What do you dislike about The Dark Knight?

[Reverend]

He 180'd precisely because he got to see Batman up close and realised how much fun he'd be. So in an odd way Frank Miller was right, it was love at first punch.

[Trekker4747]

I think he really wanted Bats dead too and then just simply changed his mind later.



"Do I really look like a man with a plan?"

[Sci]

DWF wrote:

---

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.

He never says he never meant to kill Batman. He says that he doesn't, present tense. I'm amongst those who think he changed his mind, too.

And as for his origins, what's it's the truth "from a certain point of view"? Sorry but that's still a lie.

Erm, I didn't say, "truth from a certain point of view." What I suggested was that the Joker's memory is unreliable: From day to day, his memory of his pre-Jokerfied life changes. He was accurately reporting the memory of how he got his scars each time he recounts how he got his Glasgow smile -- it's just that his memory of how he got that smile changes from day to day.

A lie is a deliberate statement of false information, not an unknowning statement of inaccurate information.

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.

Erm, I don't know where anyone claimed that he didn't know what he was doing or what his actions meant. I never claimed he was insensate or insane. And clearly, he does make plans in the short run -- he makes plans for individual tactics. But I don't think he developed any "big picture" plans until he decided to try to destroy Gotham's belief in civil society by making Dent betray his beliefs and by getting the boats to blow each other up. And even that is only in the name of bringing anarchy and ending the rule of law.

[DWF]

Erm, I didn't say, "truth from a certain point of view." What I suggested was that the Joker's memory is unreliable: From day to day, his memory of his pre-Jokerfied life changes. He was accurately reporting the memory of how he got his scars each time he recounts how he got his Glasgow smile -- it's just that his memory of how he got that smile changes from day to day.

A lie is a deliberate statement of false information, not an unknowning statement of inaccurate information.

There's no evidence at all in the movie that his memory is somehow faulty and IMO a lie is a lie is a lie no matter how you try an sugar coat it he lied more than once.

Erm, I don't know where anyone claimed that he didn't know what he was doing or what his actions meant. I never claimed he was insensate or insane. And clearly, he does make plans in the short run -- he makes plans for individual tactics. But I don't think he developed any "big picture" plans until he decided to try to destroy Gotham's belief in civil society by making Dent betray his beliefs and by getting the boats to blow each other up. And even that is only in the name of bringing anarchy and ending the rule of law.

And I didn't claim that he did have a big plan, just that he did preplan events, there's no other he could stay ahead of the curve as he claimed he doing. But Alfred pegged right though.

Bruce Wayne: [watching the tape the Joker broadcast on the news] Targeting me won't get their money back. I knew the mob wouldn't go down without a fight, but this is different. They crossed the line.
Alfred: You crossed the line first, sir. You squeezed and hammered them to the point of desperation. And in their desperation they turned to a man they didn't fully understand.
Bruce Wayne: Criminals aren't complicated, Alfred. We just need to figure out what he's after.
Alfred: With respect, Master Wayne, perhaps this is a man that you don't fully understand either. A long time ago, I was in Burma. My friends and I were working for the local government. They were trying to buy the loyalty of tribal leaders by bribing them with precious stones. But their caravans were being raided in a forest north of Rangoon by a bandit. So we went looking for the stones. But in six months, we never met anyone who had traded with him. One day I saw a child playing with a ruby the size of a tangerine. The bandit had been throwing the stones away.
Bruce Wayne: So why steal them?
Alfred: Well, because he thought it was good sport. Because some men aren't looking for anything logical, like money. They can't be bought, bullied, reasoned or negotiated with. Some men just want to watch the world burn.

In the end that's the Joker's "big picture", but that doesn't mean his actions aren't preplanned to cause chaos.

[Sci]

DWF wrote:

---

There's no evidence at all in the movie that his memory is somehow faulty

Fair enough -- it's my interpretation of the character as colored by my familiarity with the source material that that aspect of the film was partially based upon.

and IMO a lie is a lie is a lie no matter how you try an sugar coat it he lied more than once.

Someone who unknowingly gives you inaccurate information is lying? Wow. That's a harsh way of looking at things. Also, the dictionary disagrees with you.

And I didn't claim that he did have a big plan, just that he did preplan events, there's no other he could stay ahead of the curve as he claimed he doing. But Alfred pegged right though.

<SNIP>

In the end that's the Joker's "big picture", but that doesn't mean his actions aren't preplanned to cause chaos.

I think we're basically saying the same thing here.

[DWF]

Sci wrote:

---

Fair enough -- it's my interpretation of the character as colored by my familiarity with the source material that that aspect of the film was partially based upon.



Someone who unknowingly gives you inaccurate information is lying? Wow. That's a harsh way of looking at things. Also, the dictionary disagrees with you.

I think we're basically saying the same thing here.

Yet again you're not providing any proof that the Joker gave away inaccurate infomation because he didn't know the truth. And we're not the same page at all, you claimed he improvised the things he did, but that's really possible and you can see it from the very start of the movie, the bus he took the money of the bank just turned straight into a whole line of busses, that's not something that happens by accident and he knew what kind of bank he was robbing. And how could have possibly at random known to plant explosives on the ferries to begin with or plant a guy in lockup with an exploding celling in him? That doesn't happen by accident it happens by design.

Chaos is his goal but he can't just improvise his way though the storyline.

[Sci]

DWF wrote:

---

Yet again you're not providing any proof that the Joker gave away inaccurate infomation because he didn't know the truth.

