The Dark Knight - Grading & Discussion

[John Picard]

davejames wrote:

---

So did anybody else think Two-Face's scarring was a little... over the top? Yeah it was a really shocking and powerful effect, but it seemed to belong to a totally different movie.

I think it would have been more than enough simply to have the left side of the face severely burned-- not completely ripped away like something out of a zombie movie.

Nope. Looked similar to Two-Face from the animated series. It was a fantastic effect.

[Trekker4747]

davejames wrote:

---

So did anybody else think Two-Face's scarring was a little... over the top? Yeah it was a really shocking and powerful effect, but it seemed to belong to a totally different movie.

I think it would have been more than enough simply to have the left side of the face severely burned-- not completely ripped away like something out of a zombie movie.

Yeah, "perhaps." That kind of severe damage isn't entirely possible for someone to suffer from and survive. Shock and pain would've killed him alone not the least of which would be infection.

But it was just so damn GOOD and awesome, and "true" to the look of the character. Seeing his entire eyeball there and his teeth, and the inside of his mouth when he took a drinking (with some dribbling on his chin) and, pretty much just seeing his SKULL there was just... GREAT.

Far better than what they did with TLJ in Forever.

Over the top? A little.

Greusome? Absolutely. Which is why I loved it.

I also did a little geek-squeal the first time he flipped the coin in the court-room and later on when he used it when questioning "Rachel" and then especailly when he started doing it has Two-Face.

Man. I've having a geek-gasm thinking about it right now!

[archeryguy1701]

Trekker4747 wrote:

---

"Huge part of his body" or just the left side of his face.

Whole left side. It was hard to see in a lot of those dark scenes, but his suit was pretty burnt too and the whole side of his body was doused in gasoline so it's unlikely that only his face caught on fire and not the whole body.

Agent Richard07 wrote:

---

There's something else that's been bugging me that I didn't mention... Lucious said he'd threaten to quit if Bruce kept the sonar room. He said it was too much power for one person to have. Seriously? I don't get that attitude. Having an advantage like that is a good thing, and neither he nor Bruce are bad guys. Too much power is only bad when someone else has it and might use it against you. If you're the one who has it, you keep it. Now if he said he was afraid it would fall into the wrong hands, then I could almost accept that.

The best comparision I can think of this was the SG1 season 4 episode "Absolute Power". The SG1 Good-doer, Daniel Jackson, gets the instructions for a sattelite super weapon. It was meant as a defence against the Goa'uld, but Daniel, again the SG1 Do-gooder, built in a personal over-ride. Eventually the access to that power overtook him and he started using it against innocents. And I don't think that's too far from the truth. You can not hold onto power like that for the long term and expect it not to be abused.

I watched Batman Forever and Batman & Robin yesterday, and I now know for a fact why I like BB and TDK better: they really do take themselves more seriously. Not that BF and B&R were bad movies, but they were very comic-booky and, for a lack of a better word, "campy" than they newer ones. There was as much risk or realism in those movies as there was in the latest two.

[Agent Richard07]

Is it power people fear or is it responsibility? I'd take as much power or should I say potential as I coud get, but there are large responibilities that I wouldn't want. For example, I wouldn't want to have to decide whether or not to drop a nuclear bomb on an enemy's city, but I'd have no problem whatsoever keeping a nuclear bomb in my basement (barring upkeep and radiation of course). I know won't take it downtown and set it off just for kicks.

If there were some responsibility that Lucious Fox didn't want, then that's something I could understand.

[Trekker4747]

Agent Richard07 wrote:

---

Is it power people fear or is it responsibility? I'd take as much power or should I say potential as I coud get, but there are large responibilities that I wouldn't want. For example, I wouldn't want to have to decide whether or not to drop a nuclear bomb on an enemy's city, but I'd have no problem whatsoever keeping a nuclear bomb in my basement (barring upkeep and radiation of course). I know won't take it downtown and set it off just for kicks.

If there were some responsibility that Lucious Fox didn't want, then that's something I could understand.

Fox just knew it was wrong to spy on half the city at once without their permission.

And it is.

I've a couple other questions I just thought of.

What was the point of firing the high-powered gun into the bricks? I get that Batman/Bruce took the brick out of the wall and "reassmnbled" the fragmented bullet to get the ballistics/fingerprint off of it but what did firing the test-shots do?

And.

When/How did Harvey get out of the hopsital? We see the Joker leave the room, sanitize his hands, walk down the hall and activate the bombs. How did Harvey get out?

[Aragorn]

^ Maybe Harvey left first.

[Agent Richard07]

archeryguy1701 wrote:

---

The best comparision I can think of this was the SG1 season 4 episode "Absolute Power". The SG1 Good-doer, Daniel Jackson, gets the instructions for a sattelite super weapon. It was meant as a defence against the Goa'uld, but Daniel, again the SG1 Do-gooder, built in a personal over-ride. Eventually the access to that power overtook him and he started using it against innocents. And I don't think that's too far from the truth. You can not hold onto power like that for the long term and expect it not to be abused.

