Batman-Online.com

How would you do The Dark Knight?  As usual with the parameters, keep it within the framework of the film and treat Begins as it currently exists.

One thing I'd change is that I wouldn't have had Bruce switching costumes in this movie. 

A lot of fans complained that Bruce would change suits between movies in the Burton/Schumacher series without explanation and praised The Dark Knight for tying the costume change into the plot.  I completely disagree with this for several reasons:

1) I dislike the TDK Batsuit, simply on an aesthetic level, and much prefer the Begins suit.

2) The TDK/TDKR Batsuit makes Bruce more vulnerable, so it's hard to buy that he'd opt for it.  Remember the dialogue in Begins?  "This sucker can stop a knife."  Cut to Dark Knight Rises with Talia...

3) I also don't buy the explanation in the movie.  If Bruce was really having trouble with flexibility with the suit, why'd it take him this long to want an upgrade?  It feels like he would've wanted a change immediately, especially since it seemed to work fine when he was fighting the League of Shadows and Ra's Al Ghul.  Now, he's fighting dogs and amateur vigilantes and it's too much for him?

4) Biggest sin of all, though, is the fact that the costume change does not add anything to the rest of the movie's story, other than eating up screentime.  The sonar abilities and projectile gauntlet scallops could've easily been added to the existing suit.

I'll have bigger things to add later, but I thought I'd start off with that.

Wouldn't have minded another BS story about how the Joker got the scars.

1) I'd have the second film set at least two years after BB. Instead of District Attorney, I'd have Harvey Dent as the Mayor of Gotham City, whose office has made a massive impact on cutting down the corruption and crime throughout the city, in spite of Batman. If Dent was supposed to come across as a JFK kind of figure, then I'd say that this would be more convincing and believable that people would invest their hope in Dent. It would justify Batman's belief that he can retire and let Dent take over his place as a symbol for Gotham to aspire to. Of course, this changes when the Joker emerges, and Batman does all he can protect Dent from being killed.

2) A more coherent and visibly divided public debate over Batman's actions; some arguing he was the one who paved the way for Dent's office to clean up the city while others condemn his recklessness and view him no better than the likes of the Joker. The law is also divided - Gordon commends Batman for saving the city from destruction by the League of Shadows, whereas politicians demand he should be questioned about that night, as well as arguing he should be locked up since no city should ever co-operate with vigilantes, and for the death of Ras Al Ghul. 

3) I'd have Batman feeling guilty for causing Ras Al Ghul's death; taking into account of own his actions to date and does his best to keep damage to a minimum because of the scrutiny made against him. In the end, however, he feels distraught for allowing the Joker to kill too many people, including Rachel, and fears he will escape and kill again. Batman decides to sacrifice his morals once again and let Joker die, but this time, this course of action gives the law an excuse to no longer tolerate his vigilantism, and Batman suddenly finds himself becoming a fugitive.

4) Dent gets scarred, but survives the explosion at the hospital. His proper transformation as Two-Face and vengeful crusade is saved for the third film. I should also mention that I would never let Joker (the guy who was involved in killing Rachel and tried to kill her before, remember?) manipulate Dent into taking his anger out on everyone who betrayed him or let him down.

I could go on with more, but I'm tired and there were ground rules that the original version of BB had to exist.

Laughing Fish, I don't understand why you'd change Harvey from a DA to a mayor.  He's a DA in the comic-books and it's precisely because he's a DA who poses a legal threat to villains like Maroni in the court room that he's ultimately marked from the get go.  From a criminal justice perspective a mayor would be a much more remote figure and unlike a DA his performance, and thus his prospects for re-election, would depend on a wider range of issues than crime statistics alone.  By contrast, Batman could conceivably invest his faith in DA Dent because as long as the latter produced results by putting men like Maroni behind bars public support would be guaranteed and Batman could then effectively 'retire'.

Not kill Two-Face at the end and therefore not have Batman become a wanted criminal.

Quote from: johnnygobbs on Sat, 10 Aug  2013, 08:31
Laughing Fish, I don't understand why you'd change Harvey from a DA to a mayor.  He's a DA in the comic-books and it's precisely because he's a DA who poses a legal threat to villains like Maroni in the court room that he's ultimately marked from the get go.  From a criminal justice perspective a mayor would be a much more remote figure and unlike a DA his performance, and thus his prospects for re-election, would depend on a wider range of issues than crime statistics alone.  By contrast, Batman could conceivably invest his faith in DA Dent because as long as the latter produced results by putting men like Maroni behind bars public support would be guaranteed and Batman could then effectively 'retire'.

The only reason I suggested that change is because I never believed in the idea that Dent, as a DA, could become a symbol for Gotham to aspire to, especially not to the point that his own crimes later on had to be covered up. Dent, for all his courage, is still a man whose impact on crime is determined  by the evidence he has to work with to prosecute criminals; after all he had to ask Batman to get Lao back from Hong Kong. That might be good enough to prove some criminals guilty, but not quite good enough if there's a mass murderer running loose and trying to kill you.

In all honesty, I wouldn't suggested changing Dent's role from DA to mayor if the story wasn't trying to make Dent the equivalent to JFK. I never heard of anyone investing their faith in humanity in a lawyer or District Attorney, to the point that their crimes had to be covered up. If it was any other politician, like a President, then that would be more believable. After all, we're constantly told that he's The White Knight and "the best hope that Gotham has in a while", but what exactly did he do to earn such a reputation? If it weren't for Batman bringing Lao back from Hong Kong, would Dent's case against the mob have gotten anywhere?

