The Dark Knight (SPOILERS)

[Thorns of Crimson Death]

The cell phone was more of a political statement rather than a neat device, which is why I was able to suspend my disbelief for that one because it did raise a few interesting questions. 

I think you're reading too much into it.  I mean, why would they make a political statement in a Batman movie?  While there's definitely political satire in the comics (see the Dark Knight Returns), I don't think they'd want to use a Batman movie to make a political statement, because you risk alienating half the potential audience that way. 

I never saw the cell phone thing as a political statement, beyond the obvious "no one person should have too much power, and the people who are most qualified to wield great power are often the ones who are most reluctant to use it."  But that's nothing that's not been said in other movies.  And even if it was the most profound political statement ever made, the way they made it was poorly executed.  It doesn't appear until close to the end of act two, and there's some brief dialogue about how no one should have this much power, Lucius Fox announces his plan to resign, and then there really isn't any follow-up. 

True, the same premise has been used in other movies, but it's never been as relevant as it has been now thanks to Dubyah and hs "Patriot Act".

So, I must admit, that I did have a good laugh when Morgan Freeman didn't want anything to do with it in the film.

Hell, at least Nolan is smart enough to do away with the whole thing towards the end.  That in itself is a statement.

[Darth Geek]

Has it occurred to anyone else that the boats were actually given their own detonators.  It would be the ultimate joke after all.

The Joker may tell cruel jokes, but he is "a man of his word". Besides, he was proving to the rest of Gotham and especially Batman that one would blow the other up, so switching that would defeat that purpose. Also, he wanted to show that people became animals and a mob when pressured like that, yet they (relatively) calmly held an election to make the choice, rather than all scrambling for the detonator in a mad panic. This disproves Joker's "order breaks down when life is threatened" idea, although it is pretty ludicrous in the movie how rational and non-panicky they are.

That orderly voting on the boat, and the fact that Two-Face's motivation at the end is effectively a childish "it's not fair", and the decision to blame deaths of innocent people on Batman, are my only major issues with an otherwise excellent film.

[RoninFox]

BTW, a bit of stunt casting I'm surprised no one has mentioned before now:

Nestor Carbonell, who plays Gotham's mayor, was also on the cast of the live-action The Tick series-- where he played "Batmanuel."

We got a good laugh out of that at first, it kind of slipped my mind later because at the end of the day...he made a good mayor.

[RoninFox]

Has it occurred to anyone else that the boats were actually given their own detonators.  It would be the ultimate joke after all.

The Joker may tell cruel jokes, but he is "a man of his word".

He had already lied earlier when he told Batman the opposite positions of Harvey and Rachel.  Screwing with the people on the boats by giving them their own detonators would have been possible.

[mearnest]

Throughout the film Joker demonstrates a rather loose view of honesty (and in more cases than just the one Ronin mentioned).  He practices deception at almost every turn.  By giving the boats their own detonators he would have an even greater victory.  If the citizens blew themselves up, the people of Gotham would be screaming for the inmates heads.  And if the inmates blew themselves up, the citizens on the other boat would be ostracized from society.  Nobody would ever believe them if they said they didn't press the button.  In either case his point that people will turn on each other would be reinforced.

[daltysmilth]

The cell phone was more of a political statement rather than a neat device, which is why I was able to suspend my disbelief for that one because it did raise a few interesting questions. 

I think you're reading too much into it.  I mean, why would they make a political statement in a Batman movie?  While there's definitely political satire in the comics (see the Dark Knight Returns), I don't think they'd want to use a Batman movie to make a political statement, because you risk alienating half the potential audience that way. 

I never saw the cell phone thing as a political statement, beyond the obvious "no one person should have too much power, and the people who are most qualified to wield great power are often the ones who are most reluctant to use it."  But that's nothing that's not been said in other movies.  And even if it was the most profound political statement ever made, the way they made it was poorly executed.  It doesn't appear until close to the end of act two, and there's some brief dialogue about how no one should have this much power, Lucius Fox announces his plan to resign, and then there really isn't any follow-up. 

