Bass
Nexus of the World
... That's Gordon's daughter, isn't it?
Batman Begins or The Dark Knight?
- Thread starter ProjectX2
- Start date
Captain Canuck
The poster formerly known as captaincanuck65
Re: The Dark Knight Rises: Rumors and more.
My last two posts in this thread have been removed...
both posts were on topic and appropriate, so i'm not sure what's going on.
anyway, i agree that Batman Begins is better than The Dark Knight.
EDIT:
My last two posts in this thread have been removed...
both posts were on topic and appropriate, so i'm not sure what's going on.
anyway, i agree that Batman Begins is better than The Dark Knight.
EDIT:
yup, you're right that's what happened.
Last edited:
Ice
Teh Sexy Monkey Queen
Re: The Dark Knight Rises: Rumors and more.
And if a post is removed, you're not supposed to post it again. There's a reason why, you just have to ask.
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.
Last edited:
DARKKNIGHT
Well-Known Member
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? Do you just ignore TDK and pretend like that film never happened? A reboot seems silly though. I dunno, maybe this is an unfair criticism, since it deals with what I wanted and expected the Nolan films to be, not any literal faults with the film. I also disagree that the death of Two-Face is needed for his story to make sense. By substituting a more symbolic death of Dent (this death being his becoming Two-Face) for the literal death of Dent, you can keep all of the important aspects this has for the plot, while not killing off one of Batman's most important villains.
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.
Last edited:
Bass
Nexus of the World
That was never going to happen. Movies are not serials. James Bond revamps himself every decade. When Nolan left the franchise that would be it for a few years. Especially since the first movie Batman franchise fell apart as soon as Tim Burton left it and they changed the cast around.
You cannot make movies with the intent of holding stuff off for the sequels. Your paradigm of "They should keep Dent around for a sequel" is not a good one, nor is it one the film claimed to be upholding. It's not fair to then criticize it for falling short.
The same way they had another Joker after Nicholson. Wait 20 years.
You are confusing possibility with actuality. Joker is not being recast and will not show up. This has been confirmed a thousand times by Nolan. Your point is that Joker could return and that the film is better for it, while Two-Face cannot and thus it's a waste of his character. Yet neither is going to get reused. You could just as easily decide to imagine that they could bring back Two-Face too. Why not? He "didn't really die". It was a lie perpetrated by Batman and Gordon. Hell, some people even refuse to believe he's dead.
You are judging THE DARK KNIGHT not by the film itself but by films you imagine they might or could make in the future based on your own speculation. It's ridiculous.
Batman is completely immobile and Joker has no idea that the gauntlet can do that. It's obvious to us because we've been watching the movie. If Joker had reacted you'd just complain "How did the Joker know?"
ourchair
Well-Known Member
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.
I'm not saying this as a slight against Hollywood franchise planners, I'm saying this as a fundamental truth of Hollywood. Studio presidents change, creative talents do something that leaves them unavailable for the duration of the next film's production (such as get married, change careers, have babies, get a disease that impairs their abillity) that it is simply NOT a given for a franchise' to 'go as planned' for a significant length of time.
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.)
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.
I'm not saying this as a slight against Hollywood franchise planners, I'm saying this as a fundamental truth of Hollywood. Studio presidents change, creative talents do something that leaves them unavailable for the duration of the next film's production (such as get married, change careers, have babies, get a disease that impairs their abillity) that it is simply NOT a given for a franchise' to 'go as planned' for a significant length of time.
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.)
Captain Canuck
The poster formerly known as captaincanuck65
Re: The Dark Knight Rises: Rumors and more.
sorry about that, i thought that maybe something was up with my internet connection. it's happened before.
anyway...
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.
sorry about that, i thought that maybe something was up with my internet connection. it's happened before.
anyway...
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.
Random
Didn't **** any of those *****es
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?
Also I just recently watched my new blu ray copy of Begins and after a fresh viewing I have to say, TDK is far, far better.
