THE DARK KNIGHT Post Release - Page 68

Nope - you didn't miss anything. All speculation. And I doubt very much that she'll be in the third Nolan film.

cough cough seriouslywatchtheanimatedseriestwoparterit'sreally good cough I'mjustsayin' cough cough

Yeah, but Two-face's face is bright blue in the animation series. That never made any sense. Total fail.

Kidding, BTW

I could see a good redemption story about Two-Face, but that would make Batman a supporting character in his own film. And this Nolan trilogy is all about the Bat.

But yeah, after Dent turns Two-Face he becomes a pretty one dimensional character, so I think that Nolan showed us the most interesting aspects of the character before killing him off.

So I guess we'll agree to disagree....I think that scene is a lot more subdued than most of the rest of the dialogue ...of course it's all relative.

Look, I really, really, really don't mean to sound combative, but wasn't Batman already a supporting character in the Dark Knight? He really felt secondary to Everyone but Alfred to me.

From post 1 in this thread:

I think that's less to do with Bats' screentime/thematic role and more to do with the fact that almost every other performance is more engaging than Bale's. I don't think Batman/Bruce Wayne is as absent as most make out.

I'd bring it back to the story/script: Batman's arc - and there is one - is less immediately compelling than Dent's. Wayne/Batman aren't absent, but we're given less accessible material to make his struggles the ones we're most concerned with, as viewers.

While I love TDK - it's in my top 10 favorite films, easily - something Devin's written about strikes me as something that might have helped Bale's performance and the humanity of the character: let Bats enjoy what he's doing, even (or especially) if he thinks he shouldn't enjoy beating the shit out of people.

I don't know if Nolan will go there, but I'd like to see the third film deal with Wayne coming to accept and embrace what Rachel said at the end of Begins: Batman is the real guy, with Wayne now being the mask. I'd like to see Batman get off on his role as vigilante and protector. Give him some spark.

TDK is more of an ensemble effort than Begins, but Batman is still the central character and the protagonist of the film. I'm not only talking screentime but also thematically. Pretty much everything that happens in that movie is about him.

His role gets marginalized because The Joker is just so damn awesome, he sucks all the attention to himself. But his screentime is much smaller compared to Batman.

No one character dominates the Dark Knight in terms of screentime. (Obviously the Joker dominates in term of performance) It's pretty equally divided between Batman, the Joker, Dent and Gordon. It's an ensemble. Unlike the Burton films, in which the villains are given the lion's share of the screentime. Burton admits to this in the commentaries, saying he wanted to keep Batman largely offscreen to heighten his mystique.

If he casts Christina Hendricks as Catwoman this movie will break even Avatars record. So there is that.

I don't know that I'd agree with everything being "about him" - but most everything is because of him.

I'm not arguing that Batman is peripheral or unimportant; I think there's mroe going on with the character than is easily discernible, especially compared to Dent or the Joker (who has no arc, but is simply so compelling that he steals thunder from everyone). I just think that the journey Wayne goes on in TDK is less obvious or showy than in Begins, and certainly less so than Dent.

Agreed - Wayne/Batman doesn't disappear for 30-40 minutes in Nolan's films, thank goodness. I sort of understand where Burton's coming from, but it's so wrongheaded in execution that he gives his title character the brush off. And whatever Burton claims, I just don't think he understands the character. He said from the beginning that someone with muscles and a lot of strength wouldn't need to put on a costume - showing he knows dick about what drives the character and why there is a costume.

Gah. I know the Burton-vs-Nolan arguments are fruitless. I've just come to really hate Burton's interpretation of the character, and how off it is. Keaton, I'm convinced, understand Batman, but was hampered by Burton and the scripts.

I understand where you're coming from... But, the fact is, any villain could work in the Nolanverse. It's not about the villain, but how they're presented that makes the difference. Obviously, Mr. Freeze literally as conceived in the comics and the Schumacher abomination would not work. But a scientist named Victor Fries, who is experimenting with cryogenics or whatever and is involved in some kind of tragic accident... If done realistically, that could work.

