Batman carries on beginning in ... The Dark Knight

Excellent work Ratner, we kill the entire greatness of the Joker having no particular back-story by making a feature film to dismantle one of the better scripting decisions of TDK.

ugh no

Haha -- I know the reporter, I'll have to ask her what she thought of it all.

Hey, it worked for Hannibal Lecter!

It's not out of order to say that Brett Ratner is a fucking retard, is it?

Dude wants to make a movie out of GUITAR HERO! Come on!

To me it's more roffly to see how badly Ratner wants to associate himself with the big summer hits just past.

"Yeah, a JOKER background story with ROBERT DOWNEY JR., yeah! Please?"

uh RDJ has publicly slagged off the Batman franchise ("fuck DC comics" etc.) = yes Rattner is a retard

I'd like to ask a simple question about the plot of DKR: did the Joker know that Bruce Wayne is Batman? Because when he's about to blow up Harvey Dent and Rachel, he intentionally lies about their locations knowing that Batman would try to save Rachel, so he therefore ends up saving Harvey instead. But the Joker could only know that Batman would try to save Rachel if he knew Batman was Bruce Wayne, since the movie doesn't show any special relationship between Batman and Rachel, only between Bruce Wayne and Rachel.

uh Batman came to save Rachel at the party remember

Joker threw her out the window...?

But did the Joker know that? For all he knew Batman just came there to interrupt his scheme, saving Rachel was just a side effect of that.

(x-post)

Yeah, he threw Rachel out of the window and Batman saved her, but he would've done that for anybody. That still doesn't imply any special relationship between the two.

Or maybe the Joker just assumed Batman is a big old chauvinist who'll always save the pretty girl even if saving the guy would make more sense?

didn't he make him choose between saving rachel or someone else (harvey?) at the party?

or the joker doesnt really give a shit which one batman saves and is a total schizophrenic psycho

didn't he make him choose between saving rachel or someone else (harvey?) at the party?

yeah this is my memory too

no the Joker says something like this to Bats in the interrogation room: "does harvey know about you and his little fiance? For a moment there, I really thought you were Harvey Dent the way you jumped out the window after her."

Joker assumes that Batman has a thing for Rachel, but I don't think he knows that Bats = Bruce Wayne.

But in the end of the movie the Joker says Harvey was "his ace in the hole", i.e. he had planned it beforehand that Harvey would survive and go crazy after Rachel dying.

(xx-post)

CHAOS dude

no the Joker says something like this to Bats in the interrogation room: "does harvey know about you and his little fiance? For a moment there, I really thought you were Harvey Dent the way you jumped out the window after her."

Joker assumes that Batman has a thing for Rachel, but I don't think he knows that Bats = Bruce Wayne.

This still doesn't make sense to me, surely the Joker should know that Batman would always try to save the life of any innocent person in danger, I don't see how saving Rachel automatically implies he has the hots for her?

surely the Joker should know that Batman would always try to save the life of any innocent person in danger

I don't see any reason for him to assume this.

I mean, Bats can't save EVERYBODY

the key line is this: "...the way you jumped out the window after her."

and about Harvey being the ace-in-the-hole: it doesn't matter either way. if they had managed to save rachel instead of dent, SHE too would have been racked with guilt and potentially corruptible against Batman, who Joker assumes is in love with her.

Yeah, but corrupting Rachel would've made much less sense than corrupting "Gotham's white knight" if you wanted to give the people of Gotham a lesson on morality and chaos, which seemed to be the Joker's whole plan.

joker bragging that harvey is the ace in the hole requires you to trust that joker is telling the truth which let me tell u i dont do for 1 minute

ok even if that does not happen, HARVEY WOULD HAVE DIED so the joker wins regardless. xp

joker bragging that harvey is the ace in the hole requires you to trust that joker is telling the truth which let me tell u i dont do for 1 minute

If this wasn't his plan, why would he have lied about the location of Harvey and Rachel in the first place?

ok even if that does not happen, HARVEY WOULD HAVE DIED so the joker wins regardless. xp

No, Harvey dying would've just made him a martyr, the whole point Joker wanted to prove was that even the white knight could be corrupted.

