Induced by fear toxin even.
Lingering Questions from 'The Dark Knight'...
- Thread starter Frontier
- Start date
Induced by fear toxin even.
God, I hate this argument. "It was done in XYZ way in that version, why didn't they do it that way in this version?"
Who gives a shit? Let the comics be the comics, let the cartoons be the cartoons, let the movies be the movies.
A
Avilos
Guest
Does that mean that fans are not allowed to have preferences for how one comic adaptation approaches a character or idea verses a different adaptation? If you are saying different continuity, different adaptation - anything goes. God, I hate that argument!
It means that I have no time for people who criticize something on the basis that it is different from some earlier version, interpretation or take on the subject matter. Fundamentally, it's no different from when half the Internet pissed and moaned a year ago simply because the Joker in The Dark Knight didn't take a swan dive into a vat of chemicals, but rather applied his own makeup. If you don't like something, that's fine. To dislike something simply because it's a different look is utterly ridiculous. Content should be evaluated on its own merits, not whether or not it holds true to the handling of said content that takes place in an entirely different medium.
To complain about whether or not the Joker is Harvey Dent's "intellectual inferior" based upon the comics is as patently absurd as complaining that Optimus Prime didn't have a cab-over design in last year's Transformers movie.
Last edited:
A
Avilos
Guest
OK just checking! 
For the record I really like the fact that the Joker just wears makeup. It means he wants to look that way. The war-paint reasoning was brilliant. Otherwise with the accident explanation he is a bit of a victim.
Also the idea that he had fallen into a vat of chemicals was not offered as his origin until 1951. A whole 11 years after his first appearance. So it was not even part of his original concept.
For the record I really like the fact that the Joker just wears makeup. It means he wants to look that way. The war-paint reasoning was brilliant. Otherwise with the accident explanation he is a bit of a victim.
Also the idea that he had fallen into a vat of chemicals was not offered as his origin until 1951. A whole 11 years after his first appearance. So it was not even part of his original concept.
Precisely my point. Who gives a shit as to how a movie handles something compared to how the comics handle the same thing? They should be evaluated on their own merits.
A
Avilos
Guest
I have a theory on the Joker's scars. Considering his contradictory stories on what happened both are likely lies. Maybe he just did it to himself!!! Of course we will never know but I really like that idea.
I was watching Burton's Batman last week, and had completely forgotten the bit where they reveal that Joker shot Batman's parents. I think they heard me groan two blocks away. 
I'm sorry, but I feel like I have to stand up and defend The Dark Knight from this kind of criticism.
First off, I have to say that I believe that the directors, producers, etc, owe absolutely nothing to the fans. I think most fan commentary and feedback is the feeblest, most trite kind of complaining and flat-out whining. I frequent the Battlestar forum and that kind of juvenile soapboxing is so rampant that it is staggering.
A writer or director never has to justify "killing off" a character. Two-Face was not "killed off". His character was created, changed over time, and ended in such a way as to suggest a message to the audience. This is the nature of story-telling. If what happened to Dent was different in any way, it would alter the story being told. I am surprised that so few people understand this concept. It's been around since the beginning of stories. All the outrage and fanboyish preferences of plot should be saved for American Idol.
I realize this may look like a personal attack, but it is not. I just strongly disagree with the way a lot of people critically judge things.
Maybe this was answered in the film and I just didn't catch it, but what was Gordon's reason for faking his death?
OdoWan:
I believe it was to keep his loved ones out of harm's way. Joker would certainly not hesitate to use them against Gordon in any way possible. And I think it's interesting that, in the end, his family gets used against him anyway by Dent (a man who himself could not save his own loved one from Joker's chaos).
I believe it was to keep his loved ones out of harm's way. Joker would certainly not hesitate to use them against Gordon in any way possible. And I think it's interesting that, in the end, his family gets used against him anyway by Dent (a man who himself could not save his own loved one from Joker's chaos).
A
Avilos
Guest
Agreed. This event will also reaffirm to Bruce, along with Rachael's death, that he can not allow anyone to get too close to me. Or they too will be in danger like Gordon's family was.
Things change in the course of creating a movie.
It often is, but I would argue that in this story it was not. Harvey was not a villain per se. He was a good man destroyed.
But this isn't The Long Halloween. And why, if you already have that story, does this one need to retell it with the same character beats? I understand your frustration, but I don't get being pissed at a story for not being what you would have preferred.
He didn't "throw him off". He jumped him to stop him from killing an innocent child. That he fell was not Batman's fault.
Bruce Wayne, in this story, is nothing if not extremely fallible.
Heh - okay, that was a lame argument, mostly motivated by my own struggle with suspending my disbelief in light of how they treated his scars. So how about this, Harvey himself says he has no desire to escape the situation. He seems quite determined to die.