Indeed, her acting(specially when compared to Holmes) more than makes up for her lack of sexy looks. Also I know a few lawyers and prosecutors and she was spot on.
Last edited:
Bass
Nexus of the World
Get your ass to Mars.
To clarify, it's not that Darkknight's idea of Two-Face being a big part of a Batman franchise and a recurring villain is bad, I love that Two-Face. Only that the paradigm of making movies with the intent of keeping stuff open for potential sequels is bad.
Exactly.
I SAID TWENTY. THAT IS THE MINIMUM.
I don't get how anyone can complain that Two-Face got short changed. Without Two-Face there is no movie. It is easier to replace Joker than Two-Face. It's not like SPIDER-MAN 3 where if you remove Venom... everything still is fine because Spidey doesn't need the suit to be a jerk since all the motivation for him to do so is in Sandman being responsible for killing Ben. Two-Face is the entire movie.
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.
Hell yes! Just not in the Nolan-films. It would be really wrong. But I want him to do more 2-related crimes. I think it's fun when he does that.
Captain Canuck
The poster formerly known as captaincanuck65
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.
DARKKNIGHT
Well-Known Member
Fine, fine. I'll drop that point. As I mentioned in my initial post, I'm aware that some of my problems with them killing off Two-Face are not criticisms of the film as it is, but instead based upon what I wanted and expected the Nolan movies to be. Then again, people criticize film based upon their own expectations all of the time. Regardless, I'll admit that that's not the best criticism of the film...even if I still think they shouldn't have killed him off. 
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.
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.
Last edited:
Random
Didn't **** any of those *****es
Sigh, I'm talking about endings in franchise, yes I know BTTF 1 didn't plan for a sequel, but I bet everyone was hoping for one still that opening was how it should be done, plus they knew they were making a third one when they made a second thus the cliffhanger at the end of that complete story. And on Star Wars, DID I SAY STAR WARS!? Note I said Empire Strikes Back talking about it's ending, and Lucas did plan to continue star wars that's why he secured the right to the sequels in negotiations with the first. He originally intended to just continue it as books, thinking the first would flop. Did he have it all planned out before starting the first one? No. Now I said Empire Strikes back because there was already plans to conclude it the story in a third movie, thus the cliff hangar ending. For Matrix, the Wacko bros probably hoped for a sequel but still provided one complete story for the first one with a hook to going forward(him flying), but still the ending can stand on it's own, regardless.
Now X-MEN 1 and 2, SUPERMAN RETURNS, SPIDER-MAN 1-3 works because even though they more actively hoped for a sequel they were all just a series of one complete stories that have a hook at the end, for the more likely, inevitable sequel. Whether those stories were good or not is another matter. The problem with Quantum was just sucked it tried to introduce an ongoing villain in a complete single story and failed. I haven't seen the Golden Compass but from what I know it's base on a series of books so really as long as the first book is one complete story it fits with the way to set up a potential franchise.
Now Lord of the Rings is a diamond in the rough, it was a combination of luck, skill, and the story that made that workable as one thing. Because New Line Cinema was the only studio who wanted three movies, all other studios only wanted one or two and that's because it is a HUGE financial undertaking to film three high budget movies at once. Luckily the cast and crew did such a tremendous job because if it flopped New Line probably still be broke. Plus it helps that the story was already written in detail and adapted for screen. Remember the matrix sequels were filmed at the same it and did quite poorly, Reloaded was ALL set up which is really what you want to avoid in these franchises. But also Kill Bill worked it just depends if the confidence in the story/cast and crew is not misplaced.
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.
Last edited:
Bass
Nexus of the World
I know, it's amazing, but BACK TO THE FUTURE wasn't supposed to have a sequel. They did that whole "We don't need roads" thing as a gag. A wistful joke. That's why it doesn't go "TO BE CONTINUED" like it does for PART II. What's more, is that the fact they didn't plan it is why Jennifer is immediately taken out of the story by being zapped unconscious and Doc tries to ramble round why he brought her along. When they started writing PART II, Jennifer being there was a problem they had to deal with. The reason they did a PART II is because it was a huge success. (People forget how huge.) The studio was going to make a sequel and Zemeckis didn't want to do it because they had no plans for it, and when Bob Gale hit on the idea of them going back and doing another adventure in 1955 while the first film was happening sold him on it. Completely unplanned.
