Official "The Dark Knight" SPOILER Thread

[MaulFan]

without that I don't think it is fair to criticize those that feel the story is complete. But as I say, if I'm missing the point that you are making then I apologize.

Well, putting aside official and unofficial information, this really started out as a discussion not of whether WB is done, but whether or not the story of TDK successfully concluded the arc of Nolan's Bruce/Batman character.

I'm with folks who feel TDK didn't wrap up the Bruce/Batman story arc and there's enough to be told to constitute a third film, whether that happens or not. I really hope it does because I've enjoyed the journey so far, between the writers and Bale's portrayal of the character, I've come to love the Wayen and Batman sides in this series and want to see where they develop to from TDK's events. I never cared about Bruce Wayne until Nolan's films, I was always about Batman in the earlier movies.

 

[MaulFan]

For Superman I definitely agree in a general sense, though the first Superman film did a nice job of having him race across the country to stop threats on either coast. Then of course there was him using the earth itself to turn back time.

Well, I know Batman can't be like that, but that's where I find the humor. Batman is legendary, but in a global scope, his impact is minute, he cleans up a city but the rest of the world is ^^^^ed

I'm just fascinated how in Batman movies, there seems almost to be no world outside of Gotham City, at least Begins and TDK opened things up a bit, especially TDK, "Batman has no jurisdiction."

 

[Khev]

I'm with folks who feel TDK didn't wrap up the Bruce/Batman story arc and there's enough to be told to constitute a third film, whether that happens or not.

It really just comes down to what you consider is needed to bring finality to the series. I'm just glad that if Nolan is going for "redemption in the eyes of Gotham's citizens" or "Batman having peace of mind and a working Batmobile" or whatever else that at least he's throwing a bone to those of us who emphasize other aspects of the character by having both BB and TDK end as a completed story in and of themselves.

Just a brilliant way to go about the series.

Well, I know Batman can't be like that, but that's where I find the humor. Batman is legendary, but in a global scope, his impact is minute, he cleans up a city but the rest of the world is ^^^^ed

I hear you and as I said earlier it'd be neat to see him cruising around in other parts of the world but in a way he's not much more than Gotham's unofficial one-man non-lethal SWAT team. And that's definitely a role more suited to operating in a single city.

 

[plasmid303]

I find it funny how Batman and Superman are big heroes, yet their efforts focus on Gotham or Metropolis. What world is it where only one city is riddled with crime and such. That aspect of Batman is rediculous to me, he's a hero, but he's only cleaning up one city on the whole planet, whoopie-woo haha. I think taking him out of that context and making his route of attack on cleaning up criminality expand to wherever brutal crime is going on would expand the heroism of the character and if done right, create a more powerful Batman because he's looming over everywhere, you never know where he'll pop up.

The whole idea of Batman protecting Gotham City is because it was the city he grew up in, so he witnessed the best, and worst of Gotham. It was what took his parents.

I'm sure there are superheroes in the other parts of the world (in the DC universe, which often features many migrating superheroes) who vehemently protect their home cities whether they're well known heroes or not (I feel this needs to be established in a future DC film). It doesn't always have to be Batman or Superman who saves the day, and, politics and bureaucracy aside, maybe they aren't needed as badly abroad as they are at home.

I would NOT like an international-crime fighting Batman. Gotham isn't the only crime-ridden cesspool in the world, but leaving it to play hero abroad isn't a good idea. Gotham needs saving, and the job is never finished. That's how it is in the comics.

And plus, isn't international crime busting what the JL is for?

Same goes for Marvel. Spider-Man sticks with New York, but the Avengers have no real boundaries.

 

[MaulFan]

Nolan is a talented filmmaker, and I think some of his talents are subtle and missed by some folks.

One of my favorite skills of his is the open endings he creates in the Batman series. Begins and TDK both lead into a sequel, make you crave one, but bring finality to the story enough that you can be fairly ok if it doesn't happen. Most filmmakers that open the end of a film to imply a sequel usually do it such that you have to get the sequel to feel satisfied, there's not enough closure if it doesn't happen.

 

[Agent0028]

Well, putting aside official and unofficial information, this really started out as a discussion not of whether WB is done, but whether or not the story of TDK successfully concluded the arc of Nolan's Bruce/Batman character.

I'm with folks who feel TDK didn't wrap up the Bruce/Batman story arc and there's enough to be told to constitute a third film, whether that happens or not. I really hope it does because I've enjoyed the journey so far, between the writers and Bale's portrayal of the character, I've come to love the Wayen and Batman sides in this series and want to see where they develop to from TDK's events. I never cared about Bruce Wayne until Nolan's films, I was always about Batman in the earlier movies.

Yeah, I know, and I agree, I feel like TDK left a very nice set up for a third movie. However I don't think that it's fair to criticize someone who feels that the story is complete. Especially by saying that it was always intended to be a trilogy when there is no (to my understanding at least) definite evidence of that.

 

[MaulFan]

Yeah, I know, and I agree, I feel like TDK left a very nice set up for a third movie. However I don't think that it's fair to criticize someone who feels that the story is complete. Especially by saying that it was always intended to be a trilogy when there is no (to my understanding at least) definite evidence of that.

You are correct, whatever the intent of the filmmakers and perception of the films, if someone feels that the 2 films have started and concluded the character arc to a satisfactory point, that's their right, no matter what facts about the story do or don't exist. If someone feels Begins started and ended the character arc they're entitled to think so. As long as we can keep civil about our POV's this can be a fun conversation and enlightening.

 

[Khev]

I definitely agree that TDK can give way to some incredible extensions of the story, even if my personal preference be that the future of Gotham and Bruce/Batman be left to audience interpretation.

For the sake of discussion its even feasible that Batman taking the blame for Harvey's murders could have a *negative* impact on the city. What happens when all the Batman wannabe vigilantes start blowing away every two bit crook at point blank range? After all that's what their "hero" supposedly did. It'll be interesting if they decide to explore that possibility.

 

[MaulFan]

For the sake of discussion its even feasible that Batman taking the blame for Harvey's murders could have a *negative* impact on the city. What happens when all the Batman wannabe vigilantes start blowing away every two bit crook at point blank range? After all that's what their "hero" supposedly did. It'll be interesting if they decide to explore that possibility.

I think TDK covered that to an extent. The copycats were armed with rifles, machine guns, the works, I imagine people would have been injured or killed had Batman not intervened.

I think an Act 3 story will actually change the copycat idea into hunters pursuing Batman. Crime will continue to get cleaned up by Batman, but citizens with the same mentality as to copy Batman would turn on him just the same and hunt him down.

Someone said before, and I agree, that Batman shouldn't be like he was in the 90's film persay, where it's like oh ^^^^ the city's falling apart just call Batman, the people shouldn't just be Batman ass kissers, but I do think there needs to be some redemption of sorts. I think the best way to treat Batman based on Begins and TDK is like a security blanket for the city, you don't call him out or back off in situations expecting him to come, but you take comfort in knowing he's out there protecting the city. I think that's a nice way to redeem him yet not go too far with it. I really think Act 3, if done, will be better than TDK. The action and pace ought to be TDK quality, while the drama and human aspects will be deeper and more powerful like in Begins. I really want Act 3 to explore Bruce's dealing with things more like in Begins than TDK, TDK abbreviated that aspect a bit more than I'd like it to have. It did enough that it didn't hurt the story, just my personal taste I missed that from Begins.

 

[Riko]

What are you talking about, Dude? You misread and misconstrued my quote and commented so I responded, that's all. A simple clarification.

TDK was always planned and hoped to be part 2 of a Trilogy. Just as ESB was Part 2 of a SW Trilogy. TDK = ESB.