Besides, I never believed that Batman considering retirement to be a possibility, because he has to put the costume on and rescue Dent from danger all the time . He can definitely admire Dent's courage...but thinking he can put down the costume despite that Dent is constantly targeted by the mob and the Joker?  Dent can barely save himself. No, I can't buy that for a million years.

The BIGGEST thing I'd change would be that Harvey survives the fall and has to be hidden away in Arkham for Batman's plan to work, thus leaving Two-Face free to use in DKR. Other than that any changes I'd make would be purely aesthetic; keep the Batman Begins suit, Joker ISN'T wearing makeup, Harvey's burn isn't SO severe that it is actually believable he could refuse pain killers and still function, etc.

I'd prefer the fall at the end be more ambiguous. Have Dent fall onto a truck or into water so it becomes unclear whether he lives or dies.

I'd remove have Batman fight the copycats. He's inspiring people  and they act as a deterrent. People standing up to criminals is a good thing in a city filled with corruption. They also provide a nice decoy. In the film we do see the criminals decide to hit banks simutaneously on the basis that Batman can only be in one spot. The copycats create more of an illusion that the batman could be anywhere (which as we see early on is deterring crime). Also it makes Bruce a hypocrite; why should he have the right to avenge crime and nobody else?


I'd clean up the joker arrest plot hole; Gordon wont let cops rattle his cage and taunt him for fear of giving his mob lawyer ammo yet he allows a masked vigilante to beat the prisoner senseless.

I'd have also cleaned up the Rachel death/Harvey scarring plot hole. There is no way the joker could have planned that one live and one survive especially without constantly knowing what time it was. The easiest way to solve this plot hole was to set motion sensors in on both prisoners; once someone entered ones building, that would set off the other bomb.

Quote from: riddler on Thu,  1 May  2014, 23:05
I'd remove have Batman fight the copycats. He's inspiring people  and they act as a deterrent. People standing up to criminals is a good thing in a city filled with corruption. They also provide a nice decoy. In the film we do see the criminals decide to hit banks simutaneously on the basis that Batman can only be in one spot. The copycats create more of an illusion that the batman could be anywhere (which as we see early on is deterring crime). Also it makes Bruce a hypocrite; why should he have the right to avenge crime and nobody else?

This is a big one in context of the Nolan trilogy's legacy. In TDK, Bruce says no to untrained people he doesn't know from a cake of soap suiting up to fight crime. In TDKR, Bruce says yes to an untrained person he doesn't know from a bar of soap suiting up to fight crime. The film makers either had to stay true to their original intention or get their message clear the first time.

IMO, this entire movie is a mess. I think it has just as many plotholes and inconsistencies in it as TDKR, it's just the movies pace is much more frantic, so it's harder to tell.

Quote from: Travesty on Wed, 16 Jul  2014, 13:24
IMO, this entire movie is a mess. I think it has just as many plotholes and inconsistencies in it as TDKR, it's just the movies pace is much more frantic, so it's harder to tell.

You'd be amazed at the flaws people are willing to overlook if they want to like something. Now, I'm sure they genuinely enjoy the film. But it's definitely not the heaven sent deity they claim it to be.

It's weird I always scratched my head at people who complain heavily about a bad entry ruining a series for them and wish it didnt exist (ie Batman and Robin) and would often reply "why don't you just ignore it and enjoy the ones you like". But after seeing the dark knight rises, my enjoyment level for this one (which I'd stated was my favourite bat-film) has diminished; mainly because Rises exposed Nolans flaws and I find them more noticeable when seeing this film again.


The action scenes; Nolan can tell a story but he sure can't shoot action to save his life. He has no clue which angles to use and they come across as choppy.
The plot holes: I can sometimes overlook this sort of thing but why do the same folks who praise this guy for being grounded and realism easily overlook plot holes? Oh it's perfectly okay for the Joker and his goons to let themselves out of wayne manor after throwing Rachel from a window. That was perfectly acceptable to end the scene there. And despite what the Nolanites say there is no way the Joker could plan that one of Harvey and Rachel lives and the other dies.
Bale: I just find him unbelievably irritating in that role. I found myself wanting to reach through and slap him too many times. And of course the bat voice. They had an avenue to fix it after the backlash Begins got over it.


I'm sure I'll still enjoy this film every now and then but I no longer believe it's far better than B89 like I used to. I had so much fun watching that again this year, not sure if I would for the dark knight.

What would I do different?

-Overall aesthetic needs to be a bit darker and more stylistic. Nothing crazy like Burton, but keep it the same as BB. Why such a drastic change from those two movies? And it's not just the Narrows, like some people try to say. Just look at GCPD. Look at how old and rustic it looks to it's completely modern and barren counterpart within TDK. And of course Gotham. Not only has it not been disguised from Chicago, but it looks like a cleaner version of Chicago! Gotham City shouldn't look like one of the cleanest cities in the world. And again, I'm not asking for excessive amounts of Gothic architecture here, just something with a bit more character. Even the night scenes are lit so bright, you can see everything clearly. Looks at this pic from the Artwork of The Dark Knight. Why didn't they go for something like this? This is PERFECT!
(https://www.batman-online.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcrazymoviepeople.com%2Fblog2%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2012%2F12%2FDark-Knight-1.jpg&hash=43de445b373dcc2b833964e8f33df890a4020284)

-I wouldn't have watered down the characters so much. Where are Batman's Bat-gadgets? Why does everything he do resemble James Bond more than Batman? Where are Joker's gadgets or trademark weapons? Why did he just use knives and guns? Why is he more like a terrorist than a deranged clown? Why is Two-Face just Mad-Face after his transformation? Why use these characters, and make this movie, if all you wanted to do, was make an obvious James Bond movie?