True, the same premise has been used in other movies, but it's never been as relevant as it has been now thanks to Dubyah and hs "Patriot Act".

So, I must admit, that I did have a good laugh when Morgan Freeman didn't want anything to do with it in the film.

Hell, at least Nolan is smart enough to do away with the whole thing towards the end.  That in itself is a statement.

I think anyone who sees anything in this movie as an intentional criticism of contemporary politics is probably going to see it whether it exists or not. 

[mearnest]

I think a comparison to modern politics is completely justified.  I personally view this as the 'Dirty Harry' of superhero movies.  Batman, while acting for the greater good, does violate many of the principles he should be upholding.  The villain, meanwhile, takes advantage of this and forces our protagonist to violate his ethics.  Like 'Dirty Harry' you can still root for the protagonist while at the same time cringing at his slip toward fascism.

[RoninFox]

Anyone else notice the symbol on Tiny's neck?  I couldn't place it at first, but when I got home I looked at volume 1 of the animated series and saw it.



No idea why the symbol of Nostromos would be on Tiny's neck, he bore no resemblance to the character in look or attitude.  Is there another character with a similar symbol I might not know about?

[Raven]

I think I saw Pat Hingle (Burton' commissioner Gordon) in the funeral prosession as one of the police officers.  I'm not sure if it was him or not cause he went by so quickly.

[RoninFox]

I think I saw Pat Hingle (Burton' commissioner Gordon) in the funeral prosession as one of the police officers.  I'm not sure if it was him or not cause he went by so quickly.

I thought I noticed him the first time I watched it, and I forgot to look in time to double check when I watched it Friday morning.

The fact that it was in IMAX and I was completely lost in the screen might have had something to do with it.

[Raven]

I keep forgetting to double check too.  I caught a matinee yesterday with another friend who hadn't had time to see it yet.

[The Dark Knight]

I'll check it next time, gonna go see it a couple times this week. I thought I saw him too but I was completely mixed in the chaos.

[Doktor Sleepless]

While I agree with the Dok on the whole majority argument being useless, the rest of his post is kind of confusing.

Want something substantial? Keaton was the better Batman, because Keaton was only as serious as the movie/script/world/etc let him. No more, no less. Certain people in this movie and people watching the movie could learn something from that. Now I didn't insult one person with this post. Let us see how all of a sudden everyone will either attack me, accuse me, tell on me, or all of the above, while all I said, as Redux put was "I don't like this movie as much as all of you. I disagree".

Not going to attack you, but I do disagree with your assertion that Keaton was the better Batman. After recently rewatching the original Batman movie, it makes me realize how campy it was, and how much better Batman Begins is. I mean, Batman is a stone-cold killer in the Tim Burton movie, mowing down Jokers minions in his Bat-jet, which totally isn't Batman, more like Frank Castle. At the end of the day though, anyone can dress up in the bat-suit. Bale, IMO, is the better Bruce Wayne, making him the best Batman thus far.

Batman and Bruce Wayne are the same characters? The ones with Keaton were incredibly camp. I don't see how people see anything but that from any Batman movies. Hell even these ones are cheesy as fuck, it's just the movie really really takes itself seriously so majority of people decide to do it as well. I mean a lot of what Batman does, could lead to killing. Especially the shit he does on the Batmobile. Him landing on that one car in one of the opening scenes. Hell what about him tossing the dogs from the top floor? I don't know, Keaton again was as serious as the role let him be, and he never spoke as if he was constipated.

[Doktor Sleepless]

Well...its time to add my take on this movie..........I love villains, I love deep and complex characters. Its what makes me like some movies other people don't like. Lady in the water for instance, I like it becuase of its characters.

