What do you dislike about The Dark Knight?

[MyCylon]

JacksonArcher wrote:

---

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.

I'm a little bit confused. Are you agreeing that the lane on the left was free but that they couldn't use it because it wasn't along their "route"? As somebody else said, emergency vehicles in real life constantly use the 'wrong' lane if the other lane is blocked. So I don't think that should be an issue.

If that's not the issue, well, I really can't make out any other obstacle but the fire truck. I couldn't make out another obstacle at the cinema, I couldn't make out another one on DVD. The screenshot I posted is from just before the camera cust away, so I couldn't make out anything else in the distance (I was viewing on a 40" screen btw). And none of the other shots revealed anything but the fire truck.

I think my point, in the end, is this: Why not just have two burning trucks on each side of the street? The Joker has caused so much havoc, I don't think it would be much of a stretch to imagine him dumping not one but two burning wrecks at the heart of Gotham.

The way it's filmed now, the police just look silly and incapable to me. I just can't (literally) see a reason why they'd move underground.

I think it's great if this doesn't bother you or other viewers. I just think people react differently to these things. And it just totally stood out to me when I first saw it at the cinema and bothered me when re-watching. It just seems completely unnecessary to me.

[God Magnus]

Only two distinct things bugged me when I walked out of the theater the first time:

1. The death of Two-Face. I really would have loved to see the character used as a villain in the next film.

2. Bale's Bat-voice was inconsistent, and I'm not sure if it was all to blame on him. The sound editing sounded like his voice was given more "echo" in some scenes as opposed to others. When he was speaking with Gordon and Dent, it was fine. When he said the "hockey pads" line I was thinking "Riiiiicola!"

[cultcross]

Reading through this thread, I'm struck by the number of people who were disappointed with Dent's death. I can't understand this, myself. Yes, he was fantastic in the film, well played, interesting bad guy, psychologically fascinating, with a flair ('chance is the only real justice') which beautifully counterpoints the other major characters so far, good and bad.
But can anyone actually think of a decent way to use him again?
- His villain is marked by three things in particular - how he got half scarred, his coin, and his idea of chance being the only true morality. This film covered all these bases, what more is there to do with the character? Just watch him flip the coin for more people?
- His hideous injuries could never have been sustained. It was barely realistic he was walking and talking as it was, I think it woudl strain credibility a bit too far myself to have him hang around for months as the next big bad - by the end of TDK, he'd already be dying of a hundred infections.
- His death is necessary to the story, to the entire point the movie is trying to make about heroes. He lived long enough to see himself become the villain. But Batman sacrificed his own good name to let him die the hero.

There was no other ending that could have worked, imho. Dent had to die.


My nitpicks for the film:
- The fall from the penthouse - that room, remember, was high enough that a helicopter could land just outside in a busy cityscape. And he fell to street level and wasn't even winded - Rachel managed a one liner two seconds after landing. The film's single most ridiculous moment, in my opinion. And an easily fixed one two - we've seen him glide, why cant he grab rachel and then flip out his cape-wings? Still fairly implausible but better than just falling like a rock. Particularly when a much shorter fall with Dent kills Dent and nearly knocks Bats out too.

- The bat pod was stupid. I'm one of the apparantly few who likes the Tumbler - it's not that big - it's about the size of a humvee, and I've seen people going shopping in those - but the bat pod was ridiculous. It wasn't even so much the bike itself that I disliked, but the way it emerged from the Tumbler, presented last movie as a real-world military bridging vehicle.

- The endless Joker plans. He has more complex and multi-layered plans than Ra's, Scarecrow or Two Face ever did, and yet he champions chaos?

[Tyberius]

cultcross wrote:

---

- The fall from the penthouse - that room, remember, was high enough that a helicopter could land just outside in a busy cityscape. And he fell to street level and wasn't even winded - Rachel managed a one liner two seconds after landing. The film's single most ridiculous moment, in my opinion. And an easily fixed one two - we've seen him glide, why cant he grab rachel and then flip out his cape-wings? Still fairly implausible but better than just falling like a rock. Particularly when a much shorter fall with Dent kills Dent and nearly knocks Bats out too.

The cape did deploy, but it was only designed for a single user. It slowed the fall.

cultcross wrote:

---

- The bat pod was stupid. I'm one of the apparantly few who likes the Tumbler - it's not that big - it's about the size of a humvee, and I've seen people going shopping in those - but the bat pod was ridiculous. It wasn't even so much the bike itself that I disliked, but the way it emerged from the Tumbler, presented last movie as a real-world military bridging vehicle.

It's kinda like the Bradley Fighting Vehicle from The Pentagon Wars. Scope creep.

cultcross wrote:

---

- The endless Joker plans. He has more complex and multi-layered plans than Ra's, Scarecrow or Two Face ever did, and yet he champions chaos?

The Joker is a liar.

[Sci]

Tyberius wrote:

---

The Joker is a liar.

The impression I got was that the Joker doesn't have endless, multi-layered plans. Most of it is improvisation which he later claims to have been pre-planned in order to mess with others' heads.

And I don't think the Joker is a liar (most of the time). I think he's the sort of man who, most of the time, is telling the truth... at the time that he says it.

[DWF]

Sci wrote:

---

The impression I got was that the Joker doesn't have endless, multi-layered plans. Most of it is improvisation which he later claims to have been pre-planned in order to mess with others' heads.

And I don't think the Joker is a liar (most of the time). I think he's the sort of man who, most of the time, is telling the truth... at the time that he says it.