-I would have made The Joker the main character/the backbone of the movie. I know some people think he is, but most of the character buildup was for Harvey. Give it to The Joker, and center around The Joker and Batman.

-Cut out the silly retirement angle. This is Batman's first year(literally) on the job, he shouldn't even be thinking about retirement right now, let alone setting up a plan for Harvey to take over for Batman, just so he can retire with Rachel on a beach. What was the point of training for 7-8 years, just to retire within 10-12 months? That's like someone going to medical school for 8-10 years to be a doctor, and once he saves a few lives, he just ups and retires because he feels like his job is done. What is the point of dedicated such a large portion of your life, to just quitting within such a short per of time?

-Cut out the stupid Batsuit explanation. I would have just started off the movie with the new suit, with no questions asked. At the beginning of the movie, Batman gets attacked by dogs, and he tells Alfred that he needs a suit that is more mobile, so he can be quicker in case something like that happened. Cut to the end of the movie, and The Joker sicks his dogs on Batman, and of course, he's taken down by them, giving The Joker the upper hand. What was the point of all that explanation and screen time wasted, when in the end, he's still taken down by the very thing he needed the new suit for?

-I hated the new suit. I would have just kept the BB suit.

-Bale's bat-voice is embarrassingly bad.

-Why do we have a movie with Two-Face, when The Joker uses all of the 50/50 ultimatums? You have to save him or her, it's either here or there, either the prisoners or civilians will die, etc. Yeah, cool, not that bad, but why not save those for Two-Face, and make up something a bit more Joker like for....oh, I dunno, The Joker!

-The copy cat Batmen: now, I didn't really have a huge problem with them before TDKR, but now that that movie is out, I would have easily cut them out of this movie, cause now that plot point is incredibly inconsistent with what was told to us in this movie. In TDK, we are told that Bruce doesn't want to have people be inspired to put on a mask and fight crime. He wants ordinary citizens like Harvey Dent to take control of the city. His very words are, "that's not what I had in mind, when I said I wanted to inspire". Then, you cut the the ending of TDKR, and he says, "that's the point of Batman, anybody can be him". And of course, he gives Robin John Blake the keys to the cave, and even told him in the movie to wear a mask, so he can protect the people around him. Ummmmmm, ok?!  :-\

-I wouldn't have made Harvey listen to The Joker's scheme in the hospital. It makes no sense why he would all of the sudden just start listening to the very man who obviously killed his girlfriend, to then going after Gordon and his family, who were obviously fighting against that very thing. Is this not the dumbest thing in this movie? Am I the only one who realizes how incredibly stupid this is? It's the complete opposite of making sense!

-I would make The Joker's plans actually make sense. Everything he did in this movie was so ridiculous, that I don't know how people can connect the dots from point A to point B, and think any of it makes sense. I could actually go off on this for hours, so I'll spare you the time, and just say most of what he did in this movie stunk!

-I would have made The Joker's skin perma-white. I know most people don't care about it, but I think it's a defining characteristic of The Joker. He's the guy who can't escape who he is, and therefore, turns him int a psychopath because of it, whereas with Batman, he can take off his mask and escape who he is, but chooses not to. It's the perfect duality between the two characters. But of course with Nolan, The Joker can stop being a clown if he wants, by cleaning his face, and of course, Batman chooses not to wear the mask by retiring. Both of these traits are so completely opposite of each other from their comic book counterpart, that it's staggering. *but I do like the way The Joker looks in this movie. Aesthetically, I have no problem with him. It's just he wears makeup to become The Joker. Ugh!


I dunno, I'm sure there's more, but that's just off the top of my head.

Quote from: Travesty on Thu, 17 Jul  2014, 17:42

-I wouldn't have made Harvey listen to The Joker's scheme in the hospital. It makes no sense why he would all of the sudden just start listening to the very man who obviously killed his girlfriend, to then going after Gordon and his family, who were obviously fighting against that very thing. Is this not the dumbest thing in this movie? Am I the only one who realizes how incredibly stupid this is? It's the complete opposite of making sense!

Believe me mate, you're definitely not alone. I've been complaining about the exact same thing for years. By the time that scene came up when I first watched it, the rest of the film became completely unwatchable. For all the BS praise about how'cerebral' and 'thought-provoking' Dent's insanity was, it fails miserably when you compare it to the Two-Face two-part episodes in BTAS where an already unstable Dent is fueled with hatred for Rupert Thorne because his attempts to shame Dent inadvertently got him disfigured too. Dent's psychosis in that show made sense. Unfortunately TDK has too many sub-plots crammed together, and it doesn't really flesh out Dent's character at all to say the least. I still think the film's ending was worse though.

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Fri, 18 Jul  2014, 03:36

Quote from: Travesty on Thu, 17 Jul  2014, 17:42

-I wouldn't have made Harvey listen to The Joker's scheme in the hospital. It makes no sense why he would all of the sudden just start listening to the very man who obviously killed his girlfriend, to then going after Gordon and his family, who were obviously fighting against that very thing. Is this not the dumbest thing in this movie? Am I the only one who realizes how incredibly stupid this is? It's the complete opposite of making sense!

Believe me mate, you're definitely not alone. I've been complaining about the exact same thing for years. By the time that scene came up when I first watched it, the rest of the film became completely unwatchable. For all the BS praise about how'cerebral' and 'thought-provoking' Dent's insanity was, it fails miserably when you compare it to the Two-Face two-part episodes in BTAS where an already unstable Dent is fueled with hatred for Rupert Thorne because his attempts to shame Dent inadvertently got him disfigured too. Dent's psychosis in that show made sense. Unfortunately TDK has too many sub-plots crammed together, and it doesn't really flesh out Dent's character at all to say the least. I still think the film's ending was worse though.