But....they accomplished the impossible here. You see, there are special criteria for a villain to be good and interesting. Here are a few of the options...

misunderstood - used way too much, but can make for some good villains (Voldemort)

able to be redeemed - the villains that in spite of their evil...can still make the right choice (Darth Vader)

Godlike power - These sorts of villains usually don't have a view point and we don't usually see them, but we know how powerful they can be (Sauron)

Downright Evil - Have such hate and rage that they go after the hero relentlessly...these are usually pretty 2D characters (Ganon)


And then...we have the villain that Joker is. This kind of villain is never done...because its very hard to write a villain like the Joker. It is very hard to write a villain that has NO motivation, none whatsoever. Usually these villains are boring, because everyone needs to usually have the motivation. Unless the audience hates the villain, which makes things interesting, but again, this doesn't work if we hate the villain so much we can't stand to see them on screen.

But they accomplished every writers dream of the perfect villain. A force of nature, one that has no rules, no motivation, one that you hate so much, but is so interesting you crave to see more of it. A villain that makes a hero almost become a villain himself to defeat him.

Guys...I've been trying to write a villain like this in one of my books...and its extremely hard, I mean, incredibly hard. I don't think I have the skill to do it, but I was in awe at what the Nolan brothers were able to write, and what Heath Ledger was able to portray. I was giddy as a school boy to see the villain I've always wanted to create, on screen...(though after watching this...I realized that my villain just isn't as interesting as the Joker...oh well. I'll think of something)


Also, everybody's performances were great, especially Christian Bale and Heath Ledger. They were simply incredible. Gary Oldman and Micheal Caine are always fun to watch, and the soundtrack was also great. I love James Newton Howard, and even though I don't really like Hanz Zimmer...his contribution mixed well with James Newton Howards.

All in all, I give this movie a ten out of ten, for making a writer almost piss his pants in glee.

^^?

This the one, scamp?

[Variety of Cells]

The cell phone was more of a political statement rather than a neat device, which is why I was able to suspend my disbelief for that one because it did raise a few interesting questions. 

I think you're reading too much into it.  I mean, why would they make a political statement in a Batman movie?  While there's definitely political satire in the comics (see the Dark Knight Returns), I don't think they'd want to use a Batman movie to make a political statement, because you risk alienating half the potential audience that way. 

I never saw the cell phone thing as a political statement, beyond the obvious "no one person should have too much power, and the people who are most qualified to wield great power are often the ones who are most reluctant to use it."  But that's nothing that's not been said in other movies.  And even if it was the most profound political statement ever made, the way they made it was poorly executed.  It doesn't appear until close to the end of act two, and there's some brief dialogue about how no one should have this much power, Lucius Fox announces his plan to resign, and then there really isn't any follow-up. 

True, the same premise has been used in other movies, but it's never been as relevant as it has been now thanks to Dubyah and hs "Patriot Act".

So, I must admit, that I did have a good laugh when Morgan Freeman didn't want anything to do with it in the film.

Hell, at least Nolan is smart enough to do away with the whole thing towards the end.  That in itself is a statement.

I think anyone who sees anything in this movie as an intentional criticism of contemporary politics is probably going to see it whether it exists or not. 

The people who made this film live in America for the most part, and are part of our society.  It only makes sense that they would be influenced by current events.  And when you are a writer it's always fun to put little bits of meaning into your films. 

Batman broke the law and used cellphones to spy on everyone in the US in order to catch a terrorist.  I really don't see how you can deny that as an intentional reference to the patriot act.  Though the comment the film made on the patriot act was an interesting one.  It seemed to say that sometimes it is necessary to violate people's privacy to protect them. 

Then again, you could also look at the film and say that it didn't end up working too well.  When he had the cellphone vision on it seemed to hurt him more than help because there was just too much information to look at.  So Nolan left it up for interpretation.  But I'm positive that it's a reference to wiretapping.  And I don't see why you are so against the possibility that Nolan would want to put a little politics in his film.