Not saying they should do this or that it's a good idea. Just saying anything is possible.

The cartoonish version of The Joker wouldn't have worked in Nolan's take either. Admittedly, it's an easier villain to pull off. But still.

Don't worry about The Riddler and Zodiac. I'm past that. I want The Penguin as a mob boss and Catwoman as his moll... With Ray Liotta as Bruce Wayne's corporate douchebag rival who is in cahoots with the mob. Let Nolan ape Scorsese's style for this one. I'm there.

Even if no one else is, I'm there.

Which makes him, by definition, the protagonist. As he is the driving force of the story. Much like it could be argued that Hans Gruber is actually the protagonist of Die Hard.

...

I still don't see the "Batrman was not the star of his movie" arguments holding much water. In Batman stories involving The Joker, he will almost always be upstaged. I still found him to be a compelling presence in TDK and, despite the overdone Batvoice, Bale gets the character. Someone complained that his Wayne is just a douchebag. That's missing the point that he uses that as his cover. He's supposed to be a frivolous playboy. I think his is actually the best Bruce Wayne yet. It's Patrick Bateman, sure, but it works.

Bruce had most of his growth in BEGINS. In TDK, he (like The Joker) is more of a catalyst for Gotham's transitions.

Agreed, although I do think the character changes and grows in TDK. It's a smaller leap/step forward than in Begins, though.

It's something we've talked about quite a bit here, but I haven't heard outside of CHUD circles, or at least not much: Batman seems to be directly responsible for the rise of the Joker and all the chaos and death that ensues. The Joker sees a yin to his yang, and escalates to see what happens.

Now there's a power vacuum in Gotham: a lot of bad cops have been IDed and the lead mobsters killed or effectively sidelined. One thematic "ending" I can see coming is more Matrix than Disney: Batman, roughly allied with the cops, basically holding a balance with the criminals, neither side ascendant, with Wayne accepting that he's Batman for life, essentially.

Am I the only one here thinking that the next Batman film needs to be smaller than TDK, maybe even BB? If they try to out-TDK TDK with Batman 3, then that's one recipe for disaster. What's he gonna do, send Batman on a global terrorist hunt? Flip two trucks instead of one?

They should make the 3rd film a conclusion of the trilogy, the resolution, make it even more personal for Batman. Like if the whole trilogy is a giant 3 act film, Begins is the setup, TDK is the confrontation with rising obstacles, and Batman 3 is the resolution. The first two films fit perfectly in that scheme of things, and this is a sure-fire way for Nolan to bring perfect closure to his Batman trilogy.

But I'm sure most people will hiss and bark at the idea of a smaller film.

I think a significant amount of people thought a smaller and more intimate 3rd film would be a good way to cap the Nolan trilogy. After the immense hype TDK went through, an intentionally smaller film just sounds like a good idea for the film's sake.

You'll find no argument from me.

Yeah, I'd have no problem with this idea. It would provide some nice symmetry, too. Begins starts with a specific point and widens the scope; TDK blows that scope wide open. Third film could bring it back to a specific point or moment.

I wouldn't say it's a smaller growth than in BB, but it's definitely a more subtle one.

By the end of Begins Bruce becomes Batman, but by the end of TDK he understands what it means to be Batman, and he accepts it. The good and the bad.

Hell, throughout most of TDK we see that he doesn't even know how to deal with the challenges put in front of him, he loses control over the situation multiple times. And at the end, when the situation is the gravest he perseveres.

It always comes back around to fan speculation doesn't it? I'll throw my hat into this. TDK (and possibly Batman Begins) doesn't exist w/out 9/11, it just doesn't, Nolan is well aware of this, and you can opine about the depth at which he means us to draw parallels till your brain collapses, but he lays them out to be found.

