What do you dislike about The Dark Knight?

[Aragorn]

^ I didn't like that conversation between Fox and Reed either. You would've only needed two more lines of dialogue and then continue the scene as written. Something like...

Fox: "You think Wayne Enterprises is funding the Batman?"

Reed: "No, Bruce Wayne is Batman."

[T'Baio]

Kaijufan wrote:

---

One example is early in the movie when a fake Batman asks him what is the difference between them and he says "I don't wear a hockey mask" (which was a bad line in the first place, it should of been something like "I don't use guns" or "I don't kill people"). However I had no problems understanding 99% of his lines.

He actually said; "I'm not wearing hockey pads." His point was that he has the means to do what he does relatively safely and professionally, for lack of a better term.

Safely for him, that is, not the many civilians who may have been injured by flying shrapnel from the parked cars he blew out of his way while riding the Apple Bat-Pod.

[The Borgified Corpse]

Kaijufan wrote:

---

The major problem I had was that the lawyer who found the plans for the Tumbler seemed to know that Bruce Wayne was Batman, which is essentially confirmed by Lucius Fox. All he knows is that Wayne Enterprise provides Batman with his technology.

Actually I think it would be far more likely that Batman is a average/non rich and famous citizen, but is just funded by someone rich, like Wayne.

[...]

I was also hoping that Harley Quinn would be in the movie, I was pretty disappointed the Joker didn't have her helping him.

Actually, it's possible that Lucius Fox gave away Bruce Wayne's cover. You're right. At that point, all Reese knows is that Lucius Fox is secretly providing Batman with equipment. It's Lucius that connects the dots for him by suggesting that "one of the richest, most powerful men in the world" is the same man who "spends his nights beating criminals to a pulp with his bare hands." Your bad, Lucius! Take the shame, mate.

As for Harley Quinn, I still think there's posibilities for putting her in a sequel as an obsessive fangirl who sees herself as the Joker's soulmate. Perhaps she can even act as the Joker's surrogate while the Joker is in prison (allowing the Joker to have a presence in the film without recasting the late Heath Ledger).

[MyCylon]

JacksonArcher wrote:

---

I thought that too, but if you notice, the other side of the road is also blocked off. I've seen the film four times now, and trust me, I noticed the other side of the street being blocked off, so the convoy had no other choice but to take the lower route.

You really made me uncertain there for a moment so I popped the DVD back in and checked again. The other side of the road, as far as I can tell from the available shots, is perfectly clear.
Apologies for the bad image quality. I think the burning fire truck is clearly visible. But I think you can also see that there is nothing blocking the other side of the road (left of the down ramp), neither on the height of the fire truck nor further behind:

JacksonArcher wrote:

---

I'll agree with this. I also found the lack of music to assist in making the sequence feel less engaging and more plodding along, as you say. It's not as efficient or engaging a sequence as the car chase in Batman Begins, for example.

Music is definitely lacking in the scene, agreed.

JacksonArcher wrote:

---

Perhaps. I liked the quieter scenes in The Dark Knight just fine, though, whether or not it was Alfred consoling or offering advice to Bruce, or Rachel talking to Alfred about the nature of heroism or when she's alone with both Bruce and Dent...I thought they were plenty of quieter moments that easily outshined the moments in Batman Begins. I think my favorite "quiet scene" is after Rachel is killed and Bruce is in his penthouse, and Alfred consoles him. It's a clear homage to the scene where Alfred consoles a much younger Bruce after the death of his parents, and the music even mirrors that scene, almost cue to cue.

I suppose it's really a question of preference, in the end. I do like the scenes you mention but they just never manage to touch me emotionally the way the ones in BB did.

JacksonArcher wrote:

---

I think the character in itself is just weak and not as interesting or well-developed as the others, but that's my personal opinion. I don't think Gyllenhaal did any better, but I think she did pull off the assertive, spunky, capable woman more than Holmes did. I also fret the way Holmes would have handled the warehouse sequence.