Nolan really got that part wrong; the fact that Dent was already on the edge suffering from split personalities and the scarring pushed him over. Adding Rachel as motivation dumbs it down. And yes I don't buy the "he blames Batman and Gordon and forgives the Joker just because he's crazy" rationale; Oh the Joker said it wasn't his plan, that's good enough. Going after Maroni was fine but he knew Batman and Gordon wanted to stop the Joker and it was Harvey's plan himself to take the fall for being the bat to lure out the Joker.

My opinion of TDK was really soured by TDK Rises. It's especially hard to enjoy the film because I know what's coming. Knowing the themes of TDK twist into something contradictory. Nolan's legacy would have been a lot better if he left things at two films. But yes, absolutely agreed. TDK isn't any different to the turn off your mind popcorn flicks of Schumacher - which in their defence happen to be pretty entertaining.

I want to like TDK more than I do, but problems linger. And I don't turn a blind eye to them.

I still don't get the point of Batman taking responsibility for Dent's murder and running away. It's meant to make Batman seem selfless. But I really don't believe the entire city would lose hope just because one district attorney went nuts. And you know what? When push comes to shove, the Nolan universe doesn't even care about it either, because we never see the public reaction to the truth being revealed in TDKR. A truth which is in the form of a piece of paper read aloud by a muffed voice, gas mask wearer. Believe him because he said so!

Nobody has successfully argued to me why saying The Joker killed Dent isn't an adequately fine solution to it all. Gordon and Batman tell a lie to cover it up in the film, but it's a dumb one. Why not tell a smart one? But then you don't get the cinematic (but inherently dumb) sequence of Batman running away because he can take it. Meaning he can't, because he locks himself away in his manor. Never to be seen for years and years. That's the thing with Nolan's trilogy. It may seem 'epic' when you watch it. But when logic and reason is applied, it crumbles. Much like the opening plane hijacking sequence of TDK Rises, among others.

So I say don't hold yourself to that smug "transcending the genre" standard.

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Sat, 19 Jul  2014, 09:12
My opinion of TDK was really soured by TDK Rises. It's especially hard to enjoy the film because I know what's coming. Knowing the themes of TDK twist into something contradictory. Nolan's legacy would have been a lot better if he left things at two films. But yes, absolutely agreed. TDK isn't any different to the turn off your mind popcorn flicks of Schumacher - which in their defence happen to be pretty entertaining.

I want to like TDK more than I do, but problems linger. And I don't turn a blind eye to them.

I still don't get the point of Batman taking responsibility for Dent's murder and running away. It's meant to make Batman seem selfless. But I really don't believe the entire city would lose hope just because one district attorney went nuts. And you know what? When push comes to shove, the Nolan universe doesn't even care about it either, because we never see the public reaction to the truth being revealed in TDKR. A truth which is in the form of a piece of paper read aloud by a muffed voice, gas mask wearer. Believe him because he said so!

Nobody has successfully argued to me why saying The Joker killed Dent isn't an adequately fine solution to it all. Gordon and Batman tell a lie to cover it up in the film, but it's a dumb one. Why not tell a smart one? But then you don't get the cinematic (but inherently dumb) sequence of Batman running away because he can take it. Meaning he can't, because he locks himself away in his manor. Never to be seen for years and years. That's the thing with Nolan's trilogy. It may seem 'epic' when you watch it. But when logic and reason is applied, it crumbles. Much like the opening plane hijacking sequence of TDK Rises, among others.

So I say don't hold yourself to that smug "transcending the genre" standard.

The dent handling is illogical
-supposedly they're worried that if him going crazy got revealed, his convictions would get overturned but the obvious defense (which is the truth) is that he went crazy after Rachel died and he scarred his face
-I will accept that they don't want to blame it on the Joker since as bad as he was, he didn't kill Dent
-if they're going to lie, why not tamper? Leave the scene and cremate the body?

Batman went through that entire journey to save the city and apparently gave it up just to protect Harvey Dent The fact that the city cleans itself up without Batman kind of makes what he did seem pointless doesn't it?

Quote from: riddler on Sat, 19 Jul  2014, 20:10

The dent handling is illogical
-supposedly they're worried that if him going crazy got revealed, his convictions would get overturned but the obvious defense (which is the truth) is that he went crazy after Rachel died and he scarred his face
-I will accept that they don't want to blame it on the Joker since as bad as he was, he didn't kill Dent
-if they're going to lie, why not tamper? Leave the scene and cremate the body?

Batman went through that entire journey to save the city and apparently gave it up just to protect Harvey Dent The fact that the city cleans itself up without Batman kind of makes what he did seem pointless doesn't it?

I've seen this one guy one YouTube spending three and a half hours criticizing TDKR for all its flaws, and yet he blindly praises TDK...except for the ending. He reasons his distaste for Batman's retirement by arguing, and I quote:

Quote"Don't blame Batman! Say one of the Joker's guys killed Dent as revenge and Batman went chased after them to stop them. Yes, it's a lie. But it's a lie that leaves both Batman and Harvey Dent unscathed. Instead, we're lead to believe the two most effective crime fighters in the series have spent the next eight years carrying a guilt that they are worried would tear the city apart. Okay, so why didn't you put the blame on people who could never be caught, and everyone else in Gotham knew to be dangerous?!"

