was probably his motivation for going for Scarecrow and Ra's Al Ghul.

But the most noteworthy villains have all been done by now, except maybe Clayface. And many of the ones already done share a thread of realism, or could translate moderately well. Catwoman and The Riddler come foremost to my mind. They could even do Penguin well if the changes are moderate like the way they were for Ra's al Ghul (i.e. in this version, he is not 600+ years old thanks to lazarus pits).

Person above mentioned Bane, but I don't think he is interesting enough. Noteworthy enough, yes, but not interesting (this is why he plays third banana in his appearance in Batman Forever). Deadshot is a possibility, but I would say that he's not as well known, and if he were to make a translation into this universe, he would probably just become a simple assassin, rather than a glorified marksman.

So I'm gonna go ahead now and call that it'll be Catwomen and/or The Riddler, paired with mob elements. For instance, they could have Tony Zucco appear in the next film, then pay off in the one after that by introducing Dick Grayson. Because I gotta be honest, Robin is one of those characters so closely tied with Batman that you can't tell the full story of Batman without him. It'd be like doing it without the Joker or without Commissioner Gordon. It just wouldn't be right.

[MalReynolds]

If you want the full Robin arc that encompasses his relationship, get rid of Grayson and skip right to Jason Todd, who is murdered by the Joker in a very dark story thread. Otherwise, Robin is just a stupid character.

[eastsideman09]

If the Joker reappears in any future Batman movie, it'll be damn tough to perform as well as Ledger did... Who else could pull that off?

PS: pow thwack crash bang boom whoosh

[ViciousDelicious]

Whisper of oblivion, I completely agree with you about heath Ledger's performance as the Joker. Those are just shoes that can't be filled. =/
And thank god for no Robin..

[Commandersa1]

Did anyone else notice how they mentioned Gordon's daughter, but did not show her at all? I guess they do not want to go in that direction. Batgirl really did not add much to the story.

Originally Posted by Afrombean

But the most noteworthy villains have all been done by now, except maybe Clayface. And many of the ones already done share a thread of realism, or could translate moderately well. Catwoman and The Riddler come foremost to my mind. They could even do Penguin well if the changes are moderate like the way they were for Ra's al Ghul (i.e. in this version, he is not 600+ years old thanks to lazarus pits).

Clayface might make a good villain, but it would not fit at all to this latest one. Catwoman already had a movie, didn't she? The Riddler and Bane had their own horrible movie also. I really hope they do not bring those characters back.

The next movie will probably be more Two-Face and Joker rather than a new villain.

[Afrombean]

Originally Posted by MalReynolds

If you want the full Robin arc that encompasses his relationship, get rid of Grayson and skip right to Jason Todd, who is murdered by the Joker in a very dark story thread. Otherwise, Robin is just a stupid character.

I don't like the idea of such character consolidation (combining a liked character's qualities into an unliked character), and I would hate to think about cutting out the possibility of Nightwing right out the gate. If anything, I'd say it should be that Jason's fate would be grafted onto Dick's character, for better emotional effect. But even that still cuts the chances of ever seeing Nightwing, and frankly, I don't think this Teen Titans film is ever gonna happen either (even the animated one looks like it's hit a dead end).

Also: No, you're just a stupid character.

Jason Todd is a loser anyway... why do you think they allowed him to be killed off? Why do you think he was brought back as a bad guy?

For you folks so dead set against it, why? Is it that you can't buy into the idea that Bruce would take in an orphan, even though he himself was orphaned and can relate? And don't even try to pull the "oh but he's just a itty bitty baby", because it wouldn't be hard for them to portray him as old enough for it to be reasonable for Bruce to allow Dick in on it. It also would be very easy for them to have it obvious that Dick wants to take the path himself, by having Dick track down Zucco on his own, without even knowing about Batman (I believe the Animated Series did it this way, although, if memory serves, it was in the form of a flashback'd retcon... I might also be thinking of The Batman's tackling of the subject). Overall, there is nothing more silly to Dick Grayson and Robin than there is to Bruce Wayne and Batman alone.

I mean, I'm a fan of Batman myself, and I can understand the appeal of Batman owning his own films (irony, given the most recent one), but to think he should NEVER take in Dick, to think he should NEVER have a partner? I don't think so.

Incidentally, what do you guys think of Batgirl? What if they only have Barbara in costume briefly before being shot down and paralyzed? They already got into the idea of people copycatting Batman, and that's all Batgirl was originally as well.

EDIT:

Did anyone else notice how they mentioned Gordon's daughter, but did not show her at all? I guess they do not want to go in that direction. Batgirl really did not add much to the story.

uh... did you see it? She's there at the end. They didn't feature her prominently, but I would guess that they did that because they didn't want to develop the character yet, and didn't necessarily want to get tied down to it. For example, the X-men films feature Shadowcat in each film, but she only has a major part in the third one (they were basically cameos in the first and second). But if they had featured her too much, they'd have had to have linked to it if they ever made her a main character, which they did in the third film. Not featuring Gordon's daughter prominently (they didn't even identify her by name) leaves things open.

[WhisperOfOblivion]

Nolan himself has said that he doesn't plan on adding villains like Penguin for being too unrealistic and cartoonish, and has no plans for Robin, who is a bit campy and would likely not add much depth to the series -- things are working perfectly well by just exploring Batman's development.

BTW, there is speculation that the guy who discovered the Wayne Enterprises accounting discrepancy and identity of Batman could possibly be the next Riddler. Mr. Reese -> mysteries. Of course, it's mere speculation, but it's one of the major theories on other Batman forums at the moment.

[Afrobean]

Is anyone else a little bothered by the same actors popping up in all sorts of these sorts of movies?