I definitely agree that the character is pretty weak in both movies. It's a real shame that these movies which are so much more dedicated to characters and the story than many of their Hollywood counterparts are unable to produce even one truly convincing female character.

JacksonArcher wrote:

---

Some of the music is lost in the film, but listen to the soundtrack, and especially the expanded soundtrack. Batman is given a full-fledged theme and a "sound" (a la The Joker) and some of the action beats are much more realized and enjoyable. While I will agree that the only interesting themes are the ones carried from Batman Begins, I think Harvey Dent's tragic theme is pretty good.

I'm basing my opinion purely on the movie since I don't own the soundtrack. But I can definitely imagine that it's good seeing as how good the music for the first film was.
A shame then that some of it is lost. I remember the same thing happening with the music for "Jurassic Park: Lost World".

[JacksonArcher]

Justtoyourleft wrote:

---

You really made me uncertain there for a moment so I popped the DVD back in and checked again. The other side of the road, as far as I can tell from the available shots, is perfectly clear.
Apologies for the bad image quality. I think the burning fire truck is clearly visible. But I think you can also see that there is nothing blocking the other side of the road (left of the down ramp), neither on the height of the fire truck nor further behind:

I just watched the film on Blu-ray and if you look a little ahead, there are vehicles on the road up ahead. The picture just cuts it off where the intersection lies. Trust me.

[suarezguy]

I actually thought Caine sounded a bit too condescending when he explained to Rachel "He chose not to be a hero."

[Timby]

JacksonArcher wrote:

---

I just watched the film on Blu-ray and if you look a little ahead, there are vehicles on the road up ahead. The picture just cuts it off where the intersection lies. Trust me.

To be entirely fair, even if I were to accept your assertions, I shouldn't need to watch a Blu-ray Disc version of a movie to get the whole thing.

I love The Dark Knight, but the move down to Gotham's equivalent of Lower Wacker Drive is not an excuse for poor scripting and editing.

[Kaijufan]

Snaploud wrote:

---

Batman was a cop-killer by the end of the first movie. He must have killed at least a few of them by the end of the Batman Begins car chase.

It sure looked like he killed some cops in that chase, though there's no way he did, Gordon wouldn't be willing to work with him if he did, and the cops would of actually been trying to figure out who he is.

I would imagine that in the next one Gordon will continue to work with him in private since he knows that Batman didn't actually kill anyone, but they wont be able to work together when cops are around (like in the bank or at the jail in the Dark Knight).

The cops may actually set traps for him in the next film, though I imagine Gordon will warn him about the traps in advanced so he doesn't get caught/killed.

T'Baio wrote:

---

He actually said; "I'm not wearing hockey pads." His point was that he has the means to do what he does relatively safely and professionally, for lack of a better term.

Safely for him, that is, not the many civilians who may have been injured by flying shrapnel from the parked cars he blew out of his way while riding the Apple Bat-Pod.

Hopefully he'll get a less destructive vehicle in the next movie. Driving around in a tank just isn't safe for the people around him.

The Borgified Corpse wrote:

---

Actually, it's possible that Lucius Fox gave away Bruce Wayne's cover. You're right. At that point, all Reese knows is that Lucius Fox is secretly providing Batman with equipment. It's Lucius that connects the dots for him by suggesting that "one of the richest, most powerful men in the world" is the same man who "spends his nights beating criminals to a pulp with his bare hands." Your bad, Lucius! Take the shame, mate.

As for Harley Quinn, I still think there's posibilities for putting her in a sequel as an obsessive fangirl who sees herself as the Joker's soulmate. Perhaps she can even act as the Joker's surrogate while the Joker is in prison (allowing the Joker to have a presence in the film without recasting the late Heath Ledger).

Maybe they could even go with the Batman TAS origin and have Harley be an Arkham Asylum psychiatrist twisted into a female Joker by the Joker. They wouldn't even need to show he with the Joker, she could tell Batman or someone her origin and it would be believable. I do have my doubts she'll appear in the sequel though, I think they'll move in a different direction and go with some of the other classic villians.