I've always found it funny and irritating that people who complained about Batman's retirement at the start of the third film never had any problems with the ending of the second film. For instance, I've seen plenty of people complaining that Batman retiring after one year contradicts the point of him fighting crime in the first place. But I've always argued that Batman taking the blame for crimes he didn't commit was much worse because there's no way in hell would anybody believe it after all the times he saved the city from terrorists. And let's not forget how Batman was meant to be symbolic throughout the series, and yet he lets his image get tarnished in favour of another man who (no matter how many times we're told how good he is) never came across as humble or even more of a better person than Rachel Dawes when she was DA.

And one more thing that annoys me is this: look at this picture that came from the TDKR's viral marketing campaign below.

(https://www.batman-online.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F31.media.tumblr.com%2Ftumblr_m3af3feJxR1qcga5ro1_500.jpg&hash=d63f49611605bb2cc2a7b7ad2656b3735fc71fbf)

It says Batman was wanted for kidnapping and terrorizing Gordon's family, in addition to the murders of Dent and six cops. Now, it was never mentioned in the actual film that Batman was believed to be responsible for kidnapping Gordon's family, but it demonstrates my point - there's no way - even by movie logic - that anyone in Gotham would believe that Batman is suddenly  responsible for all these crimes in one night despite spending the previous year protecting the city from terrorists.

>:( Woeful attempt at storytelling.

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Tue, 22 Jul  2014, 11:36

Quote from: riddler on Sat, 19 Jul  2014, 20:10

The dent handling is illogical
-supposedly they're worried that if him going crazy got revealed, his convictions would get overturned but the obvious defense (which is the truth) is that he went crazy after Rachel died and he scarred his face
-I will accept that they don't want to blame it on the Joker since as bad as he was, he didn't kill Dent
-if they're going to lie, why not tamper? Leave the scene and cremate the body?

Batman went through that entire journey to save the city and apparently gave it up just to protect Harvey Dent The fact that the city cleans itself up without Batman kind of makes what he did seem pointless doesn't it?

I've seen this one guy one YouTube spending three and a half hours criticizing TDKR for all its flaws, and yet he blindly praises TDK...except for the ending. He reasons his distaste for Batman's retirement by arguing, and I quote:

Quote"Don't blame Batman! Say one of the Joker's guys killed Dent as revenge and Batman went chased after them to stop them. Yes, it's a lie. But it's a lie that leaves both Batman and Harvey Dent unscathed. Instead, we're lead to believe the two most effective crime fighters in the series have spent the next eight years carrying a guilt that they are worried would tear the city apart. Okay, so why didn't you put the blame on people who could never be caught, and everyone else in Gotham knew to be dangerous?!"

I've always found it funny and irritating that people who complained about Batman's retirement at the start of the third film never had any problems with the ending of the second film. For instance, I've seen plenty of people complaining that Batman retiring after one year contradicts the point of him fighting crime in the first place. But I've always argued that Batman taking the blame for crimes he didn't commit was much worse because there's no way in hell would anybody believe it after all the times he saved the city from terrorists. And let's not forget how Batman was meant to be symbolic throughout the series, and yet he lets his image get tarnished in favour of another man who (no matter how many times we're told how good he is) never came across as humble or even more of a better person than Rachel Dawes when she was DA.

And one more thing that annoys me is this: look at this picture that came from the TDKR's viral marketing campaign below.

(https://www.batman-online.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F31.media.tumblr.com%2Ftumblr_m3af3feJxR1qcga5ro1_500.jpg&hash=d63f49611605bb2cc2a7b7ad2656b3735fc71fbf)

It says Batman was wanted for kidnapping and terrorizing Gordon's family, in addition to the murders of Dent and six cops. Now, it was never mentioned in the actual film that Batman was believed to be responsible for kidnapping Gordon's family, but it demonstrates my point - there's no way - even by movie logic - that anyone in Gotham would believe that Batman is suddenly  responsible for all these crimes in one night despite spending the previous year protecting the city from terrorists.

>:( Woeful attempt at storytelling.

Well it's a lazy ad blaming batman for everything Two face did. There's no reason to report the kidnapping, nobody found out about it. That's also a terrible message gordon is teaching his young children (one of which should become batgirl). Also how exactly did Gordon explain that he 'knew' batman committed those murders? Did batman confess it to him? It doesn't make any sense how he could conceivably frame a willing Batman for it or why he would. If there was a way for Batman to be framed then shouldn't it be easier to simply cover up Dents involvement? Was it even well known that Dent did escape from the hospital which was destroyed? Couldn't they claim he died there?

I'm really unsure how I feel about the dark knight. At the time it was my favourite bat film. I accepted the ending because I didn't over think it. Truth be told the stage was set to blame the batman in that film, rises just continued that plotline. Having seen the dark knight rises which IMO exploits all Nolans flaws; his poor editing, bad pacing, endless plot holes and overall lack of fun, I tend to notice those things in repeat viewings of the dark knight. Maybe I'll accept it in its own vein the same way that Batman and Robin doesn't ruin the previous movies for me but I expect I'll be watching Batman 89 more often than the dark knight.

^They couldn't claim he died at the hospital, because he let Ramirez live, so she could have told.

But now that I think about it, she could have told regardless, coming out with the truth that Harvey was a killer? Hmmmmm, yeah, it doesn't make sense. Ha! :D

Yeah,TDK's ending is a head scratcher. It's a lot like Lance Armstrong - he's guilty as hell (and many people could know) but without concrete proof, any allegations are just that. Nobody had any form of evidence whatsoever proving Dent was a killer. Yet Batman still sits atop that batpod and rides off into the night with a defamed name for really no reason whatsoever. The moral of the story should have been if you break the law and kill, ala Dent, justice will come - regardless of your standing in the community.

Yeah I have a hard time believing someone like Ramirez who was well established as a double crosser would keep quiet for 8 years while harvey Dent was celebrated as a local hero, knowing full well Gordon is blaming Batman for Dent's crimes.


