The Dark Knight

[bob_barron 0]

Thanks 909!

 

Crowd I was in was almost perfect. Yes, that dbag did open up his phone a few times, but no talking or anything. And waiting in line, people loved our Ledger jokes

[Nightwing 0]

It's a big risk. I don't know If I'd take that risk. Yeah they would make a shitload of money, but it could leave a bad taste in everyones mouth if the new Joker sucks ass.

 

I think Johny Depp would be the perfect replacement to follow in Heath's footsteps. The problem is conceiving a story good enough to justify bringing the Joker back, making him seem like a convincing threat without making a Batman (Who is now prepared for him) not look like a fool. That'd be a real tough balancing act. I'd say no sooner than the fourth movie in the series, but I don't know if Nolan will want to go that far.

[King Kamala 0]

I'd love to see The Penguin as the bad guy in the third one (providing they make a third one) but we all know that ain't happening unfortunately.

 

Bane would be a great villain but he's kind of obscure. Maybe make him a secondary villain.

[Scroby 0]

I liked Gyllenhaal better than Holmes but she was the weakest link. The Rachel Dawes part really is kind of unneccessary but I guess there's got to be some principal female character. Come to mention it, I don't remember Bruce Wayne's love interests in the Burton/Schumacher series being particularly interesting either.

Was it me or did Gyllenhall just look tired the entire movie? Though I have to admit, I have a thing for Gyllenhall, ever since I saw "The Secretary"...Maggie Gyllenhall = yes.

 

(seriously, guys if you wanna get a girl hot, pop that movie in.)

[Nighthawk 0]

Bane's whole appeal is, pardon the expression, roid rage. Emotional and spiritual roid rage, as well as his Venom addiction. He's a juggernaut, I don't think he's as good when he's not the focus. A lot of backstory. A lot of interplay with the extended bat-universe. I wouldn't use him. Maybe a nod to him for the fans is all.

[Aero 0]

The crowd in my theater was really good for the most part, laughing at all the funny stuff as you'd expect. Cheering was pretty minimal, surprisingly, but there were huge cheers for

the pencil trick

and

Gordon's return

. The latter probably got more of an ovation, shockingly. The only annoyances in my theater were those people who laugh hysterically at something Joker just said, which is fine, but then they feel the need to repeat the line out loud... "OMG, he says (line)!" Good crowd otherwise.

[MFer 0]

Just got back from the movie and it definitely lived up to the hype. I agree that Eckhart was great in this (as well as Ledger of course).

As far as Two Face's "death" goes, I just figured that he died and then Gordon made up his story before everyone else figured out what Dent had become.

The theatre I was in was only about half-full...they were good for the most part.

[Molotov The Bear 0]

Just beyond bad ass. Awesome awesome movie.

The magic pencil

had the entire theater go "holy shit!"

 

 

A quick question:

Did Fox actually resign in the end, or did Bruce rig the machine so he wouldn't lose Lucius? That was maybe the only part of the movie that I wasn't quite sure about.

 

Batman: "When your done here, enter your name."

 

Near-end, Fox types in "Luscious Fox," and the screens start exploding.

 

I think he obviously rigged it to be destroyed after they were done.

 

[BruteSquad_BRODY 0]

Million Billion Stars and all, but this could've easily been made into 2 movies. I was engrossed but 2 1/2 hours was making me a little antzy at the end. But blame my OCD and ADHD for that.

 

Dent's facial injury could've been the teaser for the next movie. Between the Mob, Asians and Joker the movie would've been good stuff as a movie in itself.

 

I fully expect to be tore a new one for that thinking process though.

[At Home 0]

I don't really want there to be a recast of the Joker. Considering that Ledger's performance may very well go down as the greatest performance of a supervillian ever, a recast of the part would just be shit by comparison.

 

Why would they

lock up Dent? There's no reason to just lock him up. They can't really prove that he killed people, and, because it's a movie, they won't prosecute him for attempted murder or something like that on the kid. I don't know. I just can't see him surviving the fall.

 

 

My audience was good. Not a lot of talking, except the guy next to me yelled "Slut!" when

Maggie Gyllenhall kissed Bale.

[Exslade ZX 0]

I don't really want there to be a recast of the Joker. Considering that Ledger's performance may very well go down as the greatest performance of a supervillian ever, a recast of the part would just be shit by comparison.

 

Why would they

lock up Dent? There's no reason to just lock him up. They can't really prove that he killed people, and, because it's a movie, they won't prosecute him for attempted murder or something like that on the kid. I don't know. I just can't see him surviving the fall.