I think they overdid it to make a point. I don't believe everyone would do what Daniel did. By the way, this is actually one of my favorite episodes of SG-1. I tought it was cool that Daniel was wealthy and had all that power.

I watched Batman Forever and Batman & Robin yesterday, and I now know for a fact why I like BB and TDK better: they really do take themselves more seriously. Not that BF and B&R were bad movies, but they were very comic-booky and, for a lack of a better word, "campy" than they newer ones. There was as much risk or realism in those movies as there was in the latest two.

I saw the three Batman sequels last week. Returns and Forever were a lot campier than I remember. Boy, am I glad we've got Batman Begins and The Dark Knight. Gotta say it again... It's nice to have movies that take the material seriously.

[Tyberius]

Drone36929 wrote:

---

...Nolan gives a much more serious, sometimes dark treatment of the DC hero than did his predecessors, Tim Burton and Joel Schumacher, whose films were fantastical and whimsical in execution, or as other people would put it, "camp." But call me silly and old-fashioned for actually having enjoyed watching Arnold Schwarzenegger and Uma Thurman as Mr. Freeze and Poison Ivy, respectively.

Drone36929 wrote:

---

This, like the first Nolan film, is a smart, high-caliber movie that makes you think and takes itself seriously ... way too seriously for a superhero movie. There is a lot to process, and sometimes you lose the sense of enjoyment.

Nolan's treatment of Batman is much more respectful of the comic books. Batman was always the darkest, most somber, on the edge character. Nolan captures that.

In fact the only problem I have with Nolan's interpretation is that Batman should be a lot smarter (though maybe "Wayne" plays at being dumber than he is) and Batman doesn't wear armor. The only times he has worn armor is when he added a chest plate - to take a bullet from a sniper round, and when Azrael took the mantle of the bat.

[Agent Richard07]

Trekker4747 wrote:

---

Fox just knew it was wrong to spy on half the city at once without their permission.

And it is.

Eh... Fair enough.

[davejames]

Agent Richard07 wrote:

---

I saw the three Batman sequels last week. Returns and Forever were a lot campier than I remember. Boy, am I glad we've got Batman Begins and The Dark Knight. Gotta say it again... It's nice to have movies that take the material seriously.

Perhaps a little TOO seriously. I'm still hoping that one of these days a director will find a good middle-ground between the Burton and Nolan extremes-- and create a Batman world that's dark and serious, yet still has room for giant Man-Bats, Clayfaces, and big green Killer Crocs.

If BTAS could do it, surely a live action movie could.

[Tyberius]

davejames wrote:

---

You mean to tell me that, with everything ELSE going down, Gordon decides to use The Joker's assassination attempt as a good time to play dead?!? As if his family were somehow high on The Joker's list of targets or something?

I didn't buy it.

After the reveal, that Gordon was alive, I thought exactly that. Gordon had to be dead until the Joker was caught, or else his family would be killed.

[Agent Richard07]

davejames wrote:

---

Perhaps a little TOO seriously. I'm still hoping that one of these days a director will find a good middle-ground between the Burton and Nolan extremes-- and create a Batman world that's dark and serious, yet still has room for giant Man-Bats, Clayfaces, and big green Killer Crocs.

If BTAS could do it, surely a live action movie could.

Something like Batman Dead End or a live-action Alex Ross Batman would fit the bill. I was pushing for stuff like that years ago even after Batman Begins came out, but now with The Dark Knight being so good, I'm not as enthusiastic about the idea.

[Tyberius]

Camelopard wrote:

---

In some cases, the system worked well. Cincinnatus, for example, was appointed dictator twice, resolved the emergency, and returned to his farm thereafter, making himself a hero to his people. (Byron called George Washington the "Cincinnatus of the West")

And Napoleon said (paraphrasing): Who do you think I am, George Washington?

[Captain Craig]

Trekker4747 wrote:

---

When/How did Harvey get out of the hopsital? We see the Joker leave the room, sanitize his hands, walk down the hall and activate the bombs. How did Harvey get out?

I asssumed Two-Face left first and that really after the coin decided his fate hell Joker helped Harvey get dressed. A thought I had on first viewing that I think I resolved for myself on the second viewing is Harvey's suit. I first thought why would Harvey logically have on a burned on one side suit?
Answer, its the suit he was brought in with that night and therefore the only clothes available to him upon leaving the hospital.

[Tyberius]

Agent Richard07 wrote:

---

My focus is on empowering myself to not only do more, but to make the things that I do easier. I can't imagine refusing anything that will help me accomplish that. I don't want less of an ability to do something, I want more. To me it's a no-brainer. That's why I raised the issue about Lucious Fox's actions. Who wouldn't want their lives or even a certain task to be easier? Who wouldn't want the ability to do something?

Batman did give himself the power, but left it to another to take the power away. This is where he differs from the Cesar; in that his power is not absolute.

Surely he wishes the ability to do something, but given the corruptibility of the power, has the foresight to grant the removal of the power to another.

Fox is Batman's failsafe.