I am in law school currently and here's my take on what would happen if the Harvey Dent situation happened in the real world.
Even in the real world there's constantly cases of lawyers getting caught doing shady things such as committing purgery, corruption, manipulating evidence and even going to jail for criminal acts. The cases they won don't automatically get overturned even if they are disbarred. Sure there may be inquiries and audits of past cases but a lawyers behaviour outside of a case is not grounds for an appeal.
As I stated earlier, Dent's successor would easily be able to argue that Dent did not commit any known crimes until Rachel was killed and he was scarred (he does kidnap and interrogate the one man at gunpoint after Gordon was 'killed' but there is no evidence of it). Even without the Dawes murder/Dent scarring, none of Dent's crimes were done on the job (in a court of law or at official functions).

Nolan and his cronies seem to imply that all Dents convictions would be overturned and the prisoners set free if word got out of his crimes. But the absolute worst case scenario for the Gotham D.A. office is that new trials be ordered. And even with a new D.A., the evidence and case transcripts of the original convictions would still be intact so as long as the defense didn't come up with new evidence (and I repeat, anything negative Dent did after a case he was involved in does not qualify as evidence for the defense) it would be an easy case for the D.A. to win since the original transcripts are basically a manual for them about how to re-win the case.


Now here's something that rarely gets talked about; it's well established that the Gotham P.D. had plenty of corrupt cops. If any police officer gets caught tampering with evidence, violating official police procedure or lying in court, THOSE arrests and investigations previously made by them can get overturned on the basis that they violated the defendants human rights including the right to a fair trial. It is very common for criminal convictions to be overturned if it is ruled the initial arrest was unlawful. So in the dark knight rises when it does come to light that Gordon framed batman, any arrests he made or investigations he led could be subject to an immediate appeal. Convictions may or may not be intitially overturned but habeus corpus (the right to legally hold an accused individual in custody) could. To be honest I don't know why Nolan didn't play this angle more in the dark knight rises instead of the silly prison breakout; The gotham D.A. would have the opportunity to re-try the case but the key is the defendant would be released from custody unless the prosecution can get another writ of habeus corpus which is difficult to get a second time. Also any evidence obtained by the tainted officer could be deemed inadmissable in court (meaning that hurts the DA's chances of getting the criminal taken back into custody and getting the conviction upheld).




So you can take that to the Nolanites next time they argue Nolans films are so realistic- at least Burton never butchered the legal system to that extent.

Good points riddler. But here's something that occurred to me.

I've always thought that the boat scene was such unrealistic BS. For all we know, that boat holding prisoners might have been containing people who were convicted for child molestation, rape and murder, and most likely devour each other in jail. We hear how horrible and brutal the prison system is in real life, since it enables a "survivor of the fittest" environment where convicts rape and murder each other. But in that boat scene in TDK, we're supposed to believe that the majority of convicts wouldn't scramble over each other to get the detonator?

But for argument's sake, let's say all of this is true, and Batman is right when he says that people aren't like the Joker and compassion exists even within criminals. Wouldn't the movie's ending completely contradict this notion? Batman tells Joker that there are people who believe in doing the right thing, but apparently he and Gordon tell a lie because they're afraid the truth about Harvey would tear the entire city apart? So Batman doesn't really trust people after all? What utter nonsense! If people are capable of having the humanity to not kill each other when they are taken hostage, then surely they're capable of understanding that Dent became insane because of the Joker.

God damn I hate this overrated, pretentious and hypocritical piece of garbage of a movie.

^Ha, I've never even thought of that. That's a really good point.

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Sat, 10 Aug  2013, 07:45
3) I'd have Batman feeling guilty for causing Ras Al Ghul's death; taking into account of own his actions to date and does his best to keep damage to a minimum because of the scrutiny made against him. In the end, however, he feels distraught for allowing the Joker to kill too many people, including Rachel, and fears he will escape and kill again. Batman decides to sacrifice his morals once again and let Joker die, but this time, this course of action gives the law an excuse to no longer tolerate his vigilantism, and Batman suddenly finds himself becoming a fugitive.

I'm going to expand on this even further.

Instead of the disgusting excuse of an ending we got, here are two alternatives which I think would have been much better.

Scenario #1: Batman abandons his moral code and becomes a true Dark Knight.
In the second full length trailer, Bruce says "I now understand what I need to become to fight men like him (i.e. Joker)". Following the chaos that occurred when the Joker escaped from jail, Bruce feels extremely guilty for all the people who were injured and killed, including Rachel. He realises that his moral code is futile if it only puts innocent people at risk, and the only way to keep Gotham safe is to end psychopaths like Joker and prevent the chance for them to escape and do more harm. But in doing so, not only does Batman abandon his code; his actions sacrifice whatever co-operation he had with the police and he becomes a wanted fugitive in the eyes of the law. This could've been a perfect contrast to the ending of B89, and actually would've given Nolan's attempt at realism lots of credibility. Batman runs into the night accepting the consequences of his actions as long as it ensures no more mass deaths happen again, and actually fulfills Gordon's description as "a silent protector, a watchful guardian, a dark knight" for the next eight years.

Scenario #2: Batman keeps both Joker and Two-Face alive AND reveals the truth about Two-Face's crimes to the entire public.
Remember when Batman preached how people wouldn't kill each other when Joker held everyone hostage during the boat crisis...only to then decide to frame himself to cover up for Two-Face because he suddenly had no confidence that people could cope with the truth about the DA's crimes? Instead, let's have Batman backing up his belief that people are "inherently good" like he told the Joker and let the truth about Harvey be known. If the public proves to have the strength to persevere any crisis in the face of adversity, then Batman should trust them to accept the news about what Dent did.