If Batman is the "event" that was a shock to Gotham's system, the "dramatic example" that "shook them out of apathy", it could be interesting in a third film to see what happens when the moment passes and Gotham is given it's moment of introspection. How that moment passes, whether it be Batman's death or retirement, is almost immaterial, he just needs to be gone. Also, if Batman really feels the need to have someone take his place, this great moral compass to give Gotham hope, it seems to me that two films have been spent building up to the perfect guy to do it.

I just know that after all the dust settles in Batman 3, Batman's going to say to Gordon, "How can I thank you?".

Gordon will reply, "You'll never have to."

END CREDITS.

Which is pretty close to Devin's signature, isn't it?

Bale looking objectively TERRIBLE in the Batsuit, at least in the early scenes of The Dark Knight, HAS to be intentional. Something about the inherent absurdity of his quest, or something. I mean, it has to look this bad on purpose, right? At the end of the day, I find myself wondering how is this:



...really any better than this...



...to the point that I almost wonder if (or hope) that was the idea.

They both look ridiculous to a certain degree. I mean, it's a man dressed up like a giant black bat. But I'll take Bale over Bat-Artie Lang anyday.

You could post the same pictures of Bale and the fat guy and compare them to Michael Keaton, Kilmer, Clooney, Adam West or anyone really. It kinda comes with the territory.

Did those dudes make their own rubber masks? Or do Gothamites have a VERY topical Halloween Adventure? Can you also purchase a Jim Gordon mustache there? I think Nolan may provide the extensive backstory (and the answers I crave) for this dilemma in TDK2.

In all seriousness, I never really liked Bale's suit over Keaton's.

It's definitely supposed to look worn out and outdated. You can see it in Bale's body language how cumbersome the suit is and how frustrated he's become with it. They even joke about it during the conversation about the new one (the head-turning thing at least).

Since they killed off Two-Face and won't use the Joker again, I've always thought that a great way to wrap the series up--and provide a new, non-Catwoman love interest--would be to bring back the League of Shadows for the third film. In the first film, R'as wants to destroy Gotham because he thinks it's beyond repair. Batman stops that, but arguably sets up something worse for the city by inspiring the Joker. It would be interesting to see how he approaches the themes and obstacles that kicked off the series post-Joker.

I don't think so. Bale's costume (which this is ostensibly identical to) was presented/lit/shot as way cooler looking in Begins. I guess Renn's right but what a shabby way to show your hero out of the gate.

Yeah I think that was something Nolan and Co. did on purpose. It never looked that bad in any BEGINS shot. They made the original look worse so the ALL NEW, ALL DIFFERENT upgraded outfit would seem cooler.

I never really gave it much thought but it makes sense to convey the need for a new suit in visual ways both aesthetically as well as through functionality. It's a nice approach compared to the way the other films went (or didn't go) about it. Clever filmmaker that Nolan is.

Maybe, but I wonder if more pointedly showing the suit failing Bruce early on would have yielded a stronger result toward that end than shaping the cowl like the head of a black man's cock.

That scene in the bank vault with Gordon just looks particularly bad. A blah angle, florescent lighting, and a mask that looks awfully skewed. To me, it goes a bit beyond trying to make that suit look bad. It just looks... bad.

There was a pretty bad shot of Bale's suit in Batman Begins when he asks Gordon if he can drive stick. But in addition to the flat lighting caused by all the gas/smoke, Bale looked kinda chunky in that shot to begin with.

Bale was fat at the beginning of Batman Begins. He was bouncing back from The Machinist at the time and kind of miscalculated how his metabolism was going to react when he stopped that stunt. It's the reason the mask fits on his face so awkwardly.

The reason you got all the "Bruce Wayne looks like he has AIDS" jokes during The Dark Knight's promotional photo releases is that he didn't repeat that mistake when he had--again--purposely starved himself on a project prior to shooting.

Yeah, I know it was due to his weight loss from The Machinist. It's what leads me to assume that the scene in the Narrows was shot early on in the production, because I don't recall Bale looking that big anywhere else in the film. He looks great in that final scene between Batman and Gordon.

