Your Version of The Dark Knight

[The Dark Knight]

IMO, this entire movie is a mess. I think it has just as many plotholes and inconsistencies in it as TDKR, it's just the movies pace is much more frantic, so it's harder to tell.

You'd be amazed at the flaws people are willing to overlook if they want to like something. Now, I'm sure they genuinely enjoy the film. But it's definitely not the heaven sent deity they claim it to be.

[riddler]

It's weird I always scratched my head at people who complain heavily about a bad entry ruining a series for them and wish it didnt exist (ie Batman and Robin) and would often reply "why don't you just ignore it and enjoy the ones you like". But after seeing the dark knight rises, my enjoyment level for this one (which I'd stated was my favourite bat-film) has diminished; mainly because Rises exposed Nolans flaws and I find them more noticeable when seeing this film again.


The action scenes; Nolan can tell a story but he sure can't shoot action to save his life. He has no clue which angles to use and they come across as choppy.
The plot holes: I can sometimes overlook this sort of thing but why do the same folks who praise this guy for being grounded and realism easily overlook plot holes? Oh it's perfectly okay for the Joker and his goons to let themselves out of wayne manor after throwing Rachel from a window. That was perfectly acceptable to end the scene there. And despite what the Nolanites say there is no way the Joker could plan that one of Harvey and Rachel lives and the other dies.
Bale: I just find him unbelievably irritating in that role. I found myself wanting to reach through and slap him too many times. And of course the bat voice. They had an avenue to fix it after the backlash Begins got over it.


I'm sure I'll still enjoy this film every now and then but I no longer believe it's far better than B89 like I used to. I had so much fun watching that again this year, not sure if I would for the dark knight.

[Travesty]

What would I do different?

-Overall aesthetic needs to be a bit darker and more stylistic. Nothing crazy like Burton, but keep it the same as BB. Why such a drastic change from those two movies? And it's not just the Narrows, like some people try to say. Just look at GCPD. Look at how old and rustic it looks to it's completely modern and barren counterpart within TDK. And of course Gotham. Not only has it not been disguised from Chicago, but it looks like a cleaner version of Chicago! Gotham City shouldn't look like one of the cleanest cities in the world. And again, I'm not asking for excessive amounts of Gothic architecture here, just something with a bit more character. Even the night scenes are lit so bright, you can see everything clearly. Looks at this pic from the Artwork of The Dark Knight. Why didn't they go for something like this? This is PERFECT!


-I wouldn't have watered down the characters so much. Where are Batman's Bat-gadgets? Why does everything he do resemble James Bond more than Batman? Where are Joker's gadgets or trademark weapons? Why did he just use knives and guns? Why is he more like a terrorist than a deranged clown? Why is Two-Face just Mad-Face after his transformation? Why use these characters, and make this movie, if all you wanted to do, was make an obvious James Bond movie?

-I would have made The Joker the main character/the backbone of the movie. I know some people think he is, but most of the character buildup was for Harvey. Give it to The Joker, and center around The Joker and Batman.

-Cut out the silly retirement angle. This is Batman's first year(literally) on the job, he shouldn't even be thinking about retirement right now, let alone setting up a plan for Harvey to take over for Batman, just so he can retire with Rachel on a beach. What was the point of training for 7-8 years, just to retire within 10-12 months? That's like someone going to medical school for 8-10 years to be a doctor, and once he saves a few lives, he just ups and retires because he feels like his job is done. What is the point of dedicated such a large portion of your life, to just quitting within such a short per of time?

-Cut out the stupid Batsuit explanation. I would have just started off the movie with the new suit, with no questions asked. At the beginning of the movie, Batman gets attacked by dogs, and he tells Alfred that he needs a suit that is more mobile, so he can be quicker in case something like that happened. Cut to the end of the movie, and The Joker sicks his dogs on Batman, and of course, he's taken down by them, giving The Joker the upper hand. What was the point of all that explanation and screen time wasted, when in the end, he's still taken down by the very thing he needed the new suit for?

-I hated the new suit. I would have just kept the BB suit.

-Bale's bat-voice is embarrassingly bad.

-Why do we have a movie with Two-Face, when The Joker uses all of the 50/50 ultimatums? You have to save him or her, it's either here or there, either the prisoners or civilians will die, etc. Yeah, cool, not that bad, but why not save those for Two-Face, and make up something a bit more Joker like for....oh, I dunno, The Joker!

