The Dark Knight

[Castigator]

Originally Posted by Lyrical

Were you dropped on your head as child? We already know how Batman's personal life gets worse and worse. This movie is a flashback to an earlier part of Batman's life, but with strong foreshadowing into his darker future.

Might easily rebuke the dropped-on-your-head-question? Do you have problems identifying different narrations?

I never disputed that we do not know that Batman's personal life gets worse and worse. But the movie is not a flashback, there is no intro-scene with grandpa-Batman telling of the good old days. The movie is a movie narrating in present tense about a guy called Bruce Wayne disguising himself as Batman to fight bad guys, notably meeting a particularly nasty one called the Joker. Its not a movie about what he becomes afterwards.

Just cause this changes in the future and these changes are known, doesn't change the facts in this movie. Foreshadowing is a narrative tool, but it doesn't change the story either.

To use your Star Wars example, we know Anakin will become Darth Vader, but in Episode I he isn't. Not yet. To claim he is and ask why 5-year old Anakin is pretending to be just a kid pod-racing while secretly already thinking about force-strangling people is ludicrous. Same for Batman. What's so difficult about that?

[Lyrical]

Originally Posted by Castigator

But the movie is not a flashback

I don't have problems with different narrations - I do have problems with you flaming some poor guy a few pages back for not knowing what he is talking about, when you are the guy who has no idea what's going on. As many people in this thread have pointed out to you directly or through sarcasm, you don't know what you are talking about. Please stop pummeling us with your ignorance.

The movie is a flashback in Batman's fictional life, regardless of the media. It doesn't matter if its the movie or the comic book. Both Batman Begins and the Dark Knight are movie retells of the comic book Batman Year One and Year Two.

What is so hard to understand about that?

[Banal]

Originally Posted by Lyrical

The movie is a flashback in Batman's fictional life, regardless of the media. It doesn't matter if its the movie or the comic book. This is as smurfy as it gets for Batman.

What is so hard to understand about that?

The Batman in the movie and the hundreds? of Batmen in the comics are not the same character. Nolan is not bound to tell the story of comic book Batman. He can tell whatever story he wants about Batman. The personality of comic book Batman is not relevant to the personality of comic book Batman.

In fact, it's absurd to think that there is one Batman. There are many, depending on who's telling the story.

[Zerai]

Originally Posted by Banal

The Batman in the movie and the hundreds? of Batmen in the comics are not the same character. Nolan is not bound to tell the story of comic book Batman. He can tell whatever story he wants about Batman. The personality of comic book Batman is not relevant to the personality of comic book Batman.

In fact, it's absurd to think that there is one Batman. There are many, depending on who's telling the story.

It still follows the same theme in each of them. Nolan's is no different. They clearly showed in the first movie with the final scene with Rachel that she knew, he was batman, not bruce. And she'd be there when it was the other way around. Obviously it wouldn't happen. In this movie you see it much more clearly that he is batman. And as hard as he tries to rid himself of it, he can't escape. It is who he is. Instead of pulling back, he falls further into it. Did we even watch the same goddamn movie? It's the goddamn batman for christ sakes.

Bruce Wayne is just another tool in his arsenal. The money and prestige lets him do things to further his agenda as batman. What happens with Rachel in this movie is the final nail in the coffin for bruce wayne. He's dead Jim.

[Lyrical]

Originally Posted by Banal

In fact, it's absurd to think that there is one Batman. There are many, depending on who's telling the story.

WTH are you talking about? Are you doing acid and seeing Batmen all over the place? Let me guess, you are playing Xbox with Batman while Batman is cooking breakfast for you right now.

Nolan's Batman is a loose retell of Batman Year One and Two in DC's prime universe.

And if you guys ever think that we will see an unobssessed Batman in the movie theatre, you are wrong. There are no rainbows in Batman's future. Whenever you look at Batman's present story, or the writers show what Batman's future could be, its always a pitiful existence, where Bruce Wayne exists in name only. It doesn't matter whether is the Dark Knight Returns storyline or the Batman Beyond cartoon (where he's a mean old fart that has no family or personal life).

As the DC writers have said it over and over again, Batman has no powers. They have said the appeal to the fans is that Batman is just a normal human, but totally obssessed to the point of giving up any personal life whatsoever. DC has said that people love Batman because he represents every body. He's just a little bit crazy though. An unobbsessed Batman isn't as commericially viable, because then he becomes unbelievable (and unlikeable). The Batman mythos is wrapped up around his obssessiveness.

[Castigator]

Originally Posted by Lyrical

I don't have problems with different narrations - I do have problems with you flaming some poor guy a few pages back for not knowing what he is talking about, when you are the guy who has no idea what's going on. As many people in this thread have pointed out to you directly or through sarcasm, you don't know what you are talking about. Please stop pummeling us with your ignorance.

Me flaming some poor guy? I think you do have an issue keeping stories apart.

There was a discussion about how the strained voice in the movie felt a bit odd and constitutes one of the weaker parts of the movie. Upon which Arbitrary jumps in and flames people for using the word disguise and batman together, upon which I reply:

Originally Posted by Castigator

LOL, guess you've been listening to the pseudo-mumbo-jumbo a bit much they've been blowing off to hype the movie.

So yes, on a psychiatrist-level sort of thing your argument may hold, but for practical purposes, it is Batman who wears a black mask over the face of Bruce Wayne and changes his voice to not be recognized. So the physical disguise (along with the voice) is Batman.

Or do you really think the gravel voice is real physical voice of Wayne/Batman and he just tries really, really hard to talk like a normal person 99% of his time?

Don't see how that's an unreasonable statement. It actually differentiates between physical and psychological, cause that wasn't even the point. I'm certain the above statement didn't violate any facts, canon or not, nor was it overtly aggressive (though I admit the intro sentence isn't all gentlemen).

