Batman carries on beginning in ... The Dark Knight

Potential spoiler alert...

Is Harvey Dent / Two-Face actually dead? I've just been talking with my friend Ben, who saw it last night, about what they might do if a third film was made re; villain, as obviously Heath is out of the game and given circumstances it's unlikely that they'd recast anyone else in the role of The Joker. And Ben pointed out that neither Batman nor Gordon actually check Dent for a pulse or anything; he's just laying there still and the assumption is that he's dead...

Finally saw this last night. A week after premiere and the line to see the 10:30 PM showing was still half-way around the NYC block.

Considering this (better than Batman Begins), Hellboy 2 (better than Hellboy), X-Men 2 ("), and Spiderman 2 ("), is there an argument to be made for skipping the Year Zero story in the movie and skipping right to the meat? It seems like the problems everyone has had with the originals that the sequels circumvent is that they spend too much time with origin stories.

XP

I don't think Harvey Dent OR Rachel are dead. If they don't show the body (and they didn't show Rachel's) than the character isn't dead. And with Harvey, it seems much more likely that they shut him in Arkham Asylum and told everyone he was dead to save face.

he's dead, she's dead.

you really think they'll bring them back in the next one?

i can see a case being made for two-face but there'd be no reason to to bring rachel back.

latebloomer, I take it you've never read a comic book before? They ALWAYS come back.

Hahaha, yeah, people always come back in comics, it's true. Good point and so obvious I can't believe it hadn't occurred before.

yeah but this an adaptation of a comic book, not an actual comic book.

i mean, they certainly could find a way to bring two-face back for a third movie, i just highly doubt they'll actually have a reason to do that.

dent's arc is over at the end of the movie.

I think it's pretty telling that neither Rachel's death nor Two-Face's death in the flick are definitive. We never see Rachel "blow up" (we see her, then we see a cut to the building exploding, but we never see her in that particular building exploding) or her body, and we never see an indication that Two-Face is definitely dead. Maybe it's too much comic book reading, but unless it's ironclad, I always assume the character can still come back. (And even ironclad -- like with Ra's al Ghul in Batman Begins -- I figure they can still bring him back.)

Yeah, but is Two-Face's?

xxp And yeah, I'm not saying that it would necessarily be a good idea cinematically to bring either character back. Just that it's very doable, and I wouldn't be surprised in the least.

xx-post.

Also, if you're looking for the film itself to be conscious of that possibility -- they killed off a character in TDK and then brought him back. So certainly "trick deaths" aren't outside the realm of Nolan's Batman universe.

My main reason for feeling this just... if they make a third, and surely after the financial success of this they have to, who do you use as a villain?

duh:

http://images3.wikia.nocookie.net/marvel_dc/images/thumb/6/63/Crazy_Quilt.jpg/200px-Crazy_Quilt.jpg

http://images.google.com/url?q=http://malone.blogs.com/photos/uncategorized/2007/04/19/batmite.jpg&usg=AFQjCNF5dc-4oyijdqhEgQUpnr4eQIOQlQ

the big problem with bringing Two-Face back is that it would completely devalue the conclusion of TDK.

they could bring back Scarecrow, maybe. But he was kind of an afterthought in this one already.

xp lols.

Who was Scarecrow in this one? I noticed some guy in the opening sequence wearing the scarecrow mask, but I assumed that was just an homage. Was he actually in the flick?

Yes he was; they unmasked him at the end of the sequence and it was Murphy as per first film.

Weird.

I don't think they're coming back. The two deaths are pretty important for the advancement of Batman's character and however they're setting up his story for the inevitable third installment. (crossing fingers for no Robin)

The reason they don't show people die up close in this one was for the PG-13 rating - hence always the cutting away right before anyone gets shot, sliced, blown up - the movie's bloodless.

What's really sad is that they obviously set it up for Joker to come back in a third one, which of course will not happen for this franchise.

skipping the Year Zero story in the movie and skipping right to the meat?
Not a bad idea, but well, it didn't really help Superman Returns. Also, the first half of Spider-Man 1 was great! I really liked Hellboy 1 too, it just could've done without Generic Introduction Guy who was tossed aside in one line in the sequel. And even though X-Men 1 wasn't that good, I don't know if X2 could've been as good if all the chaff wasn't already done with - that movie had lots of great little character moments that wouldn't have flown if they'd skipped #1.

Also, sometimes I think it really is necessary - Batman Begins needed to distance itself from the Burton/Schumacher movies, and Iron Man actually did it right - shockingly right for a character that already has weird, often illogical origins.

re: the "is Two-Face dead?" question:

http://movies.ign.com/articles/892/892656p1.html?RSSwhen2008-07-22_171800&RSSid=892656

Why not just recast the Joker and bring back Two-Face, you ask? With Heath Ledger dead and his portrayal of the Joker now indelibly etched into filmgoers' minds, we think it highly unlikely that the filmmakers would recast the role to bring the Clown Prince back. It would also be tough for that character to top what he did to Batman and Gotham in TDK so perhaps once is enough. Likewise, the ending of TDK seemed to suggest that Harvey Dent/Two-Face was dead, although producer Emma Thomas told IGN after an early press screening that Dent's last scene was ambiguous enough to suggest that perhaps he was still alive.