I don't recall any "Bruce Wayne/AIDS" comments about promotional photos. Got any links to said photos?

It was--I believe--in Devin's headline for the photos that showed Wayne and Alfred in the penthouse after he confronts the Scarecrow. Let me look for it.

It was on the boards, not an article headline. He had a point.

You guys really think this looks better than what Phil posted above? I guess I just don't get it.

That's not to say that what they did wasn't intentional, I'm sure it was. But the new suit in TDK didn't exactly blow me away either.

It could have something to do with them showing Batman in a well lit bank, he also looks weird in the interrogation scene.

Bats is the type of chick you only take out at night...

Yeah, I feel like the look of the movie changes dramatically from first to second to match the style a little bit more. The first feels more lush and gothic, lots of darker shadows and tones, more like a comic book. The second has a bit of that and a dash of realism, with lots of harsh lighting. Maybe that's what people are responding to in regards to how it effects on the suit? I dunno.

Bale looks like a...BATMAN out of hell, in Batman Begins and The Dark Knight. I just watched...The Dark Knight for the...5th time, and is still...BATtastic! The Avengers Assemble in 2012 vs Batman 3, in a battle of...Superhero Supremacy!

Nolan showing the BEGINS suit to look bad on purpose is an interesting idea. He says in the extras for TDK that he had wanted to overhaul the batsuit for BEGINS, but basically ran out of time, so they opted for a variant of the suits used in previous films.

I'm one of the few (seemingly) that still really likes TDK's batsuit. I think it looks great in the film, and I don't think the cowl looks bad or too big when you actually see Batman moving. I'd be fine if they left it in place for the third film...but after doing some reading on liquid kevlar, I think Nolan has a good reality-based material to give Bats a "fabric" suit that gives Bale a LOT more mobility, less heat discomfort, and harkens back to the classic look for the character.

I remember several of us (including Phil) debating on which director made their respective Batsuit look the best (live-action, at least). Because other than moments such as the rooftop scene at the end of Batman Begins, I didn't really like the way suit was shown in that movie. It mostly got worse in TDK because it suddenly had to become even MORE real-world-functional.

So obviously, I've always preferred how Burton and his team made the suit look. This includes Keaton's exagerrated physical performance in the suit which made do better with the limited mobility of superhero costumes.

But obviously, the first Batman movie was one of the BIG movies of my childhood.

Also, Phil disagrees in regards to my estimation of Burton's take. hehehe.

My two posts from that older thread... with screencaps!
http://www.chud.com/forum/showpost.p...&postcount=262
http://www.chud.com/forum/showpost.p...&postcount=263

Yeah that pic definitely looks better. The suit is darker, the lighting is better and there's a lot more detail in the mask. In the shot from TDK it looks like he's wearing one of the masks they give the stunt doubles. Just a washed-out hunk of melted rubber with no detail.

But the new suit had problems too. In the interrogation scene you notice that they molded huge cartoon nostrils onto his mask for some reason. And from certain angles it looked like Batman had a bobblehead.

The lighting, the framing, and yeah, there is something formless about the "original" mask in TDK.

>

It's the lighting on the nose in TDK. You're not getting the effect of the nose actually coming out at you. He looks like someone "Voldemorted" his face (i.e. sanded down his nose).

I liked the way Batman was shot in the Burton films. He looked statuesque, like a gargoyle. I get embarrassed over some of the shots in the Nolan movies.

I won't hold my breath, but I'd love something less bulky.

So here's a Batman fan film, City of Scars, made for $27,000

http://www.spinoffonline.com/2010/06...city-of-scars/

No comment on the quality of the acting, but the suit looks pretty good. Seems to be based on the video game Arkham Asylum, looks better than that Dead End from a few years ago.

Wow, the guy's really going for that Kevin Conroy voice with that Clooney chin.

There's something very special about fan films, in that, no matter the budget, they never feel like real movies at all. All these die hard fans can put together 27,000 dollars and never once does it resemble a real movie.