-The copy cat Batmen: now, I didn't really have a huge problem with them before TDKR, but now that that movie is out, I would have easily cut them out of this movie, cause now that plot point is incredibly inconsistent with what was told to us in this movie. In TDK, we are told that Bruce doesn't want to have people be inspired to put on a mask and fight crime. He wants ordinary citizens like Harvey Dent to take control of the city. His very words are, "that's not what I had in mind, when I said I wanted to inspire". Then, you cut the the ending of TDKR, and he says, "that's the point of Batman, anybody can be him". And of course, he gives Robin John Blake the keys to the cave, and even told him in the movie to wear a mask, so he can protect the people around him. Ummmmmm, ok?! 

-I wouldn't have made Harvey listen to The Joker's scheme in the hospital. It makes no sense why he would all of the sudden just start listening to the very man who obviously killed his girlfriend, to then going after Gordon and his family, who were obviously fighting against that very thing. Is this not the dumbest thing in this movie? Am I the only one who realizes how incredibly stupid this is? It's the complete opposite of making sense!

-I would make The Joker's plans actually make sense. Everything he did in this movie was so ridiculous, that I don't know how people can connect the dots from point A to point B, and think any of it makes sense. I could actually go off on this for hours, so I'll spare you the time, and just say most of what he did in this movie stunk!

-I would have made The Joker's skin perma-white. I know most people don't care about it, but I think it's a defining characteristic of The Joker. He's the guy who can't escape who he is, and therefore, turns him int a psychopath because of it, whereas with Batman, he can take off his mask and escape who he is, but chooses not to. It's the perfect duality between the two characters. But of course with Nolan, The Joker can stop being a clown if he wants, by cleaning his face, and of course, Batman chooses not to wear the mask by retiring. Both of these traits are so completely opposite of each other from their comic book counterpart, that it's staggering. *but I do like the way The Joker looks in this movie. Aesthetically, I have no problem with him. It's just he wears makeup to become The Joker. Ugh!


I dunno, I'm sure there's more, but that's just off the top of my head.

[The Laughing Fish]

-I wouldn't have made Harvey listen to The Joker's scheme in the hospital. It makes no sense why he would all of the sudden just start listening to the very man who obviously killed his girlfriend, to then going after Gordon and his family, who were obviously fighting against that very thing. Is this not the dumbest thing in this movie? Am I the only one who realizes how incredibly stupid this is? It's the complete opposite of making sense!

Believe me mate, you're definitely not alone. I've been complaining about the exact same thing for years. By the time that scene came up when I first watched it, the rest of the film became completely unwatchable. For all the BS praise about how'cerebral' and 'thought-provoking' Dent's insanity was, it fails miserably when you compare it to the Two-Face two-part episodes in BTAS where an already unstable Dent is fueled with hatred for Rupert Thorne because his attempts to shame Dent inadvertently got him disfigured too. Dent's psychosis in that show made sense. Unfortunately TDK has too many sub-plots crammed together, and it doesn't really flesh out Dent's character at all to say the least. I still think the film's ending was worse though.

[riddler]

-I wouldn't have made Harvey listen to The Joker's scheme in the hospital. It makes no sense why he would all of the sudden just start listening to the very man who obviously killed his girlfriend, to then going after Gordon and his family, who were obviously fighting against that very thing. Is this not the dumbest thing in this movie? Am I the only one who realizes how incredibly stupid this is? It's the complete opposite of making sense!

Believe me mate, you're definitely not alone. I've been complaining about the exact same thing for years. By the time that scene came up when I first watched it, the rest of the film became completely unwatchable. For all the BS praise about how'cerebral' and 'thought-provoking' Dent's insanity was, it fails miserably when you compare it to the Two-Face two-part episodes in BTAS where an already unstable Dent is fueled with hatred for Rupert Thorne because his attempts to shame Dent inadvertently got him disfigured too. Dent's psychosis in that show made sense. Unfortunately TDK has too many sub-plots crammed together, and it doesn't really flesh out Dent's character at all to say the least. I still think the film's ending was worse though.

Nolan really got that part wrong; the fact that Dent was already on the edge suffering from split personalities and the scarring pushed him over. Adding Rachel as motivation dumbs it down. And yes I don't buy the "he blames Batman and Gordon and forgives the Joker just because he's crazy" rationale; Oh the Joker said it wasn't his plan, that's good enough. Going after Maroni was fine but he knew Batman and Gordon wanted to stop the Joker and it was Harvey's plan himself to take the fall for being the bat to lure out the Joker.

[The Dark Knight]

My opinion of TDK was really soured by TDK Rises. It's especially hard to enjoy the film because I know what's coming. Knowing the themes of TDK twist into something contradictory. Nolan's legacy would have been a lot better if he left things at two films. But yes, absolutely agreed. TDK isn't any different to the turn off your mind popcorn flicks of Schumacher - which in their defence happen to be pretty entertaining.