In addition to keeping both villains alive, the now disgraced Harvey Dent faces trial to answer for his crimes, and Joker spends the rest of his life in jail going insane knowing his entire quest for chaos was all for nothing. This not only proves that someone actually won from a philosophical point of view, and the winner is Batman of course, but this also provides a real closure for the Joker, as opposed to keeping his fate suddenly ambiguous and questions over the aftermath of his arrest remain unanswered to this day. Despite feeling heartbroken over Rachel's murder, Batman's faith in humanity and completely defying the Joker keeps him going and, once again, actually fulfills Gordon's description as "a silent protector, a watchful guardian, a dark knight" for the next eight years.

Now while both endings still don't make up for lots of other problems in this movie, I think they would've ended the movie much better, and stayed more truthful to the themes that we're introduced on screen, and would've made TDKR a much better movie too. I doubt either ending would've made people who watched TDK with rose-tinted glasses think any differently other than still saying "it's one of the best movies of all time". But it would certainly help me appreciate the film a lot more than what I do today.

Wow, I like Scenario 2 a lot more than both Scenario 1 and the movie ending. It would've made more sense than what we got, stayed truer to the comics, and given TDK more of a standalone ending.

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Wed, 17 Sep  2014, 02:08
I've always thought that the boat scene was such unrealistic BS. For all we know, that boat holding prisoners might have been containing people who were convicted for child molestation, rape and murder, and most likely devour each other in jail. We hear how horrible and brutal the prison system is in real life, since it enables a "survivor of the fittest" environment where convicts rape and murder each other. But in that boat scene in TDK, we're supposed to believe that the majority of convicts wouldn't scramble over each other to get the detonator?

For a movie that strives for realism, I absolutely hate that scene. It's rubbish and I don't believe it. I have no doubt in my mind someone from either boat would push the detonator, fearing the other side would get in before them. It's a token 'feel good' ending to try and show The Joker isn't right in his beliefs. Batman says The Joker is "alone", yet moments earlier we had people trying to kill Reese after Joker's threat. A heavy police presence to keep people away.

Quote from: BatmAngelus on Sat, 25 Jul  2015, 18:12
Wow, I like Scenario 2 a lot more than both Scenario 1 and the movie ending. It would've made more sense than what we got, stayed truer to the comics, and given TDK more of a standalone ending.

I believe that if Batman had to become an outlaw by the end of the movie, then the first scenario would've been the preferable alternate ending. But yes, I do agree that the second scenario is better. I can imagine Batman convincing Gordon that revealing the truth about Two-Face is necessary, saying something like this:

"The Joker did NOT win. This city has shown him that it's full of people ready to believe in good, and we must continue to fulfill that promise and fight for truth and justice. Not run away and hide from it. I believe in Gotham City".

I think the bit in bold would be a nice little homage to Gordon's pledge to continue after Two-Face's arrest at the end of The Long Halloween. And it would definitely allow Batman to come out of the whole ordeal as a real hero.

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Sun, 26 Jul  2015, 00:51

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Wed, 17 Sep  2014, 02:08
I've always thought that the boat scene was such unrealistic BS. For all we know, that boat holding prisoners might have been containing people who were convicted for child molestation, rape and murder, and most likely devour each other in jail. We hear how horrible and brutal the prison system is in real life, since it enables a "survivor of the fittest" environment where convicts rape and murder each other. But in that boat scene in TDK, we're supposed to believe that the majority of convicts wouldn't scramble over each other to get the detonator?

For a movie that strives for realism, I absolutely hate that scene. It's rubbish and I don't believe it. I have no doubt in my mind someone from either boat would push the detonator, fearing the other side would get in before them. It's a token 'feel good' ending to try and show The Joker isn't right in his beliefs. Batman says The Joker is "alone", yet moments earlier we had people trying to kill Reese after Joker's threat. A heavy police presence to keep people away.

Yes, I've often complained about that contradiction too. I remember I spoke to someone who tried to justify that ridiculous boat scene by arguing to me that "people are contradictory in real life, and TDK doesn't hide from complex human behavior". I think such an opinion is outrageous. Human behavior might be complicated, but that scene could not ever happen in real life. People would've panicked violently and murder each other - not bloody debate and calmly vote what to do next! From the prisoners' point of view, I think Nolan was trying to convey the message that not all prisoners are convicted for monstrous crimes in real life, that there is a possibility that a lesser evil among the worst of felons can exist. Even so, that still doesn't make the scene believable. Like I said, widespread violence in prisons are quite commonplace, but we're supposed to believe that convicts would spare another group of civilians as an act of selflessness? Bullcrap. And like I said several times in the past, Bane's release of the angry convicts in TDKR agrees that this scene is bullcrap too.

As much as lots of people complain about TDKR, I really can't stand TDK. The entire third act alone is a trainwreck and unwatchable, and the ending alone is the catalyst for everything that occurred in the third film.

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Sat, 25 Jul  2015, 11:40Scenario #2: Batman keeps both Joker and Two-Face alive AND reveals the truth about Two-Face's crimes to the entire public.
Remember when Batman preached how people wouldn't kill each other when Joker held everyone hostage during the boat crisis...only to then decide to frame himself to cover up for Two-Face because he suddenly had no confidence that people could cope with the truth about the DA's crimes? Instead, let's have Batman backing up his belief that people are "inherently good" like he told the Joker and let the truth about Harvey be known. If the public proves to have the strength to persevere any crisis in the face of adversity, then Batman should trust them to accept the news about what Dent did.