That said, PARTS II and III were both written and shot back-to-back so PART III was planned for PART II. That's why I came out '85, and the others came out 6 months apart in '89. PART I was initially all there was ever supposed to be.
That is how good BACK TO THE FUTURE PART II is. Everyone thinks it was planned from the outset. I love it so!
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.
Dude, I think we're in agreement. I wasn't disagreeing with you, I was kinda just reinforcing what you were saying.
DARKKNIGHT
Well-Known Member
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).
Agreed. I always thought it was a little strange that they ditched the Gotham monorail thing in TDK, after it was such an important part of Begins.
Random
Didn't **** any of those *****es
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 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.
Last edited:
Bass
Nexus of the World
That's what I meant by "too much". I don't mean it's confusing, but, as you say, unfocused and messy. Others would find it lacking. I found it really satisfying. I'm really not one of those elitist guys who think people with differing opinions on movies and comics are stupid and don't get it. Even if I sometimes sound that way. It's about taste, not intelligence.
Gordon did kinda destroy it, and the Narrows was cut off forever, but in general - Gotham was orange in BEGINS. Now it's blue. It was claustrophobic, now it's open. It just feels like a really different city.
I actually agree with that too. While BEGINS looked more like Gotham, it does look faker than TDK.
Zombipanda
My Boom-Boom's mostly gay
Wow. Any desire I had to post in this thread is dead.
Thanks, *******s!
Thanks, *******s!
DARKKNIGHT
Well-Known Member
Wow. Any desire I had to post in this thread is dead.
No problem.
Zombipanda
My Boom-Boom's mostly gay
Actually, I do have one little bitty comment to make.
I think you can read some interesting subtext out of that (Although, I highly doubt it was intended this way).
The monorail was the pet project of Thomas Wayne, a symbolic gesture uniting rich Gotham and poor Gotham, free transit in which the richest and the poorest sit elbow to elbow (Hypothetically. I mean, what well off person with any dignity would take public transport!). It's the last remnant of Thomas Wayne's Gotham, and it's destroyed in a pissing match between his revenge obsessed son and his revenge obsessed son's father figure.
The fact that it's not rebuilt is telling. As far as I can tell, the Narrows is sequestered as a huge urban blight populated by those too poor to evacuate and the criminally insane. And the monorail isn't built or replaced because Bruce Wayne is too busy pumping his resources into cool cars and city-wide spy machines. Again, I doubt it was intended, but I just find it striking that the monorail was the personification of Thomas Wayne's philanthropy and Bruce is so clearly feeding his whole inheritance into militaristic ventures.
More likely the monorail wasn't mentioned in TDK because it didn't really have any part to play in the story.
I think you can read some interesting subtext out of that (Although, I highly doubt it was intended this way).
The monorail was the pet project of Thomas Wayne, a symbolic gesture uniting rich Gotham and poor Gotham, free transit in which the richest and the poorest sit elbow to elbow (Hypothetically. I mean, what well off person with any dignity would take public transport!). It's the last remnant of Thomas Wayne's Gotham, and it's destroyed in a pissing match between his revenge obsessed son and his revenge obsessed son's father figure.
The fact that it's not rebuilt is telling. As far as I can tell, the Narrows is sequestered as a huge urban blight populated by those too poor to evacuate and the criminally insane. And the monorail isn't built or replaced because Bruce Wayne is too busy pumping his resources into cool cars and city-wide spy machines. Again, I doubt it was intended, but I just find it striking that the monorail was the personification of Thomas Wayne's philanthropy and Bruce is so clearly feeding his whole inheritance into militaristic ventures.
More likely the monorail wasn't mentioned in TDK because it didn't really have any part to play in the story.
Last edited:
