yup, you're right that's what happened.They were moved to the Batman Begins vs. Dark Knight thread, probably.
Technically, they weren't. :wink:both posts were on topic and appropriate, so i'm not sure what's going on.
The problem I have with the "they wasted Two-Face" criticism is that it's nonsense. Joker hasn't been "wasted" and he's not coming back. Would Two-Face dying be okay if Aaron Eckhart had passed away? If no Two-Face in RISES means Two-Face has been wasted, then so has Joker, and that's silly.
Not only that, but the idea of THE DARK KNIGHT's Dent surviving the events of that movie make no internal sense.
I'm not expecting Joker or Two-Face to be in RISES. What I was hoping is that both of these characters could appear in future Batman movies, after Nolan has departed the franchise, that build on top of the films Nolan has made. To me, the Nolan films should have been a basis on which future films can progress from. While they may not be the exact same in style, or direction, it would be understood to the audience that whatever things happen in future Batman films has happened after the Nolan films. The Nolan films should served as the definitive presentation of the origin of Batman on film.
My problem with them killing off Two-Face is that they screwed this up. I believe that Two-Face is an important character in the Batman mythology. By killing Two-Face, Nolan has needlessly created problems for any future film that were to use him. My question is how do you have Two-Face in another Batman film?
That being said, there is a big difference between the death of Two-Face in the TDK, and them not being ablIe to use the Joker due to the death of Heath Ledger. Maybe this is just my own perception of the mainstream movie audience, but I think people will realize that the Joker is still alive in the Batman movie-verse, and if they were to recast him, that this is the same Joker as seen in TDK. In contrast, Two-Face dies within the film, so if you were to have him appear again (within the same continuity) this would create a lot of issues. To clarify what I am trying to say, look at the Iron Man films. Rhodey is played by two different actors in the first and second movie, and this is perfectly accepted. Now imagine if they tried to have Stane appear again the second film. People would be confused. Now this is not a perfect example, but it hopefully illustrates my point.
This is something else entirely, but does anyone else hate the part at the end when the Joker has Batman pinned under that piece of steel? He's about to detonate the boats, and then stops to ask Batman how he got his scars, when Batman shoots him with his arm-blade-things. The way that shot is framed makes it obvious that Batman is going to shoot him with those things, as soon as the Joker starts rambling about his scars. I mean, Nolan very clearly shows Batman laying there with this arm angled at Joker's face. I don't know why but it makes me cringe every time. Maybe it's just me.
Technically, they weren't. :wink:
And if a post is removed, you're not supposed to post it again. There's a reason why, you just have to ask.
I don't understand why people prefer Katie Holmes. Katie Holmes was terrible. Her delivery when she said "It's what you do that defines you..." and the scene when she has the taser and is trying to fight some thugs.
Maggie Gyllenhaal is a way, way, WAY better actress. And she looks enough like Katie Holmes that it worked for me. I understand that she's not as good looking as Katie, but to be honest, I don't find Katie that attractive to begin with.She's way, way, WAY hotter.
Maggie Gyllenhaal's face was the worst thing about Dark Knight.
The same way they had another Joker after Nicholson. Wait 20 years.
Maggie Gyllenhaal is a way, way, WAY better actress. And she looks enough like Katie Holmes that it worked for me. I understand that she's not as good looking as Katie, but to be honest, I don't find Katie that attractive to begin with.
But either way, Rachel Dawes was an important character in both movies, she wasn't just an eye-candy girl. Her "hotness" seems rather irrelevant, I'm glad they replaced Holmes with someone who can act.
I wish I had something meaningful to contribute but Bass keeps beating me to the punch. That, and I no longer have reliable Internet.
That said, assessing the merits of films based on Sequels Yet To Come, is patently ridiculous. Even if the ideas DARKKNIGHT had in mind for 'future films' were worth following up on, these ideas assume that Hollywood suits can plan a franchise with great care over the course of 10-20 years, which they can't.
If anything, I view adding too much setup in a film or leaving it on a cliffhanger as irresponsible writing, because it assumes that the sequel that follows up on that plot thread is a given. (Unless it in fact, is.)