It's like some actors have hard-ons for media which naturally has a geek-core to it. Someone mentioned Samual L. Jackson was going to be in Watchmen. Was Mace Windu not enough? Was appearing across multiple films as Nick Fury? Need I mention Snakes on a Plane?

Hugo Weaving? Agent Smith, V, Megatron, Elrond?

That said, yes, I'll go ahead and agree that Mr. Weaving could handle the suave, yet compulsive riddling that would be required of the part. I honestly do not think anyone of a similar fame level would be as good for it as he would, assuming they do The Riddler as he should be done.

[MalReynolds]

There was a public vote to kill Jason off. The option to keep him dead was only a small, marginal winner.

Look, we've already seen an orphaned man turn to a life of crime fighting. I wouldn't want to see that again, because all it would be is Wayne babysitting this new guy. It would be an annoying retread of the first movie, but without Bruce turning into the villain at the end.

I like Batgirl and Barbara as she is essential towards cementing the idea that Gordon is just as unflappable as Batman, though.

[_Adrian_]

i love the new costume afrobean, to me it just looks better, more sleek and ninja-like!

[WhisperOfOblivion]

Robin would ruin the series.

[Afrobean]

Originally Posted by _Adrian_

i love the new costume afrobean, to me it just looks better, more sleek and ninja-like!

Batman's not a ninja. If he were, he wouldn't have the ears, cape, gadgets, mask, or bat symbol on his chest. He also would sneak up on people and kill them silently, instead of brutalizing evil doers in order to extrapolate information from them.

Look, we've already seen an orphaned man turn to a life of crime fighting. I wouldn't want to see that again, because all it would be is Wayne babysitting this new guy. It would be an annoying retread of the first movie, but without Bruce turning into the villain at the end.

Dick's take on it is a little different than Bruce's. I like to think of it more as a parallel than a "retread". Notice that Bruce didn't have a mentor in his youth, particularly not one of the sort that Batman is to Robin. Notice also that they can go ANYWHERE with a confrontation with Zucco, drawing from any number of sources, potentially even creating an entirely new idea behind it. To be brutally honest, I wouldn't even mind seeing Dick without donning a Robin costume the entire film... I just hate the idea of blockading the character outright without giving him a chance at all.

And like I said, it wouldn't be hard for the character of Dick Grayson to be old enough to not need "babysitting", because frankly, it would be very irresponsible for Bruce to allow a child to accompany him on his adventures. And why would the mentor need to become the villain in the end? Is it wrong for a mentor to remain as a mentor UNTIL DICK GOES "DUDE YOU BEAT UP GUYS TOO MUCH BRB NIGHTWINGING IT UP LOL".

All in all though, I just love the idea of Bruce's attempts to surround himself with a family that he never had. It's interesting for me to think of, considering the nature of Batman ironically makes it so difficult to actually achieve this. In the films, his inability to maintain relationships seems to be specifically limited to the flavor-of-the-week ladies in the films (and eventually Miss Dawes in the new reboot), but I'd love to see the notion entertained in relation to the extended family that springs up in other tellings of the Batman mythos.

EDIT:

Originally Posted by WhisperOfOblivion

Robin would ruin the series.

Can you explain to me why Robin would ruin this film series even though Robin did NOT ruin any other set of Batman continuity?

The only argument I could think of would be to cite Batman Forever, but that pile of **** was destined for failure with or without Robin, just like Batman & Robin was destined to suck ass with or without Batgirl.

[Cursebred]

The movie was EPIC.

[Afrombean]

Originally Posted by djshox

The other two choices so far that have held some weight over at 4chan's /tv/ are Crispin Glover or David Tennant from Doctor Who. I remember Tennant only from the Harry Potter movies as Barty Crouch Jr., and he did an awesome job as a villain, ironically licking his lips occasionally.

I read on Wikipedia that David Tennant has expressed interest. Don't know much about him or if he could do it; I don't even recall any standout characteristics of his apparent portrayal of Barty Crouch, Jr. I always saw The Riddler as a calm and composed fellow, a suave trickster. I don't think Crispin Glover could do it to be honest... he's too wacky. Even if Mr. Glover could manage the performance, I'm sure he would still end up giving him a weird energy regardless. Maybe I just haven't seen enough of his work... what else has he done besides Back to the Future and that rat film?

I would say that Hugo Weaving is the best high profile actor I could ever consider to be in line with what I think of The Riddler as.

I think the best thing about The Riddler would be how simple they could take it. A green suit with a green bowler hat would even be enough. The question mark motif could easily be cut out. I mean, come on this guy has a compulsion for riddles, I don't think it needs to be driven home with question marks all over his outfit.

[Telvanni_guard]

Is it bad that I liked Jim Carrey's verison of Edward Nigma?

Then again, I liked the movie.

[Afrobean]

Originally Posted by Telvanni_guard

Is it bad that I liked Jim Carrey's verison of Edward Nigma?

His take on it is totally unique. It's not so bad that you like it, but it's not the same character really. Honestly, I didn't mind the way it was (because he played it rather genuinely), but it just wasn't true to the character.

Then again, I liked the movie.

Meh. Batman Forever wasn't ANYWHERE near as bad as Batman & Robin. It started down that path, but it didn't reach the levels that its sequel did.

[Blackgoth911]

The movie was good...I enjoyed Heath Ledger's Joker and it totally topped Jack Nicholson's Joker. I also loved the way they did Two-Face. It's a shame he won't be back if they ever attempted a sequel.

Small spoiler: Did anyone else find it funny that you never hear 'The Dark Knight' throughout the whole movie until the end, also it being the last thing said in the movie.