The Dark Knight Rises ***USE SPOILER TAGS***

[devilof76]

Re: Batman/Dark Knight 3rd Film

Batman killing someone is just about the stupidest thing I've ever heard.

Losing control??? Batman???

 

[intothevoid]

Re: Batman/Dark Knight 3rd Film

Part of me hopes that post Nolan, the next generation of batman movies build on his foundation, so yeah new cast and director and all, but just build from where TDKR finishes, no need for new origin story plus you can explore the robin possibility which would not have worked with Nolan

All of that of course depends on where Nolan leaves the story at the end

 

[intothevoid]

Re: Batman/Dark Knight 3rd Film

Batman killing someone is just about the stupidest thing I've ever heard.

Losing control??? Batman???

QFT

Couldn't have said it better myself

 

[pjam]

Re: Batman/Dark Knight 3rd Film

For anyone who STILL doesn't get it, the Trilogy Theme is

Begins - Fear

TDK - Escalation

TDKR - Redemption

We were told this by Goyer years ago.

And for the Record, Black Mask is badass, not saying he's the Master Villain in DKR, but I would like to see it and Hardy could nail it.

 

[DiFabio]

Re: Batman/Dark Knight 3rd Film

Batman killing someone is just about the stupidest thing I've ever heard.

Losing control??? Batman???

Hey, ____ happens.

Batman fighting aliens is the stupidest thing I've ever heard. Batman "dying", respawning and going through different lives is the stupidest thing I've ever heard. I could go on and on but worse things have happened.

The reason the character lasts so long is because there are different stories/interpretations/retellings.

What if Batman never changed? Well, he'd be cultish Batman that kills, or a man that lures in young "wards", or a smiling fruit cake that is basically a deputy of the city, or a space traveling Batman, or a demon, blood sucking Batman, or, or, or.

 

[Deckard]

Re: Batman/Dark Knight 3rd Film

No, but Nolan still could've killed the Joker off when Batman threw him off of the building. With a little editing and maybe some CG, we never would've known that wasn't the intention in the first place.

I understand Batman just fine, but I also don't necessarily think he'd lose if he broke his one rule.

He would be a murderer. There is no redemption for murder. You can't bring people back. Thats why some places give you the death penality. He would be a capital offender the only way to remotely right it would be to turn himself in and cease to be Batman.

ANd it would have been a terrible insult to Heath as a human being to have CGI'd his death. Now his legacy will live on forever.

Anyone who truely knows the relationship of Batman and the Joker knows to have him alive, even if unseen, just to know hes still there, is far more of a mental threat to Bruce then him ceasing to exist.

Hey, ____ happens.

Batman fighting aliens is the stupidest thing I've ever heard. Batman "dying", respawning and going through different lives is the stupidest thing I've ever heard. I could go on and on but worse things have happened.

The reason the character lasts so long is because there are different stories/interpretations/retellings.

What if Batman never changed? Well, he'd be cultish Batman that kills, or a man that lures in young "wards", or a smiling fruit cake that is basically a deputy of the city, or a space traveling Batman, or a demon, blood sucking Batman, or, or, or.

And the reasons characters die is because brash young kids who don't know the history of the characters and "don't care" as you put it, try to change the entire dynamic that makes them who they are.

 

[devilof76]

Re: Batman/Dark Knight 3rd Film

H...

So dumb that I refuse to argue it.

 

[Darth Madden]

Re: Batman/Dark Knight 3rd Film

How would Batman letting Joker fall and die be different than letting Rahs fall and die? If one was ok than the other should be as well. Both would have been his fault.

 

[DiFabio]

Re: Batman/Dark Knight 3rd Film

to have him alive, even if unseen, just to know hes still there, is far more of a mental threat to Bruce then him ceasing to exist.

Well, that's not quite true. I would imagine killing the Joker would have serious consequences on Wayne's mental health. More so if he killed him.

 

[Deckard]

Re: Batman/Dark Knight 3rd Film

So dumb that I refuse to argue it.

I blame Tim Burton.

 

[DiFabio]

Re: Batman/Dark Knight 3rd Film

And the reasons characters die is because brash young kids who don't know the history of the characters and "don't care" as you put it, try to change the entire dynamic that makes them who they are.

Yeah, but didn't the first incarnation of Batman kill? I think he might have even brandished a gun. Or does he not count?

 

[Deckard]

Re: Batman/Dark Knight 3rd Film

How would Batman letting Joker fall and die be different than letting Rahs fall and die? If one was ok than the other should be as well. Both would have been his fault.