[JacksonArcher]

JKTim wrote:

---

To be entirely fair, even if I were to accept your assertions, I shouldn't need to watch a Blu-ray Disc version of a movie to get the whole thing.

I love The Dark Knight, but the move down to Gotham's equivalent of Lower Wacker Drive is not an excuse for poor scripting and editing.

No, if there was a bigger picture, you would be able to notice the cars up ahead.

The acting commissioner in the film even said, and I quote, "The roads will be cleared along your route", and the flaming fire truck obstructed their route. They could not deviate to the other side of the street because it was not blocked. Diverting down to Lower Wacker was the only available option.

[paudemge]

Gordan faking his death is probably the only thing that bothered me. Dent dieing would be bad for a comic book, but remember even if Batman continues to rake in the bucks, there still will be relatively few stories shown in the movies, they won't need to repeat any villain. And I like that the joker just shows up not explanation, basically just a force of chaos and evil.

And as far as the blocked road, you might have been able to see it in the theater also, I don't remember; I remember that scene didn't bother me at the time, and stuff like that would usually bother me.

[T'Baio]

JacksonArcher wrote:

---

They could not deviate to the other side of the street because it was not blocked. Diverting down to Lower Wacker was the only available option.

I see emergency vehicles driving on the wrong side of the road almost every day. They teach people in driver's ed, and you must know to get your licence, to get out of the way of emergency vehicles and pull over.

I guess no one in Gotham knows to do this.

It's not my biggest nit pick of the film, but it does reak of a forced "because the script needed it" encounter. There probably is cars just barely at the top of the frame, but if so, that's poor composition and/or planning on Nolan's part. Or probably just one of those mistakes that happen, Nolan cursed himself, and decided it was too expensive to reshoot...then thought no one would notice or care.

How little he knows of the anal retentive, internet Batman nerds!

[Trekker4747]

T'Baio wrote:

---

I see emergency vehicles driving on the wrong side of the road almost every day. They teach people in driver's ed, and you must know to get your licence, to get out of the way of emergency vehicles and pull over.

I guess no one in Gotham knows to do this.

It's not my biggest nit pick of the film, but it does reak of a forced "because the script needed it" encounter. There probably is cars just barely at the top of the frame, but if so, that's poor composition and/or planning on Nolan's part. Or probably just one of those mistakes that happen, Nolan cursed himself, and decided it was too expensive to reshoot...then thought no one would notice or care.

How little he knows of the anal retentive, internet Batman nerds!

To be fair the people in Gotham don't know to not be on/drive on a street where a tractor-trailer just did a somersault and, a masked mad-man is zooming around on a motorcycle and another madman is firing a machine gun.

[Sci]

Trekker4747 wrote:

---

I thought the devlopment of Two-Face in this movie is very, very well done. If anything that's a "dislike" about TDK on two fronts. On the first front there's no "development" of The Joker's evil. He just is,

See, to me, that's something I like about it. I don't think we should see the Joker's development into the monster he is; he's not supposed to be a psychologically realistic character the way Harvey Dent is. He's an archetype, an elemental. He's Coyote and Loki and Mars and the Grim Reaper wrapped in one, smiling package.

[sidious618]

I just rewatched the film with someone who had never seen it and they pointed out a few plot holes that have been mentioned but in all honesty none of them bothered me in the least. I don't know, I just love the movie too much.

[Sci]

sidious618 wrote:

---

I just rewatched the film with someone who had never seen it and they pointed out a few plot holes that have been mentioned but in all honesty none of them bothered me in the least. I don't know, I just love the movie too much.

I think one of the reasons that The Dark Knight has resonated with audiences so much, even given its plot holes, is that it's ultimately a story about social cohesion. It's a story about a society facing its own imminent collapse, and about the hard choice between acting in self-interest and watching your society collapse or acting as a faithful citizen and forcing yourself to act with trust in others and belief in liberal democracy. It is, in short, about whether Gotham City (a stand-in for the United States) will survive as a community and will retain its democratic nature -- and I think that's a question that has been troubling the entire United States of late, albeit not necessarily consciously.