There's no way he could've what he did without alot of preplanning, including inplanting that exploding cell phone, setiing up road blocks and setting the explosives on the two ferries. And yes he does lie thoughout the movie.

[Sci]

DWF wrote:

---

There's no way he could've what he did without alot of preplanning, including inplanting that exploding cell phone, setiing up road blocks and setting the explosives on the two ferries. And yes he does lie thoughout the movie.

Certainly the plot to try to capture Dent was set up with pre-planning -- I think he knew that Dent wasn't Batman and was explicitly hoping to either kill Batman or get himself captured so as to force Batman to choose either Dent or Rachel to save.

Most of his actions, though, I think were improvised. And I think the only lie he told in the film was the lie about where Rachel and Harvey were.

(He tells conflicting stories of his origins, but I don't think those are lies. There's a line in Batman: The Killing Joke by Alan Moore where the Joker says that he remembers his past differently at different times. "Sometimes it's this way, sometimes it's that way.... If I have to have a past, I'd rather it be multiple choice!" I choose to interpret his stories about his past as being the absolute truth... as he remembers it at that time.)

[DWF]

Certainly the plot to try to capture Dent was set up with pre-planning -- I think he knew that Dent wasn't Batman and was explicitly hoping to either kill Batman or get himself captured so as to force Batman to choose either Dent or Rachel to save.

Most of his actions, though, I think were improvised. And I think the only lie he told in the film was the lie about where Rachel and Harvey were.

(He tells conflicting stories of his origins, but I don't think those are lies. There's a line in Batman: The Killing Joke by Alan Moore where the Joker says that he remembers his past differently at different times. "Sometimes it's this way, sometimes it's that way.... If I have to have a past, I'd rather it be multiple choice!" I choose to interpret his stories about his past as being the absolute truth... as he remembers it at that time.)

He sets out telling the crime bosses he's going to kill Batman for them, then later tells Batman that he never meant to try and kill him. And as for his origins, what's it's the truth "from a certain point of view"? Sorry but that's still a lie. And no in no way do I think he imporvised his way though the movie, from bank robbery at the start of the movie he knew what he was doing and what his actions meant.

[Reverend]

He didn't lie about wanting Batman dead, he simply changed his mind. Not saying he didn't lie about other things of course, just that point. As far as his conflicting stories about his past are concerned, I recall in the Timm/Dini book 'Mad Love' he did exactly that as a way to get inside Harleen's head.

[Admiral_Young]

There wasn't much that I didn't like about The Dark Knight some of which has been stated already and maybe some not so obvious to others:

-The Tumbler (Bruce should have built a car)
-Bale's Batvoice (I agree that its too intense but maybe being a young Batman he modifies it over time)
-Gordon choosing his son over his daughter (not sure why this bugs me)
-Harvey dying (why must villians die in superhero movies?, at least Joker was captured at the end)
-Batman becoming a true viligante at the end of movie. The city hates him and the police can't openly work with him now. Its like it undid all the work he started in Begins and through the start of The Dark Knight.

[The Borgified Corpse]

Sci wrote:

---

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.

I like seeing how the Nolan movies are sort of mirror opposites of the Burton movies in some ways. Burton gave the Joker one of his earliest origin stories but didn't go too deeply into how Bruce Wayne became Batman (other than the brief flashback where we see Jack Napier kill his parents). Nolan gave Batman a very thorough origin story in Batman Begins but no origin for the Joker at all.

Sci wrote:

---

I think the only lie he told in the film was the lie about where Rachel and Harvey were.

Or he was honestly confused about that one.

One minor thing I didn't like: I understand that Rachel might have been a bit jazzed seeing how coolly Harvey handled the witness that tried to kill him in the court room. Still, "You're Gotham's D.A. If you're not getting shot at, you're not doing your job," seems a bit flippant from a woman who has already had one boss murdered on the job.

[Kaijufan]

Admiral_Young wrote:

---

-Gordon choosing his son over his daughter (not sure why this bugs me)

Because you know she grows up to become Batgirl?

[DWF]

Reverend wrote:

---

He didn't lie about wanting Batman dead, he simply changed his mind. Not saying he didn't lie about other things of course, just that point. As far as his conflicting stories about his past are concerned, I recall in the Timm/Dini book 'Mad Love' he did exactly that as a way to get inside Harleen's head.

I don't think he changed his mind about Batman, I don't think he really wanted him dead in the first place, that was just his way of getting into the criminal underworld.

[Reverend]

I don't think so. He started out offing Batman's copycats and demanding he unmask himself. Though after the Joker actually came face to face with him, he did a 180.
Of course you can say he planned it all from the start, but I don't that's supported by the script or the performance. He's an opportunist. Just look what he did to Harvey, there's no way he could have planned THAT.

[DWF]

Reverend wrote:

---

I don't think so. He started out offing Batman's copycats and demanding he unmask himself. Though after the Joker actually came face to face with him, he did a 180.
Of course you can say he planned it all from the start, but I don't that's supported by the script or the performance. He's an opportunist. Just look what he did to Harvey, there's no way he could have planned THAT.

Then why'd he do the 180? And yeah I think he had that part planned as well, figuring that it would take Batman to bring the Hong Kong banker to Gotham which is what he was after in the first place.

Of course it should be noted that his cries unmask Batman and his attempts to kill Batman were very public events, as though he was playing to an audience.

And while he didn't know for sure that Dent would survive the fire he did take avantage of it. But by that time it felt like they had put two different movies together, the first being about the Joke and the second about Two-Face, which made the film feel alittle unbalanced.