View Single Post
Old December 18 2008, 08:03 PM   #10
Haytil
Captain
 
Re: What do you dislike about The Dark Knight?

T'Baio wrote: View Post
- Batman is super destructive. At the end, they're talking about making Gotham hate him, but I hate to break it to you, they probably already would. The way he smashes through walls with the Tumbler in a parking garage, running over cars, to blowing them out his way as he races down the street in the Bat-Pod, he's completely reckless. He endangers innocent lives wherever he goes. Gotham taxes would be through the roof correcting his damage. Who's gonna' pay for all those cars he destroyed?
Yeah, but if you look at it from the other direction - how much taxes are drained by a completely and totally corrupt police department and municipal government? It's likely that Batman has at least put a serious dent in that corruption - thus saving quite a bit of dough.

- The party scene. It's a fun scene, and Heath Ledger is great in it, but from Batman and Rachel surviving that ridiculous fall, to Bruce wondrously knowing to suddenly protect Dent, to the Joker apparently just leaving after Batman saves Rachel? A lot of little things not really well thought out.
I agree about the fall being a bit unbelievable, but Joker's leaving made perfect sense. He was in every way outmatched and knew he shouldn't stick around. Batman was wailing on his ass, and dropping Rachel was a good distraction to provide him with an exit - it wasn't a game-changer. If Joker hadn't left, he would've been taken down.

FYI, there WAS a scene filmed with him leaving the party and commenting to his goon about getting Dent another time. But it was cut - presumably because it was unnecessary (I thought it was superfluous to explain why he was leaving. It seemed pretty obvious to me that he had to, and I guess it did to Nolan as well).

- The sonar? Kinda' retarded, and a major effort in giving the audience a seizure, not to mention Bruce. What's going on, anyway? An effort to hide bad action direction, perhaps?
I like it. It gives a real-world explanation for Batman's "totally white" eyes in the comics and makes him scary-looking in the dark. It's also scary knowing he can see through walls and look anywhere he wants into the city. Think of it as a "pre-Oracle version of Oracle."

captcalhoun wrote:
killing Two-Face is my only gripe.
Agreed. The major mistake made in this movie was killing Two-Face. The fall of Harvey Dent - and Batman's continuous, endless struggle to bring him back from madness - is a core part of Batman. It's a constant reminder of the dangers of fighting crime, of the sacrifices that good people make, and of the madness that lurks in all of us (and the risk we take of exposing that when we go to extremes).

Harvey Dent's personal connection to Batman is what makes him such an important villain. That connection is broken, never brought back fresh, once he's dead.

iguana_tonante wrote:
T'Baio wrote:
I still hate the Tumbler, and the Bat-Pod might even be worse. Really dumb.
Agreed. Sounds cool on paper, or in its original Dark Knight Return inception (almost post-apocalyptic Gotham City), but in an urban environment, it's just too fucking big.
Some would argue that the Bat-pod is an attempt to rectify the hulk that is the Tumbler. Faster, sleeker, more mobile, just like the new Bat-suit. Batman is becoming more flexible.

I have a small complaint about story-telling, too: the movie is too long, and the Two-Faces storyline is too cramped toward the end of the movie. Given all the material they had, they could have gone the Matrix route (or the LOTR one, for a more successful comparison) and shot two movies one after the other.
There were rumors they were going to do that in the beginning.

I agree that there's a LOT of story for one movie - maybe too much. But there isn't enough for TWO movies, and if they tried that, they'd have to come up with more plot - which would ultimately feel like padding (like the Pirate of the Carribean movies).

Quantum of Xmas wrote:
- Recasting really bugs me to no end, so I hate that Maggie Gyllenhaal replaced Katie Holmes. It didn't hurt my enjoyement of the movie, but I still consider it a major gripe.
See, to me, Gyllenhaal was SO much better than Holmes. I hate re-casting too - but for me, I'm just upset that it was Holmes initially, rather than Gyllenhaal later.

They should've gotten it right the first time.

Gojirob wrote:
I would have just let the blame for the crimes Harvey committed settle on the Joker....Batman, by taking that blame, has now made his mission wholly untenable. Cops don't forget certain things, and a supposed cop-killer tops that list.
There's no way that the Joker did ALL of that (while orchestrating the ferry fiasco), and he had no motive to (why would he kill Weurtz, a corrupt cop, for instance?). An independent investigator would soon be able to show that. Batman, on the other hand, is much more shadowy and mysterious - I think it'd be harder to prove that he didn't do it.

Also, Batman is more exciting when he's at odds with the cops - not all buddy-buddy. Similarly, Gordon is more interesting when he has to clandestinely work with Batman. When the cops authorize Batman, that kills the tension, drama, and secrecy.

What Nolan did was brilliant. In "Batman Begins," Batman was obviously at odds with the police. At the end of that film, they join forces (via the Bat-signal). This way, he was credibly put in the position of going against the cops once more, in a believable way, story-wise.

This ensures that the movies aren't just episodic comics-in-motion (Batman fights this crazy madman in this movie, and that crazy madman in the next movie, and a third in the one after, etc.) Instead, we get a story about Batman's effects on the city and his interactions with different parts of society - not just a boring action-fest.

Lapis Exilis wrote:
Why does Bruce go to the apartment he identifed from the fingerprint as himself? He didn't know the guys inside would all be conveniently blindfolded.
For the same reason you mentioned - Batman would be ridiculous in broad daylight. Remember, even without the suit, he's still a ninja - if he wanted to go unseen as "Bruce Wayne," he could have, blindfolded cops or not.

TheBolianChoir wrote:
- Mob scenes...Are they really necessary? That much of it?
Actually, I don't think there's ENOUGH mob scenes in these movies. They're now portrayed as inept, foolish criminals, who aren't nearly as threatening or important as the rogues gallery (Ra's al Ghul, Joker, Two-Face, Scarecrow).

But one of the interesting parts of Batman's early career is just how insidious organized crime is in early Gotham. It's everywhere, an aspect of every part of society, and so Batman has to fight that - in many different ways. Another interesting theme is "The Mob vs. The Freaks" - the rise of the crazy madmen and the fall of the mob. It's hinted at in this movie, but I don't think it was touched on strongly enough.

The role of the mob also helps to ground the story in reality - we don't have terrorists like The Joker walking the street, but the mob DOES exist in our society. So it's important to see Batman do battle with an actual aspect of modern-day, real-life crime.
Haytil is offline   Reply With Quote