I hate later Frank Miller. Batman: Year One remains my favorite Batman comic ever. Meanwhile, as someone else pointed out, Miller hardly originated morally ambiguous heroes. I'd even say his Batman (post about 1987) isn't all that morally ambiguous. He's pretty much psychotic and evil.
Again, if you've already got that story, why do you need to see it again? Look, I love Two-Face as well. And I think he is generally poorly handled, because he's a complex construction, and all too often writers reduce him to a guy with an obsession for twos. This one treated his obsession with chance and did it well. Yes, it removed a lot of the "he was always deranged" version - but that is just one version of the character. Ultimately, this treatment was more in line with TAS's version of him.
There are lots of interpretations of each of these characters, and our favorites are not always going to show up on screen. If you love Long Halloween, then there you go - you've got a great Two-Face story that pleases you. I've read and watched Batman for working on 30 years now. There are probably less than 10 stories that handle the character in the ways I personally like. Granted I can get pissed when something has promise and then doesn't go the way I like, so I am sympathetic.
Besides, I can be smug about this because the Nolan films are so completely the version of Batman that is my favorite.
Question:
Why did Lucius Fox all but admit to Coleman Reese that Bruce Wayne was Batman when it would have been far wiser to simply imply that Wayne Enterprises was behind some of Batman's technology?
The blackmail joke is certainly funny, but it seems a far bigger liability, even with the huge combined threat of Bruce/Batman, to even subtly acknowledge or hint at the truth rather than trying to come up with a plausible lie.
Why did Lucius Fox all but admit to Coleman Reese that Bruce Wayne was Batman when it would have been far wiser to simply imply that Wayne Enterprises was behind some of Batman's technology?
The blackmail joke is certainly funny, but it seems a far bigger liability, even with the huge combined threat of Bruce/Batman, to even subtly acknowledge or hint at the truth rather than trying to come up with a plausible lie.
My take on Two-Face's fate:
He's alive. Well, I want him to be alive. I figure that they'll lock him up somewhere and when he gets out and starts doing things again is when the public will let batman back into their good graces. Yes, they did pretty much say that he was dead, showing the funeral and all and moving his face around when he was on the ground, but I think that the fall was what's supposed to make us think that maybe he is still alive. I think that's why they had the scene where Batman was holding Maroni at about 2 stories and him saying that the fall wouldn't kill him. Two-Face fell the same distance.
He's alive. Well, I want him to be alive. I figure that they'll lock him up somewhere and when he gets out and starts doing things again is when the public will let batman back into their good graces. Yes, they did pretty much say that he was dead, showing the funeral and all and moving his face around when he was on the ground, but I think that the fall was what's supposed to make us think that maybe he is still alive. I think that's why they had the scene where Batman was holding Maroni at about 2 stories and him saying that the fall wouldn't kill him. Two-Face fell the same distance.
Not necessarily. Fox merely pointed the huge flaw in Reese's scheme, whether or not Bruce Wayne was Batman.
Jesus, that was funny - and a good point on Lucius' part!
Reese had pretty incontravertible proof. Given that he goes public later, I don't know what Fox could have said that would have convinced him otherwise. But that look Bruce gives him after saving his life (especially combined with Gordon's angry "Maybe Batman will save you!" as they load Reese into the car), is one of my favorite moments in the film. It yet again subtly underlines the core of the character of Bruce Wayne as he's built in these movies - the guy no one can really fathom, misjudged over and over again.
Here's a lingering question I have:
How the hell can Nolan get so much right with this movie... yet the batsuit still looks like complete shit??!?
I realize something as sleek and elegant as the Batman Returns suit (still my favorite) wouldn't quite fit into the world Nolan created, but that doesn't mean a more functional suit can't still be, you know, cool to look at.
I don't know what I hate more, how small and round the cowl is on Bale's head, or how that cape just sort of hangs limply during fight scenes like a black towel.
It certainly doesn't keep this from being an excellent movie, but it's still one of those pesky little things that the fanboy in me can't help but notice.
How the hell can Nolan get so much right with this movie... yet the batsuit still looks like complete shit??!?
I realize something as sleek and elegant as the Batman Returns suit (still my favorite) wouldn't quite fit into the world Nolan created, but that doesn't mean a more functional suit can't still be, you know, cool to look at.
I don't know what I hate more, how small and round the cowl is on Bale's head, or how that cape just sort of hangs limply during fight scenes like a black towel.
It certainly doesn't keep this from being an excellent movie, but it's still one of those pesky little things that the fanboy in me can't help but notice.
Looked fine to me.
Same here, I liked both of the costumes Nolan has given us. Far more than any of the others.