 

 

My audience was good. Not a lot of talking, except the guy next to me yelled "Slut!" when

Maggie Gyllenhall kissed Bale.

Well Arkham is an asylum, and it was pretty obvious by the end of the movie, holding the kid gunpoint as you mentioned, that Dent had pretty mcuh gone crazy. And if he was alive, do you think he's just going to go back to living a normal life?/back to politics? So if he did in fact live, it only made sense to lock him up.

 

Plus, I'm pretty sure they can prove he killed the people. Consider the people he killed he just straight up shot. And I doubt he went through all kinds of precautions to hide the gun. And even if he did, well, being the whole 'World's Greatest Detective' and everything, chances are he'd still be found out by Batman.

[Nighthawk 0]

Recast of the Joker: I really didn't want that either, because there's no "may very well", that was one of the greatest things I'd ever seen.

 

BUT... if we get an actor who is good enough, and ballsy enough, and respects what Heath did enough, to understand how to try not to copy him, but at the same time bring enough of him into it to not disrespect him. Is this impossible? No. It's hard but not impossible.

 

My choices, as noted: Johnny Depp, who can play anything. Cast Johnny Depp as a fucking table, he'll turn in an Oscar worthy performance. And Daniel Day Lewis, for my money, the greatest actor who has ever lived.

[NoCalMike 0]

Just got back. A Masterpiece. I loved it. I even got interviewed by the local news and a friend taped the news and I actually made the broadcast. Haha. I got asked a bunch of questions but I think just a short 10 second clip made the actual broadcast.....

 

I could see a third installment made with maybe the Joker playing a smaller part from inside a jail cell or something, maybe a Hannibal Lector-esque role where he is manipulating things from the inside all the while planning an escape, while

Harvey Dent, assuming he is still alive and some other super villian

are the main villians for the next go around.

 

Or, really I could see them going Joker-less in the third installment in order to give everyone a collective sigh and exhale, while planning his return in a fourth installment with someone else cast as him, of course talking a fourth installment is getting way ahead of the game really.

 

Really, I could write so much more, but 33 pages into this thread, everything that could be said has, I guess it is time to turn the conversation to the future of the series and the possibilities....so I eagerly await that conversation.

[At Home 0]

Well Arkham is an asylum, and it was pretty obvious by the end of the movie, holding the kid gunpoint as you mentioned, that Dent had pretty mcuh gone crazy. And if he was alive, do you think he's just going to go back to living a normal life?/back to politics? So if he did in fact live, it only made sense to lock him up.

 

Plus, I'm pretty sure they can prove he killed the people. Consider the people he killed he just straight up shot. And I doubt he went through all kinds of precautions to hide the gun. And even if he did, well, being the whole 'World's Greatest Detective' and everything, chances are he'd still be found out by Batman.

Why would they go and try to find out if he killed people? I mean, it's a movie. That's just semantics. And why would Batman go through the motions of trying to discover Dent's killings too?

 

I didn't see him as crazy near the end of the movie. He wanted to hurt the people that hurt him the most. I could understand that.

 

 

[NoCalMike 0]

Well Arkham is an asylum, and it was pretty obvious by the end of the movie, holding the kid gunpoint as you mentioned, that Dent had pretty mcuh gone crazy. And if he was alive, do you think he's just going to go back to living a normal life?/back to politics? So if he did in fact live, it only made sense to lock him up.

 

Plus, I'm pretty sure they can prove he killed the people. Consider the people he killed he just straight up shot. And I doubt he went through all kinds of precautions to hide the gun. And even if he did, well, being the whole 'World's Greatest Detective' and everything, chances are he'd still be found out by Batman.

Why would they go and try to find out if he killed people? I mean, it's a movie. That's just semantics. And why would Batman go through the motions of trying to discover Dent's killings too?

 

I didn't see him as crazy near the end of the movie. He wanted to hurt the people that hurt him the most. I could understand that.

 

well it seemed obvious by the end of the movie that Dent had plenty of skeletons in the closet. It seemed at the beginning of the movie he really was the "white knight" do-gooder, but slowly things were being eluded to that he wasn't quite so innocent and then when he becomes two-face it was kind of an extension of what he might have already been, I mean the cops did afterall already brandish him with that name anyway. As far as Batman goes, he made it clear he DIDN'T want to know anything bad about Dent, because he wanted to keep the facade of Dent being the "white knight" alive and well.

 

Oh and the theater crowd I was in, gave Heath Ledger a standing ovation when his name flashed on the screen during the credits. It was moving.

[Exslade ZX 0]

Well Arkham is an asylum, and it was pretty obvious by the end of the movie, holding the kid gunpoint as you mentioned, that Dent had pretty mcuh gone crazy. And if he was alive, do you think he's just going to go back to living a normal life?/back to politics? So if he did in fact live, it only made sense to lock him up.

 

Plus, I'm pretty sure they can prove he killed the people. Consider the people he killed he just straight up shot. And I doubt he went through all kinds of precautions to hide the gun. And even if he did, well, being the whole 'World's Greatest Detective' and everything, chances are he'd still be found out by Batman.

Why would they go and try to find out if he killed people? I mean, it's a movie. That's just semantics. And why would Batman go through the motions of trying to discover Dent's killings too?

 

I didn't see him as crazy near the end of the movie. He wanted to hurt the people that hurt him the most. I could understand that.

I'm pretty sure they already knew that he was a killer. Or at the very least assumed. That was implied at least. When they were referring to not wanting the people of Gotham to 'see what he had become' they certainly weren't talking about his face. And why would Batman try to discover someone's murders? Well because he's Batman...and that's what he does. He's a detective before he's a guy that just beats random thugs in alleys. Or at least that's what he's to become as I know the movies are very early on in his "career".

 

And as for the last comment, someone who murders someone they hate, is still a murderer. I think by the end, he may not have been on the psychopathic level as the Joker obviously, but he was still somewhat crazy. Or at least for the city of Gotham, where Arkham is essentially their prison as more people go there then actual jail.

[bob_barron 0]

http://news.fantasymoguls.com/originalcont...knight-lik.html

[UZI Suicide 0]

I don't believe it lived up to the "best movie EVAR" hyperbole but it was certainly great and I'll be seeing it again early next week. One thing that irked me a bit was Jonathan Nolan's screenplay. A lot of the dialogue was just way too corny for my liking. Especially at the very end.

 

I think Two Face is dead, if he wasn't they would have either shown him in Arkham or left any kind of hint that he may have been alive. If he is alive, he certainly won't be the main villain in the next movie, probably just have a small part in it, because you can't really go into the next installment hyping Batman vs. Two-Face after what happened at the end.

 

I was thinking on the way home about who is talented enough and ballsy enough to take on the role of The Joker if they do recast. And the two that came to mind were Johnny Depp and Daniel Day-Lewis. And then I thought.. Ben Foster would probably make an awesome Joker.

 

Heath Ledger was fantastic, but I don't think it's like a situation where it was so mindblowingly unbelievable that nobody can ever play The Joker again.

[UZI Suicide 0]

Oh and..

 

Is Anthony Michael Hall being set up to play The Riddler in the next one? Seemed like it to me.

[ChrisMWaters 0]

OK...saw it in IMAX (and was lucky to work at Tropicana to get a ticket for it)...and my quick thoughts.

 

1)The whole Dent thing: I don't see him dead. Not mentioning anything about Arkham though is to get people to think he may be. Because technically, if he DID die, wouldn't that mean Batman killed him, since he was the one who tackled Dent to save Gordon's son?

 

2)Joker was amazingly magnificantly twisted. And yes, I enjoyed thinking about the line I read of the summary of the comic (don't have the money for comics that much) "The Killing Joke"..."If I'm gonna have a backstory, I want it to be multiple choice!"

 

3)So wait...a year later and Wayne Manor STILL hasn't been finished being rebuilt? O_o

 

4)Again, Joker was great. He now takes tie for first in my fav Jokers (the other being the voice of Mark Hammil)

 

5)As for the next movie...Riddler was a thought I had. If they hadn't already used him in the animated feature that came out, I'd say Deadshot for a minor role. Another minor villain they could use for a few scenes maybe could be the Ventriliquist...but that may be a bit over the top.

[Exslade ZX 0]

At what point was it confirmed it was a year later?

[ChrisMWaters 0]

At what point was it confirmed it was a year later?

The scene where Joker was talking to the mobsters, and he mentioned 'A year ago, these policemen and lawyers wouldn't even get NEAR you.'

[Exslade ZX 0]

At what point was it confirmed it was a year later?

The scene where Joker was talking to the mobsters, and he mentioned 'A year ago, these policemen and lawyers wouldn't even get NEAR you.'

Oh ok. I see that line of thinking, but I really don't think it was a year's span. Of course I could be wrong. But, Begins ends with the first appearance of the Joker's calling card. When this one begins, Batman still considers the Joker a non-threat more or less. I doubt it would have taken The Joker a year from when he started for his crimes to escalate.

 

Keep in mind, even if Batman started just a month ago, the sentence "a year ago they wouldn't have touched you" is still correct.

