The Official Dark Knight Countdown Thread

So does the new Batmobile. That's how Gordon took out the railroad.

You folks are missing the point by focusing on who will play the next villain. These movies aren't about Batman, they're not about matching him up with a villain. Nolan's Batman movies are about the people of Gotham, they are about us, and what we are willing to accept as a society. There is an arc playing out, a theme at work. Bruce Wayne initially becomes Batman to show the people of Gotham not to be afraid, to take a stand against injustice.

*SPOILERS*

In Batman Begins Bruce Wayne saves the city of Gotham from the cleansing fire of The League Of Shadows, even though he can see Ra's point that they are beyond saving.

Now in Dark Knight we find a Gotham that is starting to fight back, criminals are scared, the mob is lurking in the shadows. The police force is being cleaned up, and the city is rallying behind Harvey Dent. We've even got misguided Batman wannabes trying to live up to the symbol that Bruce inspired.

But the Joker is having none of it. Did no one notice? There was a method to his madness, to his attempt to force people into making unpleasant choices, forcing us into to giving in to our primal, selfish desires. To prove that everyone could be brought down to his level. From forcing Batman to decide who to save, to motivating the whole city to try to kill the accountant, turning Gotham's 'White Knight' into a killer, to the final dilemma, making the passengers of each ferry choose to kill the others, in order to save themselves. These were all dilemmas meant to break Gotham, in the end the Joker only broke Dent. Which is why Batman and Gordon agreed to bury the truth, and to pin the murders on Batman. The city, which failed to succumb to the Joker's madness, needed to know that their champion had never faltered as well. Batman did not choose to save Harvey out of friendship, he chose to save Harvey Dent because he believed that Dent could save Gotham. He rose above his own desires for a normal life, and Rachel (whom he believed would be with him), and cast them all to fate in order to save Gotham's 'White Knight'. Much like the ferry passengers gave themselves to fate rather than give in to the Joker. Tiny Lister tossing the detonator was definitely one of the finest moments of the film, and even though he didn't see it, validated Bruce Wayne, and proved Ras al Ghul wrong.

That is the point of Nolan's Batman, Gotham's redemption. Would the Gothamites from the first movie have had any problem sinking the other ferry? Could they have even believed in Harvey Dent? Whatever Nolan has planned for the third movie, I think that this arc will continue. These movies aren't about cramming villains into a movie for a grand climactic showdown. I believe that in some way at the end of the arc, we will see the residents of Gotham City rise up themselves against the final threat. I'm not worried about recasting the Joker, because Nolan doesn't need him anymore. Whatever villains we see in the next film will be there to test Gotham, and in some way different than the intended anarchy of Joker. The Joker has served his purpose, plus he was proven wrong, invalidated if you will.

As for the movie itself? Wow. Oldman, Ledger and Eckhart were perfectly cast, and Bale once again perfectly captured the animalistic fury of Batman. There relationship between Gordon and Batman is great, and was sorely missing from the other films. The action was fantastic, the chase scene was porn. While I was sad to see the Tumbler go, I wet myself a little when I realized where the Batpod was going to come from. Batman going to [-]Singapore[/-]Hong Kong? Homicidal taunting Joker? The bank robbery?

In the end, four out of four.


Oh, and I'm going to make this pencil disappear...

^Good analysis.

Though I believe it was Hong Kong, not Singapore.

Killer movie, better than the first and clearly the second act of the story. Very ESB-like in its ending in some respects.

You can see where they need to go (on some fronts) with the next one; the question is whether the next one will be the last one in this version of the bat-verse.

Did you miss the fact that Batman in fact DID choose to save Rachel? He told Gordon 'I'll save Rachel', but Joker had lied about who was at which location.

When it came down to it, he WANTED to save Rachel, but he couldn't.

Also, Batman went to Hong Kong, not singapore.

Spoiler for the next movie:

Should spoiler all of that dude.

Absolutely incredible. I agree with the reviewer who stated that it has transcended the comic book movie. Perfectly crafted and made, with incredible, outstanding performances from Eckhart and Ledger especially. There were about three moments total that I could even tell it was Ledger playing the role, and there is no doubt that this is the depiction of the Joker. Period.

Little disappointed with the nixing of Two-Face, but he could still come back, I suppose. The guy didn't look any more dead than he did before the fall. Also, I wasn't the biggest fan of the Hong Kong sequence, but I also can't think of a way around it, either.

Hell, even my girlfriend (yes Flashy, it's true!) liked it, and she isn't a big movie fan in the first place.

Props to everyone involved.

Did anyone else love that there was no back story to the Joker? I read something recently that the intention was that the Joker be an absolute, he has no reason, he just is.

I love how his story about his scars changed with each person he told it to. Brilliant - even those are a mystery.

One more geekgasm,

Sorry, I just got that...

That was another thing. I love that they used the quite real SkyHook system as a plot point. There's a reason that it never went beyond prototypes, but it is still a nifty concept.

