J. Agamemnon
Well-Known Member
I was thinking the same thing and dent fell in sand ( ithink) as opposed to maroni hitting asphalt.
The Dark Knight {Spoilers Abound}
- Thread starter Doublehex
- Start date
-
- Tags
- batman christian bale
I was thinking the same thing and dent fell in sand ( ithink) as opposed to maroni hitting asphalt.
Ice
Teh Sexy Monkey Queen
Actually, Gordon didn't take his son down, he ran down there to see how Batman was doing.
Last edited:
J. Agamemnon
Well-Known Member
I'm sure you'd feel different when it's you he's yelling at.
Gothamite
Well-Known Member
Exactly. This is what I've said to anyone who doesn't like Bale's voice.
I love Bale's voice. Friggin' love it. I can't tell you how many times I've imitated his "I'm Batman!" and I think that line (by him) is woefully under-rated and under-imitated compared to Keaton's version.
All I'm saying is that he was actually full-on "tsslhhpp" lisping in some lines in the new movie. It was a bit off-putting. That's all. Still love his voice.
DARKKNIGHT
Well-Known Member
I didn't notice it. I'll watch out next time I see it.
Random
Didn't **** any of those *****es
I loved his voice like when he first talked to Rachel in Begins, but when he talked to Gordon during the gas attack it feels off, though its nothing to complain about
Grocer Man
Well-Known Member
[youtube]<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/w2yv8aT0UFc&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/w2yv8aT0UFc&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>[/youtube]
J. Agamemnon
Well-Known Member
I pretty much feel the same way you do. I'm not letting the minor problems get in the way of enjoying a really good movie.
"I love this spagetti, but it's got **** in it!"
Langsta
Well-Known Member
:lol::lol:
DIrishB
The Timeline Guy
Only time will tell.
Nah, I can pretty much tell that right now.
Even one of the producers has said that whether or not Dent is dead is intentionally ambiguous. This is far from saying that he'll be back, but it at least means the door is a bit open.
I have to agree that the "fake death" thing would never happen in Nolans Batman films, I mean the very idea of a character like Two-Face, Batman, or even Commissioner Gordon pretending to be dead while actaully being alive would never work on screen...oh, wait.
Don't even compare Gordon's fake death with Dent's real one. There's no basis for comparison between the two whatsoever. Gordon's fake death made sense within the movie, especially in terms of character motivation (he was trying to protect his family). Dent's death made sense for the character: he was a tragic character who deserved a tragic death. Dent's story was told: he was the uncorruptable white knight who was corrupted and brought down. Then he died. THE END.
Seriously, why re-hash villains that've already appeared fully fleshed out and done incredibly well in existing movies (the first two Nolan Batmans), instead of introducing new villains in the same fashion? Batman has a huge rogues gallery, many of which are deserving of appearing in a future Batman. I'd prefer new characters, thank you. A Scarecrow like cameo is fine (but not for Dent because he's DEAD).
moonmaster
Without him, all of you would be lost souls roamin
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2005
- Messages
- 13,670
Planet-man
Well-Known Member
Bottom Line: If this is true, if Dent is really dead, it was a TERRIBLE way to do it in the movie.... a fall from what looked like a not-too-high height that another character walked away from without injury in a movie where they'd done a scene SPECIFICALLY STRESSING the survivability of falls from not-too-high heights. It's too wishy-washy to be the death that character needed, so I saw a) it's not good enough, he can be their dark secret somewhere and die again someday, and b) fortunately, there's enough story left in the character for them to keep him alive long enough to do that.
Random
Didn't **** any of those *****es
Falling backwards on a hard surface from about 30 feet up and on an certain terrain after being pushed off with force is different from making a controlled fall while wearing protective armor
Planet-man
Well-Known Member
It's still not right or impactful enough as a moment. You have to weigh these things and reason it out, even for a second, and it takes too much away from it. It wasn't "BATMAN BROKE HIS RULE!!!!" it was "Batman pushed a guy off an incidental ledge and might have killed him.... yep, I think so.... probably" combined with another scene that stressed the survivability of a fall from that height.... you can't just say NOPE! DEAD! 100% CLOSURE! THAT'S ALL THERE IS TO IT!