I want to like TDK more than I do, but problems linger. And I don't turn a blind eye to them.

I still don't get the point of Batman taking responsibility for Dent's murder and running away. It's meant to make Batman seem selfless. But I really don't believe the entire city would lose hope just because one district attorney went nuts. And you know what? When push comes to shove, the Nolan universe doesn't even care about it either, because we never see the public reaction to the truth being revealed in TDKR. A truth which is in the form of a piece of paper read aloud by a muffed voice, gas mask wearer. Believe him because he said so!

Nobody has successfully argued to me why saying The Joker killed Dent isn't an adequately fine solution to it all. Gordon and Batman tell a lie to cover it up in the film, but it's a dumb one. Why not tell a smart one? But then you don't get the cinematic (but inherently dumb) sequence of Batman running away because he can take it. Meaning he can't, because he locks himself away in his manor. Never to be seen for years and years. That's the thing with Nolan's trilogy. It may seem 'epic' when you watch it. But when logic and reason is applied, it crumbles. Much like the opening plane hijacking sequence of TDK Rises, among others.

So I say don't hold yourself to that smug "transcending the genre" standard.

[riddler]

My opinion of TDK was really soured by TDK Rises. It's especially hard to enjoy the film because I know what's coming. Knowing the themes of TDK twist into something contradictory. Nolan's legacy would have been a lot better if he left things at two films. But yes, absolutely agreed. TDK isn't any different to the turn off your mind popcorn flicks of Schumacher - which in their defence happen to be pretty entertaining.

I want to like TDK more than I do, but problems linger. And I don't turn a blind eye to them.

I still don't get the point of Batman taking responsibility for Dent's murder and running away. It's meant to make Batman seem selfless. But I really don't believe the entire city would lose hope just because one district attorney went nuts. And you know what? When push comes to shove, the Nolan universe doesn't even care about it either, because we never see the public reaction to the truth being revealed in TDKR. A truth which is in the form of a piece of paper read aloud by a muffed voice, gas mask wearer. Believe him because he said so!

Nobody has successfully argued to me why saying The Joker killed Dent isn't an adequately fine solution to it all. Gordon and Batman tell a lie to cover it up in the film, but it's a dumb one. Why not tell a smart one? But then you don't get the cinematic (but inherently dumb) sequence of Batman running away because he can take it. Meaning he can't, because he locks himself away in his manor. Never to be seen for years and years. That's the thing with Nolan's trilogy. It may seem 'epic' when you watch it. But when logic and reason is applied, it crumbles. Much like the opening plane hijacking sequence of TDK Rises, among others.

So I say don't hold yourself to that smug "transcending the genre" standard.

The dent handling is illogical
-supposedly they're worried that if him going crazy got revealed, his convictions would get overturned but the obvious defense (which is the truth) is that he went crazy after Rachel died and he scarred his face
-I will accept that they don't want to blame it on the Joker since as bad as he was, he didn't kill Dent
-if they're going to lie, why not tamper? Leave the scene and cremate the body?

Batman went through that entire journey to save the city and apparently gave it up just to protect Harvey Dent The fact that the city cleans itself up without Batman kind of makes what he did seem pointless doesn't it?

[The Laughing Fish]

The dent handling is illogical
-supposedly they're worried that if him going crazy got revealed, his convictions would get overturned but the obvious defense (which is the truth) is that he went crazy after Rachel died and he scarred his face
-I will accept that they don't want to blame it on the Joker since as bad as he was, he didn't kill Dent
-if they're going to lie, why not tamper? Leave the scene and cremate the body?

Batman went through that entire journey to save the city and apparently gave it up just to protect Harvey Dent The fact that the city cleans itself up without Batman kind of makes what he did seem pointless doesn't it?

I've seen this one guy one YouTube spending three and a half hours criticizing TDKR for all its flaws, and yet he blindly praises TDK...except for the ending. He reasons his distaste for Batman's retirement by arguing, and I quote:

"Don't blame Batman! Say one of the Joker's guys killed Dent as revenge and Batman went chased after them to stop them. Yes, it's a lie. But it's a lie that leaves both Batman and Harvey Dent unscathed. Instead, we're lead to believe the two most effective crime fighters in the series have spent the next eight years carrying a guilt that they are worried would tear the city apart. Okay, so why didn't you put the blame on people who could never be caught, and everyone else in Gotham knew to be dangerous?!"

I've always found it funny and irritating that people who complained about Batman's retirement at the start of the third film never had any problems with the ending of the second film. For instance, I've seen plenty of people complaining that Batman retiring after one year contradicts the point of him fighting crime in the first place. But I've always argued that Batman taking the blame for crimes he didn't commit was much worse because there's no way in hell would anybody believe it after all the times he saved the city from terrorists. And let's not forget how Batman was meant to be symbolic throughout the series, and yet he lets his image get tarnished in favour of another man who (no matter how many times we're told how good he is) never came across as humble or even more of a better person than Rachel Dawes when she was DA.

And one more thing that annoys me is this: look at this picture that came from the TDKR's viral marketing campaign below.



It says Batman was wanted for kidnapping and terrorizing Gordon's family, in addition to the murders of Dent and six cops. Now, it was never mentioned in the actual film that Batman was believed to be responsible for kidnapping Gordon's family, but it demonstrates my point - there's no way - even by movie logic - that anyone in Gotham would believe that Batman is suddenly  responsible for all these crimes in one night despite spending the previous year protecting the city from terrorists.

Woeful attempt at storytelling.

[riddler]

The dent handling is illogical
-supposedly they're worried that if him going crazy got revealed, his convictions would get overturned but the obvious defense (which is the truth) is that he went crazy after Rachel died and he scarred his face
-I will accept that they don't want to blame it on the Joker since as bad as he was, he didn't kill Dent
-if they're going to lie, why not tamper? Leave the scene and cremate the body?

Batman went through that entire journey to save the city and apparently gave it up just to protect Harvey Dent The fact that the city cleans itself up without Batman kind of makes what he did seem pointless doesn't it?

I've seen this one guy one YouTube spending three and a half hours criticizing TDKR for all its flaws, and yet he blindly praises TDK...except for the ending. He reasons his distaste for Batman's retirement by arguing, and I quote:

"Don't blame Batman! Say one of the Joker's guys killed Dent as revenge and Batman went chased after them to stop them. Yes, it's a lie. But it's a lie that leaves both Batman and Harvey Dent unscathed. Instead, we're lead to believe the two most effective crime fighters in the series have spent the next eight years carrying a guilt that they are worried would tear the city apart. Okay, so why didn't you put the blame on people who could never be caught, and everyone else in Gotham knew to be dangerous?!"

I've always found it funny and irritating that people who complained about Batman's retirement at the start of the third film never had any problems with the ending of the second film. For instance, I've seen plenty of people complaining that Batman retiring after one year contradicts the point of him fighting crime in the first place. But I've always argued that Batman taking the blame for crimes he didn't commit was much worse because there's no way in hell would anybody believe it after all the times he saved the city from terrorists. And let's not forget how Batman was meant to be symbolic throughout the series, and yet he lets his image get tarnished in favour of another man who (no matter how many times we're told how good he is) never came across as humble or even more of a better person than Rachel Dawes when she was DA.

And one more thing that annoys me is this: look at this picture that came from the TDKR's viral marketing campaign below.



It says Batman was wanted for kidnapping and terrorizing Gordon's family, in addition to the murders of Dent and six cops. Now, it was never mentioned in the actual film that Batman was believed to be responsible for kidnapping Gordon's family, but it demonstrates my point - there's no way - even by movie logic - that anyone in Gotham would believe that Batman is suddenly  responsible for all these crimes in one night despite spending the previous year protecting the city from terrorists.

Woeful attempt at storytelling.

Well it's a lazy ad blaming batman for everything Two face did. There's no reason to report the kidnapping, nobody found out about it. That's also a terrible message gordon is teaching his young children (one of which should become batgirl). Also how exactly did Gordon explain that he 'knew' batman committed those murders? Did batman confess it to him? It doesn't make any sense how he could conceivably frame a willing Batman for it or why he would. If there was a way for Batman to be framed then shouldn't it be easier to simply cover up Dents involvement? Was it even well known that Dent did escape from the hospital which was destroyed? Couldn't they claim he died there?

I'm really unsure how I feel about the dark knight. At the time it was my favourite bat film. I accepted the ending because I didn't over think it. Truth be told the stage was set to blame the batman in that film, rises just continued that plotline. Having seen the dark knight rises which IMO exploits all Nolans flaws; his poor editing, bad pacing, endless plot holes and overall lack of fun, I tend to notice those things in repeat viewings of the dark knight. Maybe I'll accept it in its own vein the same way that Batman and Robin doesn't ruin the previous movies for me but I expect I'll be watching Batman 89 more often than the dark knight.

[Travesty]

^They couldn't claim he died at the hospital, because he let Ramirez live, so she could have told.

But now that I think about it, she could have told regardless, coming out with the truth that Harvey was a killer? Hmmmmm, yeah, it doesn't make sense. Ha!