That isn't what happened in the movie at all. He didn't suddenly lose confidence. His confidence that people were ready to believe in good was because of Harvey's example. He feared that without that people would lose hope. The movie shows that Bruce views Batman as a faulty mechanism. He views it as a treatment for the symptoms, not as a cure. The Joker actually showcases this as something that is brought about because of Batman's existence, which to Bruce means that he's failed. As far as he's concerned, the Joker is because of Batman, Rachel's death is because of Batman and Harvey's broken psyche and death is because of Batman.

I think the whole "escalation" bit from BB implied (or could've implied) a more comic book-oriented tone in the future. So why not begin ladling that on in TDK?

The Joker slowly takes over organized crime and by the end of movie he's getting challenged by the Mad Hatter, Black Mask, the Ventriloquist & Scarface, etc. Pick anybody.

For the third film, you can start moving away from the mentally-deranged and start delivering mutant villains like Mr. Freeze, Clayface, Man-Bat or some others.

The Burton/Schumacher franchise got lighter and brighter as it went along. The Nolan trilogy arguably got darker. And that might've been fine with me if it'd become more science-fantasy like the comics with actual supervillains in it.

This isn't unique to TDK but all the live action films have rarely shown Batman taking on standard street crime. It might've been fun to watch Batman rescue a kidnapped child, foil a carjacking, stop a bank robbery or something else that isn't tied in with the main plot of the film just to show that his mission gets big, yes, but it also gets small. All the movies up to now have somewhat missed out on this.

Quote from: BatmAngelus on Fri,  9 Aug  2013, 18:15
A lot of fans complained that Bruce would change suits between movies in the Burton/Schumacher series without explanation and praised The Dark Knight for tying the costume change into the plot.  I completely disagree with this for several reasons:

1) I dislike the TDK Batsuit, simply on an aesthetic level, and much prefer the Begins suit.

2) The TDK/TDKR Batsuit makes Bruce more vulnerable, so it's hard to buy that he'd opt for it.  Remember the dialogue in Begins?  "This sucker can stop a knife."  Cut to Dark Knight Rises with Talia...

3) I also don't buy the explanation in the movie.  If Bruce was really having trouble with flexibility with the suit, why'd it take him this long to want an upgrade?  It feels like he would've wanted a change immediately, especially since it seemed to work fine when he was fighting the League of Shadows and Ra's Al Ghul.  Now, he's fighting dogs and amateur vigilantes and it's too much for him?

4) Biggest sin of all, though, is the fact that the costume change does not add anything to the rest of the movie's story, other than eating up screentime.  The sonar abilities and projectile gauntlet scallops could've easily been added to the existing suit.

Looking back, it would've made much more sense if Bruce's body began to deteriorate severely (as it did in TDKR) after a year, and he tries to upgrade the suit to add extra protection. Storywise, it would've been more "realistic".

Instead, Fox's reasoning behind the suit came across as saying "Okay Bruce, here's that new suit you need to turn your head and give yourself more freedom to move during combat...but about that problem of being vulnerable to dogs, guns and knife attacks? Sorry, couldn't find a fix for any of those issues".

By the way, here's another good idea somebody else thought of that would've improved the movie's ending.  :D

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e_ntE7hrUiA

It makes much more sense than that outrageous transformation into Two-Face.

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Thu, 28 Jul  2016, 14:54Looking back, it would've made much more sense if Bruce's body began to deteriorate severely (as it did in TDKR) after a year, and he tries to upgrade the suit to add extra protection. Storywise, it would've been more "realistic".

Instead, Fox's reasoning behind the suit came across as saying "Okay Bruce, here's that new suit you need to turn your head and give yourself more freedom to move during combat...but about that problem of being vulnerable to dogs, guns and knife attacks? Sorry, couldn't find a fix for any of those issues".

One thing I was never clear on is whether Fox built more than one of that suit. BB showed he was manufacturing multiple cowls. And yet his living spaces in TDK and TDKRises both implied he only had the one since there wasn't much apparent storage space for anything other than one suit. So hmm.

I was under the impression it was just the one suit.

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Sat, 30 Jul  2016, 03:16I was under the impression it was just the one suit.

Okay. So where did Bruce get what seemed to be a new suit in TDKRises? My guess is Bane didn't return it to Fox after defeating Batman and dropping him into the Pit prison. Fox wouldn't have had time to build a new one, or even know a new one was even needed by the time Bruce freed him from Bane's minions.

Then again, he emerged from the penthouse after Joker arrived with the suit on. Which leads me to believe he had a version stored in the safe house.

I'm sure he had multiple suits. In Batman Begins he keeps one particular costume in a cabinet for easy access.


But we know for a fact he ordered the components in bulk quantities. "At least we'll have spares." He just keeps them stored somewhere else. Similarly in The Dark Knight he keeps one costume in the display cabinet, but he must've had spares ready in storage for when he needed them.

It's the same in Batman 89. He stashes one costume in the vault, but clearly has spare components stored elsewhere. His suit gets damaged during the alleyway fight. Note the bullet holes in the emblem and left pectoral.


Both of these have vanished the next time he puts on the suit.


It's possible he was able to seamlessly fill the holes, but I think it's more likely he simply put on a spare costume.

Probably just have the film be just 3-5 months after BB and have the Joker try to corrupt Rachel and have her become Two-Face.

Or, set it a year later, with Harvey, but drastically cut down on or eliminate the love triangle element, have Bruce accept that both he and Rachel have moved on. Also have Batman and the Joker have already fought in the interim year so Batman isn't thinking that he may soon be not needed and ready to retire. And have Dent survive the end.

Either way, have the Scarecrow play a part as another villain working with the Joker, at least or especially in the climax.