Batman carries on beginning in ... The Dark Knight

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:

BTW it is a travesty that this show is not on DVD

Batman did pal around with terrorists criminals.

So the DVD arrived yesterday and we watched it last night, our forth viewing (one in the cinema at a pre-screening with fans in Joker make-up; one first-week screening with ne'er-do-wells eating massive slushies at the cheap cinema; one hooky file recorded off a Spanish-language cinema in America watched on tiny MacBook).

And it was still ace. The soundtrack struck me more at home than in the cinema (I run the DVD player through my amp and hi-fi speakers, so it's not surround sound but it is loud and clear); it's one of the most dynamic films I've ever seen, the quiet bits are so quiet and then the loud bits, which often come suddenly, are FEROCIOUSLY FUCKING LOUD. The single rising tone in the soundtrack, the Joker's theme, is awesome, foreboding and unsettling. I was really struck by the pace and rhythm of the film too, more so now than in those first viewings where I was carried along by it, there's a real rise-and-fall momentum, moments of near chaos interspersed with very calm, very quiet areas of the film. Like, it goes from the fucking mentalism and nastiness of Joker's kidnap & explosion of Rachel & Dent, to Bruce Wayne and Alfred alone, isolated, high above Gotham, very quiet, almost serene.

I have no idea how they'd approach a third film in the series, if they wanted to. I think that interview Ned linked above is right; they'd need a proper story to tell before even thinking about bothering. Conceptually how do you then make the film though, even with the story? Do you try and make something bigger, longer, more profound, more operatic, more real? I'd almost like them to just make a 95-minute film rather than a 150-minute epic, I think. I watched all the Bourne films last week while off work sick, and the pacing and length of them was just brilliant. I don't think I'd want a third Nolan Batman film to try and out-do The Dark Knight.

Has anyone watched it on bluray yet? seems they've fucked about with the aspect ratio, so you can be watching widescreen at one point but the next you might be watching full screen. Not many people seem to be liking it.

Is that an attempt at capturing the Imax ratios?

yes, quote from a happier customer on Amazon

"The feature is presented in varying widescreen and 16:9 formats to make full use of the IMAX sequences (the latter mostly comprising the opening bank heist sequence), but whilst this may sound disconcerting you barely notice it happening due to the clever editing of the film - it certainly did not spoil my enjoyment of the movie"

Ooh didn't realise this was out this week. Asda at lunchtime, I think, to buy the Blu-Ray.

This is what the Guardian Guide says about the Blu-Ray version:

The Blu-Ray transfer is like something from the future: loads of extras, and when the picture borders open up to accommodate the stunning IMAX-shot footage it's hard to imagine the point of watching this movie on any other format.

turns out that the dude i keep talking to at the library about weird foreign horror movies is primarily employed as an imax projectionist, so come january i have the mad free dark knight imax reissue hookup! WIN, esp since i haven't seen the imax version yet.

You lucky man -- very glad I caught an IMAX showing here, might do so again if it comes back (which I assume it will).

I gave up about 3/4 thru reading this thread cos I was too fucking sick of people I thought were at least capable of watching a movie and taking it in getting ALL CONFUSED by the (apparently) labyrinthian structure of this movie and its philosophical unerpinnings, fuck it. IT'S NOT HARD. I mean you all had great ideas (I thought! Was happy would read thread again hahaha sick of internet IR DUMB shit actually) but it doesn't work with your personal take on them (no shit, you didn't make it), then there's some idiotic exchange about something you or both more or less made up, I've had enough.

THINK THROUGH, NOT AT. PLEASE?

tl, dr

That'd be great, if it was long. Tho the fucking thread, etcet

it's a paradox...you can't complain about a thread without becoming part of it! ILX is great that way. the only way to win is not to play.

seeing this on blu-ray the other night actually improved my opinion of it a bit...the action scenes made more sense on a smaller screen...and my biggest problem was always the "answer" to the prisoner's dilemma on the ferry.

I think, however, what they did was pretty clever. The longer you wait, the longer you know the other boat is waiting...and that knowledge represents an ethical pull on you--"they haven't push the button either"--which makes it harder to push the button yourself. It's forces everyone into paralysis. It's sorta far-fetched and doesnt totally fit with the rest of the movie, but it's resolved better than I thought at first.

I still love the SCARY BLACK MAN in that scene.

thats Debo from friday!

Man, I sure had a lot to say about this movie.

we all did, apparently. it was a long summer.

A more innocent time, when all we worried about was Obama's celebrity and whether Michael Phelps used drugs.

i did make this point "if Batman was on one of the boats he wouldn't have had any trouble pushing the button."

and me from a few months ago makes me think now: i wonder if this is true? Batman claims to be able to make the decisions others can't make (like SCARY BLACK DUDE does..SCARY BLACK DUDE = Batman? or would batman push the button?)

oh im sorry "SCARY BLACK MAN", that is.

Man, I sure had a lot to say about this movie.

And it turns out I was right after all, as usual.

I really seriously doubt Batman would push the button.