WB will make a third Movie. The theme will be "Redemption". That has already been established by Nolan and Co. and the Studio. Whether Nolan writes it and/or Directs it or not. TDK sets up Part 3 of the Trilogy.

euhm, isn't that just your own opinion and so doens't that make this all....S P E C U L A T I O N on your behalf?

because it seems, and correct me if I am wrong, for the sake of us all, that you try to make us believe that all what I quote you for, is a certainty?
But the fact is, only some actors have a contract for 3 movies, nolan hasn't and SUPPOSELY because of the succes there will be a 3rd movie, but that's it.

No story, no director, no villain, let's face it, basically there is no nothing...

so how can you say such things as that there is already a theme, and some sort of agreement between studio and director?? I mean, what the hell man! what are you trying to make us believe?

do not forget this! (maulfan said it here somewhere too) that Noland wasn't even planning to make a sequel on Batman Begins...so how the hell can you say that just that One person: Nolan already has something fixed with the studios for a part 3, that is just plain silly

 

[pjam]

This is old news, about a month ago, but it confirms there has been talk about the 3rd pic between Chris and David as well as a theme for it... and this conversation occurred sometime before TDK was released.

And with the success of TDK, it's almost a certainty a Third film will be made. That's how Hollywood works. It also confirms Nolan and Goyer have been plotting out loose elements, a Villain and a theme for it, but clearly, it has a long way to go, storywise.

Does it confirm there was always a Trilogy in mind? You be the judge. I think as Writers, they knew they had a ways to go with this Character, and with a proper theme and Villain to serve it, they could accomplish this.


EXCLUSIVE: David Goyer Says He Knows The Theme For ‘Batman 3’
Published by Shawn Adler on Monday, July 21, 2008 at 12:59 pm.
Whether you agree or not, judging from both fan reaction and near universal critical acclaim, “The Dark Knight” will almost certainly go down as the greatest comic book movie of all-time, with a performance from Heath Ledger that is being hailed as one of the greatest on-screen villains ever.

Now all Christopher Nolan, his brother Jonathan, David Goyer, and an as yet unnamed villain have to do is top it.

“I think that’s the scariest thing – to think, could we come up with a third movie that was as good as the first two? Can we top ourselves?” screenwriter David Goyer asked aloud, almost rhetorically, in a recent conversation with MTV News. “Doing it a third time would be a big proposition.”

Make no mistake about it, though, a third film HAS been discussed, Goyer confessed, revealing that, while nothing is concrete, both a villain and a theme have been bandied about.

“We’ve only talked loosely about it, though, Chris and I,” Goyer said.

Interestingly, it’s the theme, and not the villain, that most interests me, especially given how the latter seems inexorably tied to the former in this new modern Batman universe. (Fear the predominant issue in “Begins” precipitating the introduction of Scarecrow, escalation in “Knight” similarly calling for The Joker.

The fact that Goyer has a theme he wants to keep in mind for a possible “Batman 3” means he also has a direction, a crisis, and, yes, a villain.

So what is it?

“I have one,” Goyer said laughing. “But I’m not going to tell you. Chris is very particular about that.

“I do think, though, that if there’s not a third film – these two movies stand on their own,” he added. “I think it could go either way.”

 

[Agent0028]

Personally that doesn't indicate to me that a trilogy was planned from the start, just that they left it open as an option and have talked about possibilities for it.

 

[The Mike]

I'm too lazy to go fetch it but Goyer has been quoted by saying he wrote a trilogy already. What he is referring to is that Nolan and his brother have pretty much dismantled almost everything he had written for both Batman Begins and The Dark Knight. The addition of Two-Face fully into The Dark Knight is already one of the changes Nolan pulled because originally Goyer had said he was the main villain originally planned for the third.

 

[Khev]

“I do think, though, that if there’s not a third film – these two movies stand on their own,” he added. “I think it could go either way.”