I think its important to bear in mind that the Joker's completely bonkers so searching for a rational decision-making process in a movie as convoluted as this one is fairly pointless.

but feel free to keep trying

guh the original reason Joker was at that party was to kill Harvey Dent. dude changes his motivations according to which one would cause the most chaos.

He is shown to be quite able of planning things beforehand though, even if he's totally bonkers, the movie doesn't imply his actions are based on totally random decisions.

(x-post)

movie doesn't imply his actions are based on totally random decisions

the movie pretty much explicitly states that he makes it up as he goes along iirc

For example, he planned the part about getting into the jail and freeing the Chinese banker beforehand, didn't he?

I think its important to bear in mind that Tuomas's completely bonkers so searching for a rational decision-making process in a thread as convoluted as this one is fairly pointless.

hahahah

[insert Joker slow clap]

As well as the part about getting people into those boats to prove a point on human morality.

(xx-post)

If this wasn't his plan, why would he have lied about the location of Harvey and Rachel in the first place?

― Tuomas, Wednesday, September 24, 2008 12:25 PM (24 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

my original point is that maybe he didnt lie at all and is just a fucking craz-o who either forgot where each one was or didnt care and then later told everyone he meant to do it all along

cant decide if this thread or rolling election thread is having the dumber argument atm

my original point is that maybe he didnt lie at all and is just a fucking craz-o who either forgot where each one was or didnt care and then later told everyone he meant to do it all along

Maybe yeah, but as far as DKR is a movie which is supposed to have a dramatic structure, it wouldn't make much sense.

I think I preferred it when you were upset over Batman being a fascist

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51o6URGO4zL._SS500_.jpg

Worst Dr. Manhattan yet.

or the joker doesnt really give a shit which one batman saves and is a total schizophrenic psycho

otm. I got into a couple of big debates about what the joker was doing when he told batman where to find rachel. i like the interpretation that he has no idea himself and is just guessing for lols.

Buried in this:

Then there was a question I had to ask: What did (Tim) Burton think of "The Dark Knight"? After a bit of fumbling around for words, Burton said: "I haven't seen it yet. I'm just, you know, busy. I do want to see it. I've heard it's very good. And I'm sure it is very good. Mostly everybody that I know that has seen it has said that it's very good and I take their word for it."

I thought it would be good to change the subject.

Meantime, first of a new three-part interview with Nolan. Includes this:

GB: Could you see actually yourself not making the third Batman film?

NOLAN: Well ... let me think how to put this. There are two things to be said. One is the emphasis on story. What’s the story? Is there a story that’s going to keep me emotionally invested for the couple of years that it will take to make another one? That’s the overriding question. On a more superficial level, I have to ask the question: How many good third movies in a franchise can people name? (Laughs.) At the same time, in taking on the second one, we had the challenge of trying to make a great second movie, and there haven't been too many of those either. It’s all about the story really. If the story is there, everything is possible. I hope that was a suitably slippery answer.

i love how difficult a set-up for a third movie it is, even as a hybrid of real events and things they'd planned on. i remember reading this thread when people were speaking hopefully of a certain dark knight character returning, somewhat fantastically, as someone from the comics, and thereby undoing some of the twists of the second film. the way it is is perfect; i'm reminded of the role of the mother's diaries in maus, of how frustrating it is to read about them knowing that they're not there, that there's this situation that can't yield a satisfying resolution. the way things have been left in batman's so genuinely, palpably frustrating and tangled, like with the note Alfred didn't deliver, and elicits emotions more complex than it ought to. i hope there's a third one, as long as it doesn't impinge upon or undo the scenario created by the last film.

Nolan gets too much credit. The 60's show was just as hard-hitting in its political overtones: