The Dark Knight

so... have you seen this?

i don't want to discuss too much, but it is so worth it. extremely dark, but so well done. amazing. just... amazing.

amaaaaaazing!

Definitely go see this one. the Joker was awesome/my favorite.

will be going to see it today after church.

once everyone has seen it, i'd like to open up a few points of discussion, though... be warned.

IF YOU HAVE NOT SEEN THIS MOVIE YET -- STOP READING, AS THERE WILL BE SPOILERS IN FUTURE POSTS!

Heh, it was seriously messed up, but I loved it all the same :D

I share that view!

Just an 'fyi' that I join the ranks of those who have watched this movie. That makes... four of us confirmed so far? Enough to start a discussion in my opinion. If we're worried about accidentally spoiling it for the others, we can just repost the huge disclaimer in each of our posts. I imagine that'd actually look pretty funny. :)

ok, well spoilers will definitely follow in this post and probably in all discussions pertaining to these points and others...








1) Are you convinced that Harvey Dent is dead? (i have my own opinion and can back it up with evidence, but i want to hear opinions).

2) Who do you think will be the villain(s) in the next movie?

Final Spoiler Alert

At least from me. So read on at your discretion.

MeNotHolgar wrote:

1) Are you convinced that Harvey Dent is dead? (i have my own opinion and can back it up with evidence, but i want to hear opinions).

2) Who do you think will be the villain(s) in the next movie?

1) I'm not. If they are loyal to the overall style of the franchise, the only thing that can kill a main character is either a shot to the head or decapitation. (as a side, I thought in the 1989 movie that Jack Nicholson's Joker was in fact not even dead, when the movie had him fall from that... clock tower was it?). I'd be willing to put my money on a deeper message of this movie being the demise of Harvey Dent... but not the death of Two-Face. I think a logical justification for the project is that this character played a major role in the second film, so they've invested so much into him that they can't discard him now. Rachael Dawes also died, but her character was not so central to the core of the film's story, I believe.

2) I believe Harvey Two-Face will be a central figure in the next film. I appreciated seeing Cillian Murphy's appearance in this one, but to bring him back for a brief appearance in the third film would just taint his stellar performance from the first one. So I'm guessing the Scarecrow is out - but I could see them bringing him back, given that he was still signed on (briefly) for the second film.

I hope they do not revive The Joker. I do not want them to try and reproduce Ledger's work using a substitute. It just would not work, and in my (uninformed) opinion, most fans would probably not appreciate that. But if they do not include The Joker in the third film, I do not know how they will tie in his sudden lack of coverage in the third, since he has masterfully demonstrated that he cannot be kept behind bars for long.

It may not be the most satisfying, but for The Joker I would be content (and totally understand) if they completely omitted any mention of him in the third movie - in fact, I think that would be the best posthumous gesture toward Ledger. In the back of our minds, we viewers can content ourselves with thinking that The Joker is being held in some higher-than-maximum security prison.

I think that Mr. Freeze, Catwoman, or even Poison Ivy have potential - Chris Nolan's interpretation of these characters could in fact be phenomenal. But I personally believe they pale in comparison to what he could do with Clayface. But because there is already a "face" villain, I feel that Clayface will be out. As for the Riddler and the Penguin, I do not see potential for either (though obviously I am not the visionary that Chris Nolan is). In my mind, a "serious Riddler (an oxymoron in itself" would simply be a type of cheap Joker imitation, while I don't believe the Penguin would be all that convincing as a villain (though obviously this is determined by the director, script, and actor).

I think the Mad Hatter has potential also, but like Clayface and the Riddler, I think that his role would overlap with already-cast villains (Scarecrow), so I don't think he will be a viable choice for the writers.

I feel that other villains, such as Killer Croc, et. al., may be either not well-known enough, or not very realistic, such as those affected by genetic mutations or curses. Although I suppose in this dark, futuristic Gotham, one of the genetically-mutated villains might make do.

I don't know. At this point I have no idea what choice(s) would be good. But because I'm a sci-fi tech geek, I'd vote for Mr. Freeze. Here would be Chris Nolan's chance to undo what was done with him before (no offense, Ahnold).

Boomerwang wrote:

1) I'm not. If they are loyal to the overall style of the franchise, the only thing that can kill a main character is either a shot to the head or decapitation. (as a side, I thought in the 1989 movie that Jack Nicholson's Joker was in fact not even dead, when the movie had him fall from that... clock tower was it?). I'd be willing to put my money on a deeper message of this movie being the demise of Harvey Dent... but not the death of Two-Face. I think a logical justification for the project is that this character played a major role in the second film, so they've invested so much into him that they can't discard him now. Rachael Dawes also died, but her character was not so central to the core of the film's story, I believe.

Ok, here's my take (sorry, couldn't wait any longer to get it out, heh): (1) Harvey Dent is dead. Two-face is alive. The whole funeral deal would make sense as they are essentially making a martyr of Harvey Dent in hopes that the city will be able to have a face and a rally point to pick themselves up as a collective. Obviously they don't want the public to know of what happened at the end with him going crazy, so it is all a cover up. Two-face (what Harvey became...) is still alive, but locked in Arkham Asylum (your "more than maximum security prison" that somehow villains seem to escape from frequently). How did he live, you ask? (2) Well, there is a point where the new mafia boss - Salvatore Maroni - says to Batman something along the lines of: "From one professional to another, a fall from this height won't be fatal." It appeared to me that the height Dent fell was not much different. Obviously it is all in how you land, but they made a point of saying that earlier. In itself, that could be overlooked, but there is more. (3) While watching the scene in which Dent falls and presumably dies there were two things that stood out to me. First, he appeared to be breathing at the bottom (knocked out maybe?). Of course, actors have to breathe, but this seems like a big slip-up on the part of the director if in fact it was him breathing when he was supposed to be dead. I would think you'd reshoot or cut his body from the frame to avoid the mistake. Second, they made a point of showing batman fall the distance after hanging on briefly. If the distance were meant to be fatal, I don't think they would make a gratuitous show of Batman falling the distance (despite his armor). The case against this is of course the fall from the penthouse, but his cape visibly slowed him during that fall. Again, alone these would not necessarily convince me, but taking all three points into account it is very possible that he is still alive. I'm about 60/40 that he's alive.

Boomerwang wrote:

2) I believe Harvey Two-Face will be a central figure in the next film. I appreciated seeing Cillian Murphy's appearance in this one, but to bring him back for a brief appearance in the third film would just taint his stellar performance from the first one. So I'm guessing the Scarecrow is out - but I could see them bringing him back, given that he was still signed on (briefly) for the second film.

I hope they do not revive The Joker. I do not want them to try and reproduce Ledger's work using a substitute. It just would not work, and in my (uninformed) opinion, most fans would probably not appreciate that. But if they do not include The Joker in the third film, I do not know how they will tie in his sudden lack of coverage in the third, since he has masterfully demonstrated that he cannot be kept behind bars for long.

It may not be the most satisfying, but for The Joker I would be content (and totally understand) if they completely omitted any mention of him in the third movie - in fact, I think that would be the best posthumous gesture toward Ledger. In the back of our minds, we viewers can content ourselves with thinking that The Joker is being held in some higher-than-maximum security prison.

I think that Mr. Freeze, Catwoman, or even Poison Ivy have potential - Chris Nolan's interpretation of these characters could in fact be phenomenal. But I personally believe they pale in comparison to what he could do with Clayface. But because there is already a "face" villain, I feel that Clayface will be out. As for the Riddler and the Penguin, I do not see potential for either (though obviously I am not the visionary that Chris Nolan is). In my mind, a "serious Riddler (an oxymoron in itself" would simply be a type of cheap Joker imitation, while I don't believe the Penguin would be all that convincing as a villain (though obviously this is determined by the director, script, and actor).

I think the Mad Hatter has potential also, but like Clayface and the Riddler, I think that his role would overlap with already-cast villains (Scarecrow), so I don't think he will be a viable choice for the writers.

I feel that other villains, such as Killer Croc, et. al., may be either not well-known enough, or not very realistic, such as those affected by genetic mutations or curses. Although I suppose in this dark, futuristic Gotham, one of the genetically-mutated villains might make do.

Mad Hatter - I highly doubt it. Not a central enough villain and too similar like you said.
Killer Croc - Kind of a lame villain by himself and would need to be a side-kick-ish villain.
Poison Ivy- I doubt it because this would require something not based in reality/science. The new imagining of Gotham/DC Universe seems to have everything based in reality and less fantastical (like the original set). If you had Poison Ivy, it would require some scientific-type explanation which would probably be hard to do... possible, but difficult.
Clayface - Potentially. I always "hated" Clayface in the cartoon, probably because he was the most frightening of the villains (an axe for a hand! now a giant hammer! now you look like one of my friends!). The problem is that he might seem too much like Sandman from Spider-man 3. There is potential, but again Chris Nolan (or the writer) would have to base the change in reality to keep the dark and serious tone.
The Riddler - I could see the Riddler in the next movie, but his story isn't quite as good. Who wants to follow the Joker (especially this one...)? Edward Nigma is genius, but the whole plunging Gotham into chaos doesn't really ring true with Nigma's story as much as him just wanting a worthy adversary.
Two-face - This is where my money is at. Read the response to my original question above.
The Joker - Possible, but I think they'll want at least somewhat of a change of pace. If they chose to do the Joker again, it might upset people like Jerry said. I do think Johnny Depp could take over though (although he could make a good Riddler as well).
Harley Quinn - Easily could be a nurse or something at Arkham who falls for the Joker and helps him escape. Obviously she'd have to be paired with the Joker and for the above reasons I'm not sure it would happen in the 3rd movie (maybe the 4th, though).
Scarecrow - No. They won't bring him back. He was good in the first, but his story is used up (for now at least) and they should bring a new villain.
Mr. Freeze - Possibly. It'll be hard to rid myself of the bad taste Arnold left in Batman Forever. I do like this a little though because he is a maniacal, power-hungry man. His tech could easily be explained considering the tech used in the Dark Knight.
Catwoman - Second most likely in my opinion. There is the scene where Bruce asks Lucius Fox (Morgan Freeman) about the new batsuit material. He then mentions about it stopping a 'cat'. Coincidence? Maybe, but it could be foreshadowing as well. I also think DC wants to erase the Catwoman movie from existence (along with nearly every other person).
The Penguin - There is potential here as well, but I think the Penguin kinda sucks. What's he gonna do? He can't even fly... just waddle... and sit on the eggs while the female is carousing with her friends...

Blah... that took a while, haha. Thoughts?

Good points, I like the mention of Catwoman, something I had overlooked. I just thought Alfred was taking a jab at Batman there. :)

I also think Two-Face is very likely. They already established and developed him in this movie so I feel he'd be the biggest bang for the buck. And is it just me or does his face still look like it was subject to acid instead of fire? (though if I'm not mistaken I think acid was the original concept, or some kind of corrosive toxic waste)

If they do do something with The Joker, I feel like the Harley Quinn approach might work with a twist: She falls in love with The Joker there, and then helps him find a protege, or something. Then you could have this whole "son of chaos" or whatever... but even though it sounded cool at first in my head, now it actually sounds kind of lame...

I personally wouldn't mind seeing Clayface even knowing that he might resemble an already-established villain. But I have always liked Batman above Spider-Man, so I wouldn't mind seeing anything one-upped that was already established. :)

Can almost guarantee that Two-Face will be back, Catwoman would be a likely addition as well. Wasn't it batman that took two-face's pulse before saying they shouldn't release the truth? So he would know that he was still alive and aid in the cover-up. The Joker will need to come back eventually, they can't just ignore him, but I don't think he'll be back so soon as the next movie. If they do bring him back, they'll just use a new actor and I doubt do anything to try and cover up the fact. Everyone knows that Heath isn't there to play the part, but the part still exists. Similar to Dumbledor in the Harry Potter series (the original actor died after the first movie, but they had to maintain the part and just cast a new actor in the role and went on). I think they'll take a movie off though to leave some separation, but I could be wrong in that.

I honestly hope two-face doesn't come back. he was really creepylooking....... and I was actually hoping he kinda died because he turned so emo.... what i don't understand, is how they would cover it up if he was still alive..... so who knows. Catwoman could be fun, but honestly don't think anyone at all will matchup to the joker. sad that he's gone :'(

RaSa wrote:

what i don't understand, is how they would cover it up if he was still alive.....

They could just have a fake body, or an unidentifiable body, used for the corpse representing Harvey Dent. It would have been a closed-casket funeral regardless of whether or not he was actually in the coffin, so it would be easy enough from that aspect. By the end of the movie he had already completely taken on the persona of Two-face, so admitting him to Arkham Asylum would be easy enough. All that would be required is that they'd have to make sure nobody outside of a select few knew of the cover-up.

Did he give you nightmares, Andrew? j/k

All good points made, but I still feel like the future movie(s) will be better without a replacement for Ledger. Although, as you guys have mentioned, The Joker is so central to the Batman universe and is his arch-nemesis afterall. They just might do what you (Ben) mentioned and pull a "Rachel Dawes" on the maniacal clown.

I suppose if they choose to do that, I'll appreciate the future film(s) no less. But I hope they do indeed give the role some breathing room (i.e. one film or so) so that we can mentally reboot and prepare ourselves for the new rendition of The Joker.

I think that should they do this and bring him back later, he will do well partially because everybody will have such low expectations for him (compared to Ledger). If the new Joker actor then does even better than Ledger, that will probably cause the earth to spontaneously combust, or something.

Hmmm. Planet-wide spontaneous combustion. Gentlemen, I think I've just thought of a new campaign idea. >:)

While Ledger's performance in the movie was beyond excellent, I do believe they could replace him in the future. It would be one thing if he were still alive and they just didn't want him... but no one expects him to reprise the role. There are a number of other actors who could do an excellent job as well, but potentially for different reasons with their own flair while in character. Like Ben said, the actor who played Dumbledore died after the second film (I think?), but they were able to find a suitable replacement whom people still think is excellent. Because the Joker is so central to the story I think it would be a shame to leave him out in the future, but everyone is entitled to their opinion.

I don't want to burn alive! (or dead for that matter, hehe)

Boomerwang wrote:

Hmmm. Planet-wide spontaneous combustion. Gentlemen, I think I've just thought of a new campaign idea. >:)

OMG we're all screwed. gg guys, make new characters now while you still have the time!



So to address alex's point, no i didn't have nightmares. I don't ever have nightmares kthx. and i definitely agree, i wants joker back.

Haha, on the subject of nightmares... do you think The Joker could give younger children nightmares? I ask because I think a lot of what makes him terrifying to the audience could have just flown over children's heads.

This is not a children's movie... obviously. There were actually a number of younger kids in the audience when I saw it and I heard them every now and then ask questions like "Is he ok?" (in reference to Two-face falling) among others. I think many children would be frightened by someone who had a knife. It would really depend on how young though. You're right, with some of the much younger (maybe less than 7) children the 'terror' aspects could go over their head because they don't understand the decisions that are being made. Though, I'm sure there are some of them that may have been disturbed by his scarring alone... he's not your everday clown, after all.

while i agree that this movie should not be seen by young children, i do think that two face would have posed as a scarier character than joker to them. Joker really wasn't the stereotypical crazy clown who sneaks around and kills little children. yes he was psychotic, but i think (like you have stated) that it was on a level far beyond young children's comprehension level. two-face on the otherhand may have scared the kids just on shear looks

The other thing about the Joker is that he is so far down the dark path that he really doesn't bear much true resemblance to a clown. We all get the reference, but that is because of our understanding of the portrayal. A very young child might not even make that connection, I don't know. The true terror would be in the 4-8 group I think, where they are old enough to know what is happening, but not old enough to separate what they see on the screen from what exists in the world (and frankly, there are some pretty sick people out there, so I don't know how far that separation truly is). In the movie IT by Stephen King, the clown is a true clown, red nose and big shoes and all. However, the clown terrorizes and kills children, which is what really lends it fear (not to mention its ability to turn into a giant monster that can rip your head off) and it travels the sewers which are always an unknown. The Joker doesn't pose that much of an unknown though, I mean, yeah, he's terrifying because he doesn't believe in order or the established system, but he's pretty out in the open about it. So don't really know what the fear factor would be on him.

Spoiler:

Still, the explanations of how he got his scars are pretty graphic, and not the sort of thing i would want my metaphorical kid seeing until he or she were at least into his/her teens. But let's not blame the parents...let's blame Canada!

Archtemplari wrote:

Let's blame Canada!

SIGNED!

so... not sure if you guys have seen this:

Harvey Dent/Two Face is D-E-A-D. Dead

according to the original script anyway. seeing as they left it at least a little ambiguous in the movie, i could see it being changed for future scripts (especially considering Ledger's real death).