Well that certainly puts to rest whether or not the actual writer of the film thinks TDK needs a follow-up. He may certainly have a third movie in mind but he obviously recognizes that BB and TDK work as complete stories in and of themselves.

And Maulfan I had forgotten about the Batwannabe's having guns. Plus there was that very public and graphic display of what the Joker did when he caught one of them. That might have ended the copycats right there. Its one thing to think you're cool by dressing up like Batman, quite another when you actually realize you could come face to face with the pyschotic villains only he is qualified to face.

 

[The Mike]

The studio is set to announce its plans for future DC movies in the next month. For now, though, it is focused on releasing four comic-book films in the next three years, including a third Batman film, a new film reintroducing Superman, and two movies focusing on other DC Comics characters. Movies featuring Green Lantern, Flash, Green Arrow, and Wonder Woman are all in active development.

Looks like the third is already being greenlit and announced...I wonder if this means Nolan has already accepted...

 

[barbelith]

wofford29 indicated in another thread this was the place for an analysis of why some people have taken to describing The Dark Knight as a masterpiece. wofford29 himself suggested it will do for film what Watchmen did for comics. As someone who thinks it's a fine film but neither the Second Coming nor the best superhero movie ever, I'd like to throw open the floor and ask some of its bigger supporters why exactly The Dark Knight is a masterpiece of film. Thoughts?

 

[wofford29]

wofford29 indicated in another thread this was the place for an analysis of why some people have taken to describing The Dark Knight as a masterpiece. wofford29 himself suggested it will do for film what Watchmen did for comics. As someone who thinks it's a fine film but neither the Second Coming nor the best superhero movie ever, I'd like to throw open the floor and ask some of its bigger supporters why exactly The Dark Knight is a masterpiece of film. Thoughts?

If you want to throw down the guantlet, let's start with why you believe it is not. What superhero movie from an all around production standpoint is better and why? What superhero movie deals with it's subject matter as maturely as TDK? What superhero movie has better acting? What superhero movie has a better script? What superhero movie comes closer as a film to being better executed than TDK?

 

[MaulFan]

I'd like to throw open the floor and ask some of its bigger supporters why exactly The Dark Knight is a masterpiece of film. Thoughts?

I'd say a lot stems from it's entertainment value. To me, a masterpiece film is not only a good experience but really touches on the technical aspects in the best ways you could. TDK is likely not a masterpiece in that regard, I'm sure there are some aspects like editing or whatever that could be done better. I think it can be said though, that it's a masterpiece in it's cinematic impact. It's entertaining audiences, pulling in viewers that might normally shy from the genre or whatever, causing people to see it multiple times, getting buzz in new and water coolers, raking in the money. A movie's biggest purpose is to entertain, and I think it can be said TDK is doing that masterfully, despite whatever flaws it may have in it's construction.

 

[The Mike]

To me its one of the first films that treats Comic Book characters like they should be Modern Mythology and not campy or overwritten. Iron Man did the same thing but on a whole different level and understandably because Tony Stark is very different than Bruce Wayne. I hated Nicholson's Joker. I hated Romero's Joker. I thought Ledger's Joker was the closest to what I envision off of the pages.

The only reason I hold TDK to a lot higher standard is because Nolan had the guts to layer a film where others have tried in Comic Book genres like Ang Lee but failed.

 

[MaulFan]

The only reason I hold TDK to a lot higher standard is because Nolan had the guts to layer a film where others have tried in Comic Book genres like Ang Lee but failed.

I think Nolan is the greatest strength of this series. His real-world approach really benefits the overall, it's like he doesn't even view it as a comic book movie, just any old movie and I think that helps. It seems like some directors get to lost in the fact of history and what the source for the story is and trying to be true to the comics, but comics work because there medium is great for those types of things, film tends to require you to either strongly go the way of realism or the way of fantasy, anything in the middleground is dangerous territory where a lot of films fall short, others succeed. Ang Lee's Hulk was hurt by a poor blending of the fantasy and real world elements.