Or you know the same way they used Two Face after Tommy Lee Jones. Wait 10 years.
I've always disliked the notion that Two face should have survived or he and the Joker should return. Because what all people really seem to want is to see those characters again because they were entertaining in their portrayal and people just think "I can't wait how they top that" thinking the only way to do so is bringing back those characters. Now I understand that fans of Two Face felt he got short changed but honestly he work out perfectly for this story, this depiction in the life of Batman. Harvey had a full story with a beginning, middle, and end. And an ending that tied in all the themes of a movie. It worked out perfect, in this instance.
As far as preparing future storylines you just should not do that for movies. Mainly because so much work goes into making a film you can't be thinking about the next three movies if can't make the current one the best if can be. That doesn't mean that setting up possibilities for sequel is bad, but you need to be focusing on the right thing. Movies like Back to the future(1,2), The Matrix(1), Empire Strikes Back, and The Dark Knight did that the best way possible, tell one complete story but leave it in an interesting spot for a sequel. Two Face's death completes the story, quite perfectly in my opinion, and leaves Batman in a more interesting spot for the sequel.
Plus what the hell do you want Two Face to do? Rob the second national bank located on 22nd and deuce blvd?
BACK TO THE FUTURE didn't have any sequels planned. Nor did STAR WARS. Lucas can pretend he had EMPIRE worked out but he didn't. THE MATRIX was supposed to be the third movie in a trilogy, not the first. And as for movies that intended to be 'completed' - X-MEN 1 and 2, SUPERMAN RETURNS, SPIDER-MAN 1-3, THE GOLDEN COMPASS, QUANTUM OF SOLACE - all these movies set up a sequel and it's all disappointment she wrote. The only time you should make a movie with the intent of saving stuff for the sequel is when you film them simultaneously as was the case with THE LORD OF THE RINGS. Anything else is, as Ourchair says, irresponsible.
It didn't? the first movie ends with Doc coming back and saying they have to go to the future to save Marty's kids, which is right where the second movie picks up.
That said, I still think Begins is a better film overall. TDK is broader or more "epic" in its scope, but to be honest I think it's too broad for it's own good and is a bit all over the place. Someone brought up the example of when the Joker kills Gamble by seemingly cutting his mouth. Realistically (which is what the Nolan films are all about) this doesn't make sense at all. That would not be a wound that he would die from. I understand that they are trying to make the film dark and violent, while keeping a PG-13 rating, but to a certain extent you can't have your cake and eat it too in that respect. Sure this is just one scene from the movie, but there are examples of this type of thing throughout the movie.
Okay I'm not even sure what I'm debating anymore plus I think I'm getting off topic.
The point I want to make is In Spider-man 1 Doc Ock wasn't introduced, developed, and had a huge climax action scene that finished his story just so he can be brought back for Spider-man 2 for more of what we already saw.
I said earlier that TDK is a lot more dense than BB, with almost twice as much story in it. I can understand that for some it's too much, and for others, too little. For me, I was satisfied.
Also, there is one element I think BEGINS got much better: Gotham City.
In BEGINS, Gotham City looks like Gotham City. In THE DARK KNIGHT it looks like... Genericville. It annoys me because Hong Kong in the movie has more character than Gotham does. To me, that's a mistake I hope they rectify somewhat in TDKR. Other than that, I can't think of anything that was better first time round.
I know I kinda realized that after typing it up. I think I was just arguing the distinction of "setting things up" as opposed to "it's all planned ahead"Dude, I think we're in agreement. I wasn't disagreeing with you, I was kinda just reinforcing what you were saying.
I don't think it's that it was too much for me as a member of the audience in terms of understanding the plot, or anything like that. I just think it was too much for the film, and that the filmmakers didn't fully realize everything that they included in the film. For lack of a better the film just seems all over the place at times. I think it would have been a much better film if they focused on the core of the film, Dent's transformation into Two-Face, and cut out some of the stuff that wasn't really needed. (I'm looking at you Reese and Lau).
I get that, but I love how TDK just feels more real. Looking back Gotham looked fake in comparison, The difference between using CGI and huge sets than just a city. But it would have been nice to see the monorail and Wayne enterprise exterior.