[yt="Oh God, that setup. I couldn't stop myself. "]990aCcPuMfc[/yt]

Box Office mojo estimates over $155M for TDK this weekend... A new record!!

I can't bring myself to do an elaborate review after 'flow got so deep. What he's saying is true as a peice of art, but it's only natural that fans speculate about the future. I'm in agreement with everything that has been said so far, and the observation I'd like to add is this:

Generally, when you are translating comics/graphic novels to film, you either have to compromise the source material to make a great movie, or stay faithful to the source material and make what is, at best, a great translation of that story.

Either of those can be a good and enjoyable film. for instance, I think the Spiderman films, particularly the first two, do a very good job of bringing the comic book to the screen...and it's a great movie that results but can only ever operate within the box of the source material.

What Noan has done is something that may only be possible with Batman but is very hard regardless - he's managed, twice now but really as 'Flow implies almost as two parts of the same overall story - is to tell a good, deep, "real world" story that still evokes the comics in every frame. If you are not a fan of the graphic novels then maybe it's a meaningless point but watching these movies, especially this one, I feel like I'm seeing them literally translated to film in the only way that gives them their due.

That may or may not make it a better movie as compared to other movies, but it certainly makes me love it all the more.

Oh, and on Chewie's spoiler - no, that turned out to be false. AMH is in this movie and NOT as Edward Nygma but as a TV reporter. As a comic Geek, I like to think this guy is the guy who would be the Creeper if you could put Bats' whole world on screen but he's not going to be the Riddler.

Also, on the ongoing question of recasting the Joker - I do agree that it's unlikely this arc needs the Joker to appear again BUT I disagree that it can't be done.

Edward Norton, to name just one, could play the character in a similar fashion.

As to what villain fits into the arc Evenflow discussed...
I think you need a story that redeems Batman in the eyes of the Gotham population, but one which has him as a fugitive most of the film. I'm not sure how you clear him without exposing Dent as Two-Face and losing the drama of the choices made at the end of this film. But I could see a good writer reworking the Bane/Azriel/Knightfall arc into such a story.

I would not rule out a dark Riddler.

Most of the rest of his Rogue's Gallery wouldn't really do it.

Absolutely incredible film. Far and away the best of the summer. Seriously rivals Richard Donner's Superman (IMHO) as the best comic book-based movie of all time. But Roger Ebert was right: this movie transcends being a comic book movie; it's simply a great film.

I loved it that it was dark. I loved it that not everyone lived. I loved it that the Joker was really the Devil: consider that he engineered all the evil in the film by telling deceptive tales and the constant snake-like darting of his tongue.

I thought the story was highly symbolic.

[?=Here is what it meant to me.]Batman is the United States. He's rich, powerful, quick to action, pleasant enough by day but with a bit of a dark side. What is he battling in the film? Terror. The Joker is repeatedly referred to as a terrorist, and the constant threat is not so much that he will destroy Gotham (he can't, really), but that he--shades of bin Laden!--might engender dangerous reactions that cause the people to tear it apart themselves. The Joker talks about people's comfort with "the plan;" to me, he's talking about the current world order. And how does he combat it? By getting the good guys to turn against one another, to become suspicious of one another. What method does Batman employ to find the Joker? A massive electronic eavesdropping system. Alfred waxes eloquently about having to endure terror rather than overreacting to it. The film concludes with the suggestion that a lie told to the public can be in their interest. Sound familiar? The current significance of these themes cannot have escaped the writers of the film.

Though driving home that there will be losses in the battle against evil and that some good people--like Harvey Dent--will be consumed by darkness in the battle, the film is ultimately optimistic: the people do not tear themselves apart in the end.[/?]

A moment I want to mention: I wanted to stand up and cheer what Tiny Liston---playing a hardened thug on the ferry---does when he's handed the detonator for the other boat. Goddamn, that was great.

Also, I don't think Anthony Michael Hall is going to be the Riddler in the next one for a couple of reasons. If I'm not mistaken, they showed his name during one of the newscasts and it was NOT Edward Nygma. Also, would you really follow this incredible Heath Ledger performance with Anthony Michael Hall? I don't think so. I think you gotta get someone like Daniel Day Lewis to play the Riddler...

Another moment I've gotta mention the "disappearing pencil trick:" it's really a very cool thing when I laugh and cringe simultaneously. I heard a delighted groan from the audience when it was concluded.

Excellent on all levels. Not a great Batman movie; a great movie. 9/10.

I think Chewie was speculating that even though he was playing a news reporter, he might be playing the Riddler in the next film (I think partly based on all those rumors we heard about Hall playing the Riddler in this movie).