That would be because I wasn't arguing the point, I was simply stating that that's my opinion. If you disagree with it, fine, but there's nothing in the film that precludes it, and I happen to think that if The Killing Joke, one of the many comic sources Nolan and Co. drew upon in making the film, establishes that he has an unreliable memory, then I'll go with that. You're welcome to another interpretation, but I don't share it.

The point that I did argue was whether or not an individual who unknowingly conveys inaccurate information can be reasonably said to have lied, but that was tangential.

And we're not the same page at all, you claimed he improvised the things he did,

No. Re-read my post: I claimed that he has short-term plans but not long-term "big picture" plans. You essentially said the same thing. It was just a matter of how we were phrasing it.

[ATimson]

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.

But for The Dark Knight, you do--the Blu-Ray version uses the IMAX versions of scenes where available, expanding out to the full 16:9 picture area, while the DVD keeps the 2:35 cropping of the standard theatrical release throughout. (I don't know if this applies to the scene in question, however.)

[Admiral_Young]

About Gordon choosing his son over his daughter again...yeah it bugs me because she grows up to be Batgirl. I was thinkng that maybe it would be more emotional if he still makes the choice (his son) and Joker shoots his son and ends up killing him anyways just because he would've killed whoever he picked out of the sheer kick of playing around with Gordon's mind. It would be interesting to see how this plays out on his future relatioship with Batman...what is the status of his son in the comics? I've always wondered that after Year One, Long Halloween, Dark Victory? I know that his wife Barbara moves back to Chicago and divorces him in the comics...is there a grown Gordon son out there that we've never seen before?

Just remembered another thing that I dislike from both movies...Alfred being formal and calling Bruce "Master Wayne" instead of "Master Bruce" like we're used to. In the novelization IIRC Dennis O'Neil uses the more traditional Master Bruce...or maybe that was in the novelization for Gotham Knights I can't remember.

[Honorable Ensign]

Firstly, I have to voice my support for the growly-Batman voice. It never annoyed me.

I agree with those who said the movie was too long. I'm not against long movies in principle, but I don't think The Dark Knight needed to be that long. There was a repetative pattern of "Joker does horrible thing, good guys scramble to respond." I think we should have jumped to the Joker's capture quicker--make the movie more streamlined. Yeah, and the Gordon death thing was unnecessary.

The action scenes could have been more clearly shot. The last fight when he's using his white-eyes ran a little long, I think. And the rooftop fall was ridiculous.

I was glad to read reviews of Maggie Gyllenhaal's performance being better than Katie Holmes (who I didn't that did that bad a job, she just looks eternally twelve.) However, I couldn't get any sense of character from Rachel in this film. I also think we needed to get a better sense of Rachel and Harvey's relationship.

[Yassim]

Honorable Ensign wrote:

---

Firstly, I have to voice my support for the growly-Batman voice. It never annoyed me.

I always figured it was supposed to sound fake. He's often talking to people who know his real voice - he's trying to distort it.

I agree with those who said the movie was too long. I'm not against long movies in principle, but I don't think The Dark Knight needed to be that long. There was a repetative pattern of "Joker does horrible thing, good guys scramble to respond."

The movie did feel long, but in one respect, I liked that. Most of the recent superhero movies have time for two encounters between foes. At the end of Spiderman, for instance, we're supposed to care about this grand rivalry that's just started. At the end of TDK, when Batman says "It's never simple with the Joker", they actually have a history. They've each won some and lost some, and the movie managed to preserve some of that history that a serial form usually manages better than a movie.

I thought Two Face rang completely false - I never bought that Dent would let the Joker live, or start flipping a coin to choose his actions. It was dictacted by the plot and the metaphor at the expense of the character.

[Aragorn]

I don't mind the growl voice, but there were parts in The Dark Knight where it sounded like they computer enhanced it in post-production, like his final conversation with Gordon, and it made it practically incomprehensible.

[T'Baio]

They did, in fact, "enhance" the voice in post for many scenes. Generally I didn't mind the voice at all and think it makes perfect sense. However, the monologue at the end I didn't hear too well in the theater. The music was swelling up so much and his voice was so distorted I couldn't make a lot of it out. I thought it might of been the theater I was at, but I guess not.

I think the Joker should have killed Gordon's son. Then I think the film would have had the balls many people claim it has.

[SiorX]

Admiral_Young wrote:

---

About Gordon choosing his son over his daughter again...yeah it bugs me because she grows up to be Batgirl. I was thinkng that maybe it would be more emotional if he still makes the choice (his son) and Joker shoots his son and ends up killing him anyways just because he would've killed whoever he picked out of the sheer kick of playing around with Gordon's mind.

It might be more emotional (and maybe make more sense, because I've no idea what they were going for as it is), but I think that'd be even worse in the long run. I mean, Jim Gordon's relationship with Babs is one of the sweetest, most solid ones in the Batverse. He dotes on her. Messing with that by even implying that she's the less-loved, or the spare is just pointless and ridiculous. I've no idea what they thought they were doing.

It would be interesting to see how this plays out on his future relatioship with Batman...what is the status of his son in the comics? I've always wondered that after Year One, Long Halloween, Dark Victory? I know that his wife Barbara moves back to Chicago and divorces him in the comics...is there a grown Gordon son out there that we've never seen before?

James Gordon Jr went with his mother, and was forgotten by all sometime post-Crisis. Neither hide nor hair has been seen of him, and I don't know if there've even been any mentions (though I certainly don't read every bat book ever).