Foolsfolly
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jul 21, 2006
- Messages
- 1,137
The thing is, they had to make it a death Batman would give him. It would be too much to think Batman would just shoot Dent. But tackling him and they go over a roof and Batman has to save either the kid or Dent in a split second...50/50 chance mind you, well that works better.
And that was the point. Dent had a 50/50 chance and Batman acted. As for Batman surviving, he was an a protective suit, he was dangling off of the roof instead of violently shoved several feet and then falling. Batman hit many boards and items which (while hurting him) slowed him down which Dent didn't hit.
As for dying from such a fall...George Patton died in a 5 miles per hour car crash with a horse cart. Never mind that Dent wasn't in the best of physical condition. He had a BAD FIRE injury which he did not take medication for and did not have skin graphs or anything covering it from infection. He had been in a serious car accident earlier in the movie as well.
There's only so much the human body can take.
Zombipanda
My Boom-Boom's mostly gay
Agreed. On one hand, it's a guy in full body armor, trained explicitly in high verticality combat, with years of martial arts experience, in peak physical condition, with big gliding wings. On the other, it's a white collar dude wearing a suit, with irreparable, recent burn damage to his face, and little to no experience in combat.
And if Dent's alive, you kill the bittersweet irony of the situation. It's not that Batman broke his rule, because technically he didn't. He killed Dent in the process of saving an innocent life. The twist on the situation is that the Joker, who threatened hundreds (maybe thousands) of lives and manipulated both Batman and Dent into the situation is still alive. Batman had to kill Dent. It was the only way to save Gordon's son in such a tight situation. He wasn't killing out of anger. He was killing out of necessity. But the Joker put himself in a situation where if Batman killed him, it would necessarily be an act of wrath or spite. If Dent's alive, it kills the irony, and it decreases the impact of the situation, because the nature of Dent's death makes Batman complicit in the death of his own salvation (and the salvation of Gotham). By tricking Batman into chasing Dent instead of Rachel, the Joker forces Bruce Wayne to burn all of his bridges, leaving only the Batman. Then he turns and forces Batman into a situation where he is forced to murder the last hope for Gotham, and the last hope for a world where Wayne can live without Batman. And the coup de grace is that he'll have to take the blame for Dent's indiscretions.
Last edited:
Foolsfolly
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jul 21, 2006
- Messages
- 1,137
Exactly. Said better than I could myself.
Dent has to be dead. And the truth of his actions can be found out without Dent being brought back to life (Ramirez got to live and met Harvey before his death). Harvey's story is completely over and its impact will be felt in the next movie in many ways.
But bringing him back...would undo so much. And why bring him back? So he can kill more people by chance? Or for another redemption story only for Dent to burn his own face and go crazy again?
Things are different in movies. You can't keep doing that song and dance over and over again like you can in comics.
Dent has to be dead. And the truth of his actions can be found out without Dent being brought back to life (Ramirez got to live and met Harvey before his death). Harvey's story is completely over and its impact will be felt in the next movie in many ways.
But bringing him back...would undo so much. And why bring him back? So he can kill more people by chance? Or for another redemption story only for Dent to burn his own face and go crazy again?
Things are different in movies. You can't keep doing that song and dance over and over again like you can in comics.
Zombipanda
My Boom-Boom's mostly gay
For real. And you have to divorce yourself somewhat from the earlier stories in a franchise simply so each film can stand in its own merit.
We can say, alright, maybe Two-Face didn't get his fair shake as an A-List villain. But really, what are you going to do with him? The character adds infinitely more to the stage as a ghost than as a recurring bad guy.
Harvey shouldn't come back, but his story should have an impact on the narrative. Same thing with the Joker. Using him again as an arch-villain would be backwards. We've seen the character in his full, manic, glory. Even if Ledger hadn't died, I'd say you have to let the character rest. Maybe if Ledger had lived it would have fit to have a brief supporting role as an incarcerated lunatic, but it's still a situation where "What impact did the Joker have on the city" is a more important question than "So what's the Joker gonna do now?".
[PIMP]Incidentally, that's something I'm going to reflect on in my Dark Knight sequel Dreamcasting[/PIMP]
Last edited:
Gemini
Well-Known Member
Apparently the Joker is going to sorta appear in Supermax
his name appears on a prison cell door, as an easter egg
his name appears on a prison cell door, as an easter egg