[Damaramu 0]

Yeah but.......

 

You have to think there is some amount of time for Dent to be elected and start a relationship with Dawes. If it's just a month later then they moved really fast and she separated herself from Bruce pretty quickly.

[DarKnight 0]

I think the Riddler would be the best choice for the villian in the next movie. As I think there is a great story you can tell, in that Batman's existence has inspired "freaks", and the Riddler is one of them. Batman thinks there couldn't be any greater escalation after the Joker, but The Riddler is a villian who uses incredible intelligence for his crimes, so Batman finds him to be quite a challenge. Also, of course, have The Riddler's character act like a normal calm guy, and have his costume look realistic, as in a green suit with a green hat (just like the animated series). I would include Catwoman as well, since I don't want that Halle Berry abomination to be the last interpretation of the character on screen. Plus, I think she could fit very well in the mystery theme of the movie.

[Exslade ZX 0]

Yeah but.......

 

You have to think there is some amount of time for Dent to be elected and start a relationship with Dawes. If it's just a month later then they moved really fast and she separated herself from Bruce pretty quickly.

Well I know it's been more then a month, it has to have been. Considering he's built a whole new 'Batcave' setup in that warehouse or whatever it is. I was just using that as an example.

 

Although we've seen how fast Bruce can build things, considering he found out about that cellphone tech from Lucius, and then just a short while later, has built a giant computer, as well as wiring all the phones in Gotham.

[Anakin Flair 0]

I think the Riddler would be the best choice for the villian in the next movie. As I think there is a great story you can tell, in that Batman's existence has inspired "freaks", and the Riddler is one of them. Batman thinks there couldn't be any greater escalation after the Joker, but The Riddler is a villian who uses incredible intelligence for his crimes, so Batman finds him to be quite a challenge. Also, of course, have The Riddler's character act like a normal calm guy, and have his costume look realistic, as in a green suit with a green hat (just like the animated series). I would include Catwoman as well, since I don't want that Halle Berry abomination to be the last interpretation of the character on screen. Plus, I think she could fit very well in the mystery theme of the movie.

 

Actually, I could see them using the most current incarnation of The Riddler- the legit, mdeia hound private eye as a foil to Batman, while they use someone else as a villian.

[Brett Favre 0]

I'd find it hard to believe that Harvey is NOT dead. If he weren't dead, he'd have to have been badly hurt, and Batman and Gordon just started speaking to each other, while he's basically about to die? I don't think they'd do that. Plus, if they were keeping him alive as a secret way too much people would have to be in on it (the police chasing Batman would come back and find out) and Gordon's family would have to be okay with it and help move Harvey's body after he almost killed them. He's dead, Batman is seen as a villain, but the guy Gotham needs.

[Nighthawk 0]

No more spoilers! Fanboys have seen this already. Nobody else gives a shit.

[godthedog 0]

there was a really great movie in here screaming to get out, but it was surrounded by some clutter.

 

i think it would be pretty much agreed that this is as good as the franchise is going to get, simply because the joker is your best shot to get things right. nobody sums up what the batman universe is all about as good as he does, and every other villain seems tame in comparison. on the one hand, they handled the joker stuff as well as it could possibly be handled. not just in the way ledger played him, but the writing of the character was spot-on. even simple lines like "i wanna drive" were perfect little additions. his behavior is pretty much lifted from the killers in 'funny games', and that's not a bad thing.

 

on the other hand, it's the fucking joker and he warrants his own movie. showing the arc of harvey dent & the origin of two-face is fine, but how are you going to make two-face seem like a genuine threat when the joker's out there? who gives a shit about two-face when pure fucking evil is running rampant through the city? if ever there was a case when you could break the new "two villains per movie" rule, it's the joker.

 

this really hurt the structure of the movie when

the joker got caught, and they still had 10+ more minutes to wrap up with two-face. it ended with a whimper, and it shouldn't have. and they did so little with two-face that there didn't even seem to be any point in showing him. why not just have him disappear after the hospital, to come back in the next movie? this was the same problem that 'spider-man 3' had with venom.

 

also, the joker's succession of schemes got a little tiresome after a while. we get it, he likes chaos, he likes making people have to choose, etc. his last scheme of evacuating the city, the ferry boats, and all that, just didn't feel like it was needed, and it built to a not-very-climactic showdown.

 

also: christian bale's growling in the batman costume is out of control. it's comically bad. it bothered me a little in the first one, but he has so many grand speeches that he has to make (especially in the last 15 minutes or so) that it's just impossible to take seriously.