I think someone like Bane or the Mutants from Dark Knight Returns would be the best bet, simply because the intentions of Ra's al Ghul and the Joker in these two films were good, they just carried them out the wrong way. Ra's wanted to save Gotham, and Joker wanted to show Gotham that Batman is a vigilante and not a hero. But to fit into the arc evenflow mentioned, the next villain would have to not only be really evil for the sake of chaos and evil but look very menacing to give Batman some sort of redemption in the eyes of the citizens (unless they're waiting for a few movies to give him redemption).

I like the idea of AMH playing the Riddler in this incarnation of Batman because he's a TV reporter. I can see a Riddler type character being very media/internet savvy, sort of a Matt Drudge on acid. Remember, the Joker was not dropped into a vat of chemicals (thank god), so origin stories don't necessarily mean anything in these films.

I just had a revelation, Bruce's surveillance technology would be a perfect tool for a villain like the Riddler in this set up. Blackmail, extortion, identity theft? I'm suddenly thinking that he may have opened Pandora's Box, and we may be seeing the technology again.

I was thinking, even if they did introduce the Riddler in the next film... he wouldn't necessarily have to be the major antagonist.

He could be kind of like the Scarecrow in the first (and second) film. He's there to cause trouble, they devote a bit of time to his character, but the major story arc does not revolve around him and their is no climactic showdown with him.

Based on flow's analysis I'd think the major arc of the next movie would be Gotham vs. Batman. Maybe with a Two-Face vs. mob subplot. And The Riddler could start out as an average sort of guy who initially gets hired on by the PD to deduce the identity of the Batman... and who slowly gives into his neurotic tendencies.

I'm not sure how they could do that and still have it work into the larger arc but I'm no writer. I'm sure Nolan could do it.

One of the things I liked about both of these movies is how the the different plots and characters dovetail so nicely together. I'm hoping they can do something similar in the 3rd.

It ain't Batman...

If Batman is the United States, then we need to be ever vigilant of becoming those that we fight against, just as he must.

I imagine the studios are swimming in a giant vat of money Scrooge McDuck style. I went to the 10 PM showing on Sunday night and the theater was nearly sold out (and the late showings at the two biggest theaters in town were). People willing to stay up until 1 AM on a work night for a movie is something.

I would have liked to have seen more Joker toward the end (which sadly can't be helped) and the bat-tech got a little carried away but overall it was an excellent movie.

Great movie. Much better than Batman Begins.

I was thinking that people were drooling over Ledger because he was dead, but he sold the hell out of the Joker. That'll set the bar for all future film psychos for years to come.

I think that's the whole message. You must fight evil, but you have to be careful not to lose your own soul while doing it.

I prefer to see it as Gotham City is America, and Batman is their soul. Dent tried to take up the mantle, but fell short.

DARK KNIGHT ROCKED!!!

You know, you could do exactly that with AMH as the Riddler.

I mean, think about it - crusading journalist, who was f'ed with by Joker...and specifically about the question of who Batman really is.

Now Batman is the villain and what else would an enterprising journalist who's had his dance with the devil do than drive himself to psychosis over that question?

Greatest comic hero movie ever made, bar none.

Ledger should be up for an Academy Award for that role, it was just...phenomenal. What was amazing was that Ledger even managed to pull of a few puns. I love that they decided to give the Joker some really classic social traits like that. "Let's not 'blow'...this out of proportion."

And of course, everyone loved the pencil scene. Great way to really introduce the Joker. "And this suit wasn't cheap. You oughta know, you bought it."

I loved that they forcibly underplayed the Joker as a bank robbing thug in the beginning of the movie. It put you in so much suspense to see everyone start noticing that this thug is the Clown Prince of Crime.

Now...as far as the next villain goes...

The Riddler has always been a primarily well know villain of Batman. And I think he should definitely be represented in this set of films. However, I don't think he's worthy of being the arch-villain in any Batman film.

There's a wealth of Batman villains to choose from who have posed a much larger threat, and who are far more menacing.

I think we need to see Catwoman. Absolutely. Obviously, she wouldn't be the primary villain, because of her history of attraction to Batman, but she should surely be in alliance with the arch villain through most of the movie. I think the introduction of Robin will be important, because of how much of an effect the character of Robin has had on Bruce Wayne.

What I think is possible now, is that while the Batman is unable to save Gotham as effectively as before he was a fugitive, a number of villains can be eluded to in the next film. Characters such as Clayface, The Mad Hatter, and Hush.

This is a good time to begin overwhelming Batman with villains that require consistent attention. Bring a few side-villains in that he must deal with while also dealing with the arch villain. This would bring about the idea that Batman can't do it alone. He needs help. Robin. Batgirl. Two characters that have had an enormous effect on Batman in the comics.

It's difficult to decide what should be touched on while Nolan is making these films, but I would like it to at least get to the Hush storyline. I think Nolan could do that very well.

The question is, who could play Catwoman effectively...

Bane in his true form, and not the Batman&Robin monstrousity, would be a GREAT villain, with Riddler around the periphery trying to sniff out Batman's identity and the Joker behind bullet-proof glass dropping bits of wisdom for the Bat to use.