I guess they're keeping their options open.

Nothing wrong with IGN's reporting on the ambiguity of the film's ending, but did you happen to catch their first two features on Batman's villains? Worst writing ever.

that's more or less to be expected of IGN

If Batman has copycats, why shouldn't Joker have copycats? Recast and say so.

Anyway, Freeman has a line that clearly references Catwoman.

Suitability for 11yo who liked the first one?

does your mother know you post on ilx?

Yes, each time you fuck her she gives you a biscuit.

Wait, that's not right.

You don't actually see any blood or the physical impact of any punches or the like (though you do hear it), there's no profanity, and no sexual content (unless you count a brief snog), BUT it is brutal and violent and emotionally traumatic. So... your call. If the 11 year old liked the first one and can properly walk out of the cinema and know it was only a film (something the film is VERY aware of) then it's probably fine.

Thanks Nick, he does the disassociation between film/tv/books and real life pretty well so I might see what he thinks - let's face it, he might not be bothered.

This movie would have given me nightmares when I was 11. I also would have loved it.

If the 3rd movie doesn't have Catwoman in it I wll be very very very surprised (first movie sets up a relationship, second movie kills it off, third movie = REBOUND).

Speaking of the film knowing it's a film...

I think the CGI for Dent's face, the lack of blood, the clever cutting to prevent the audience seeing the impact of punches, etc, makes the film one of the best translations of the comicbook medium to film; it's VERY aware of its unreality, even though it portrays an allegedly grim version of reality - this is very much NOT real life that's being shown, it IS comicbook action and adventure, even if there's a bigger dose of moral fracture and emotional trauma than you'd get with Fantastic Four. Trucks getting flipped over, base-jumping ninjas flying through windows, blown-up tanks that fire-out their front wheels which become a bad motorbike. I don't think there's any pretension towards realism in the way that there might be in Haneke (I mention him because of Ned's allusion in his blog); the violence and action in The Dark Knight has no desire to be seen as real. It's total knowing spectacle.

Third movie may well feature Catwoman, but LORDY the character needs some serious redemption after Halle.

Up above, goole says "[The Joker] doesn't really lie about anything else [apart from the origins of his scars]" but I think he does; I think he deliberately spends most of the movie lying - he lies at the outset to the goons in the bank heist, he lies to Dent when he's psyching him out in the hospital, tipping him over the edge - he says he's not a plotter, says he doesn't plan anything, which some people have seen as bad screenplaying coming out as contradictions / hypocrisy given his planting of bombs everywhere and his obviously meticulously arranged escape, but it's not bad screenplaying - it's The Joker being a liar, seeing Dent's obsession with chance and justice and fairness and effectively saying "I didn't plan it; it just happened by accident" to send him mental, when it was ALL a plan. If I were really pushing, I'd say the only honest line The Joker utters in the whole film is when Batman's charging towards him on the Batpod, and he says "Come on, do it, do it, do it", because, as I've said before, I think The Joker does really want to die. He hates being alive. He can't stand it, he hates what he is and what he does but he can't end it himself so he wants someone else to end it. And when he realises Batman can't do it either, he assumes no one ever can, so they'll "keep doing this forever".

Re; dent's death - had Dent died, Batman would have had to acknowledge that he killed him and that yes, ultimately The Joker did make him break his only rule.

I think that's pretty OTM with the caveat that I do think the Joker made Batman break his only rule; the Joker pretty much wins every conflict in this movie, even though he does get captured at the end.

http://www.aintitcool.com/node/37627

Brave and Bold Animated series

My main reason for feeling this just... if they make a third, and surely after the financial success of this they have to, who do you use as a villain?

let's not lie to each other, it's probably going to be KGBeast.

or NKVDemon

Kids these days have never heard of the KGB, much less the NKVD.

They'll have to update it to the Al-Quedassassin or something.

They'll call him Al-Qaedaemon or better, Baal- Qaeda.

so much good stuff here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Batman_villains

Calendar Man Detective Comics #259 (September 1958) Julian Day, also known as the Calendar Man, is known for committing crimes that corresponded with significant dates.

Film Freak Batman #395 (May 1986) Burt Weston is a wannabe actor who dreams of getting a big break by playing quirky villains. When each of his plans fails, he fakes his death similar to the movie The Sting. He is later killed by Bane.

Penny Plunderer World's Finest Comics #30 (September/October 1947) Joe Coyne, a thief obsessed with penny-oriented crimes, starts his career selling newspapers for pennies. He is later caught stealing pennies.

More why so seriously, I mentioned elsewhere the idea of an emphasis on 'bestial' villains - something is causing wierdos like Killer Croc, Man-Bat, and The Penguin to appear. Hugo Strange, maybe. This would be a pretty drastic change in tone from the "Batman: Life on the Streets" vibe of TDK, though.

RED HOOD

ventriloquist!!!!!1

red hood for the fourth movie, after they do robin?

I want the way they 'do' Robin in this cycle of films to be the equivalent of how The Incredibles handled Syndrome.