Bruce threw the Joker over the edge, if anything I'd atribute Ras's death to Gordon and suicide. Gordon derails the train, the microwave explodes.

 

[Darth Madden]

Re: Batman/Dark Knight 3rd Film

Bruce threw the Joker over the edge, if anything I'd atribute Ras's death to Gordon and suicide. Gordon derails the train, the microwave explodes.

Hummm.... thats might be splitting hairs just a bit but I guess thats a good explination.

 

[DiFabio]

Re: Batman/Dark Knight 3rd Film

Yeah, Batman was the one that threw the Joker over in TDK. Had the Joker "landed" it would have been Batman's fault and he would have been a murderer. So he had to save him by launching his grapple line.

Now if the Joker accidentally fell, that's another story.

 

[Deckard]

Re: Batman/Dark Knight 3rd Film

Hummm.... thats might be splitting hairs just a bit but I guess thats a good explination.

No it is a bit, but its the cleanest way to keep Bats outta trouble.

 

[Sweet Rabbit]

Re: Batman/Dark Knight 3rd Film

So dumb that I refuse to argue it.

I 2nd this

 

[Sweet Rabbit]

Re: Batman/Dark Knight 3rd Film

Yeah, but didn't the first incarnation of Batman kill? I think he might have even brandished a gun. Or does he not count?

batman carried a gun yeah but he decided not to use one anymore b/c it's not what he stands for and makes him no better than the criminals

 

[DiFabio]

Re: Batman/Dark Knight 3rd Film

I blame Tim Burton.

Don't think that I'm that kind of fan just because of my avatar and sig, I'm not. I was actually all excited about the possibility of Hot Toys making a 1/6 figure of an '89 Batman that I got into the spirit of it and decided to change things up.

My Batman is one that doesn't kill but I can still enjoy one that does.

Like I said, I'm open to interpretations that I think are great or even decent. I can enjoy and find merit with them. I'm not going to sit there rocking back and forth with my thumb up my ass proclaiming "THE GODDAMN BATMAN NEVER KILLS, PERIOD." "THE CHARACTER OF THE JOKER IS TO BE DEPICTED THIS WAY, AND TWO-FACE THAT WAY."

OR, "BATMAN ALWAYS SHOULD KILL. THAT IS BAD ASS. BURTON'S TWISTED VISION IS THE CORRECT ONE". Fapfapfapfapfapfap *cut myself*

No, I'm open to them all. If I stuck with one, not only would it be boring it wouldn't hold my interest for very long.

BTAS Batman, Begins/TDK Batman, Keaton Batman, Adams/O'Neil Batman all the way.

 

[Deckard]

Re: Batman/Dark Knight 3rd Film

The only instance i can recall of Batman killing anyone is Joker in The Dark Knight Returns.

It is for starters not considered cannon. Second the result of which is as I stated, Batman can no longer exist.

Its like if Frank Castle were strangling a mafia boss and stopped right before he died and starting giving him a blow job instead. Its that out of character.

 

[DiFabio]

Re: Batman/Dark Knight 3rd Film

I think that's a little extreme, deckard. Actually, not a little, alot. The thought of The Punisher blowing someone is funny though.

Batman isn't even a real person and we speak of him as if he is. That's where I got to draw the line. Some characteristics that we love of the character might have occurred because Comic Code Authority was against it, or a particular writer thought it up. An example would be like this (keep in mind, it's only an example not cold hard fact).

Originally you make Batman a gun totting psycho path. Suits come in, "you can't have a that in a comic that children read, revise it". Batman now refuses to use guns because it's cowardly and makes him just as bad as the characters.

That makes it a trait that we enjoy because of protocol, not an actual man named Bruce Wayne deciding to do or not do those things.

I don't see how anyone can even be wrong in the matter. It sucks but I'm one of the few people that can enjoy most of the aspects of Batman. I mean, I won't stand for Batman traveling to mars, having a talking dog, being reincarnated or tons of that zany, comic book ____ but there is stuff that clashes with each other that I like regardless (dark vs. too dark, killing, justice seeking vigilante, self righteous justice seeking vigilante).

Legends and stories change all the time, especially when they last for as long as they do and are passed down. How can there be a wrong version of Batman as long as he, A.) is human B.) fights criminals C.) dresses up as a Bat to intimidate/strike fear D.)parents killed before his eyes?

His ears may be smaller, or the symbol may be different or he might act a certain way, but it's still someone's Batman.