Either way, you're argument is even more retarded than Arbitrary, cause you take it from obscure cyber-batman comics that are in no way common to a general movie audience and will never be made into a mainstream motion picture.

[Lyrical]

Originally Posted by Castigator

Either way, you're argument is even more retarded than Arbitrary, cause you take it from obscure cyber-batman comics that are in no way common to a general movie audience and will never be made into a mainstream motion picture.

Notice I said that this was some viewers standpoint, and not mine. What is retarded is to argue that Batman has a happy ending, because we know that when the story moves forward, it gets worse for Batman. And we've been given glimpses into Batman's future, and almost all of them show him either living a miserable life (driving away even Robin and Alfred) or dying trying to complete a mission he'll never win.

DC will not let Batman be presented in any other way as a tragic hero. He's made a faustian pact to save the innocent, only he's not given up his soul, he's given up Bruce Wayne.

We are not going to see rainbows or smurfs in any future Batman movies. If anything, DC has hinted it will just get worse with its foreshadowing of the Dark Knight Returns graphic novel during the whole movie.

There is no obscurity to this. Both DC officials and the writers have said that this is Batman's future - they don't think he has mainstream appeal if isn't the tragic hero fighting a battle he'll never win, even if it costs him his personal life in its entirety.

[Lyrical]

Originally Posted by Zerai

It still follows the same theme in each of them. Nolan's is no different. They clearly showed in the first movie with the final scene with Rachel that she knew, he was batman, not bruce. And she'd be there when it was the other way around. Obviously it wouldn't happen. In this movie you see it much more clearly that he is batman. And as hard as he tries to rid himself of it, he can't escape. It is who he is. Instead of pulling back, he falls further into it. Did we even watch the same goddamn movie? It's the goddamn batman for christ sakes.

Bruce Wayne is just another tool in his arsenal. The money and prestige lets him do things to further his agenda as batman. What happens with Rachel in this movie is the final nail in the coffin for bruce wayne. He's dead Jim.

That's the point I am making.

[Banal]

Originally Posted by Zerai

It still follows the same theme in each of them. Nolan's is no different. They clearly showed in the first movie with the final scene with Rachel that she knew, he was batman, not bruce. And she'd be there when it was the other way around. Obviously it wouldn't happen. In this movie you see it much more clearly that he is batman. And as hard as he tries to rid himself of it, he can't escape. It is who he is. Instead of pulling back, he falls further into it. Did we even watch the same goddamn movie? It's the goddamn batman for christ sakes.

Bruce Wayne is just another tool in his arsenal. The money and prestige lets him do things to further his agenda as batman. What happens with Rachel in this movie is the final nail in the coffin for bruce wayne. He's dead Jim.

Actually, I don't think it's clear based on the movie's narration that Bruce has 'become' Batman. In fact, the dialogue he has with Alfred in TDK about his human limitations and the necessity of Batman having none, indicates clearly that he still thinks of himself as human and Batman as a symbol.

At the end of the movie, it's less clear, but the conflict between his desire to give up being Batman and his understanding of the necessity speaks to his wish to live as Bruce.

Originally Posted by Lyrical

Notice I said that this was some viewers standpoint, and not mine. What is retarded is to argue that Batman has a happy ending, because we know that when the story moves forward, it gets worse for Batman. And we've been given glimpses into Batman's future, and almost all of them show him either living a miserable life (driving away even Robin and Alfred) or dying trying to complete a mission he'll never win.

Actually, we don't know that because Nolan hasn't finished his narration. His narration may not be the same as the comic book, although it may be similar as well. You can't seem to grasp the concept that the story may be different depending on who's telling it.

[Zerai]

Originally Posted by Banal

Actually, I don't think it's clear based on the movie's narration that Bruce has 'become' Batman. In fact, the dialogue he has with Alfred in TDK about his human limitations and the necessity of Batman having none, indicates clearly that he still thinks of himself as human and Batman as a symbol.

At the end of the movie, it's less clear, but the conflict between his desire to give up being Batman and his understanding of the necessity speaks to his wish to live as Bruce.



Actually, we don't know that because Nolan hasn't finished his narration. His narration may not be the same as the comic book, although it may be similar as well. You can't seem to grasp the concept that the story may be different depending on who's telling it.

It shows that he gets hurt by having his Bruce Wayne life. That the bruce wayne, as you said, has limitations. Hence him being more and more Batman. I saw him realizing that he can't give up batman..because he is batman. And that realization coming to him.

As for the different story. Come on. Yes, between every story there are differences..but the concept, the overall theme, has remained the same.

And yes Lyrical, I know. I was agreeing with you.

[Lyrical]

Originally Posted by Banal

Actually, we don't know that because Nolan hasn't finished his narration.

The end of the movie was pretty clear, along with non-stop foreshadowing of things to come during the entire movie. He's going to be the hero that Gotham needs, even if it means literally killing himself (or the Bruce Wayne persona). Without posting too many spoilers, everything that will happen is pretty much foreshadowed everytime the Joker and Batman had a conversation.

Originally Posted by Banal

Actually, we don't know that because Nolan hasn't finished his narration. His narration may not be the same as the comic book, although it may be similar as well. You can't seem to grasp the concept that the story may be different depending on who's telling it.

You can't seem to grasp that DC Comics will only let writers go so far. As DC Comics officials have said over and over again, the overriding theme of Batman descending deeper and deeper into darkness. He falls on his sword over and over again to win a fight he'll never win. There is no seperating his sacrifice of Bruce Wayne from the Batman persona.

The fact we are arguing who the real Batman goes to show that Nolan is staying true to concept. You don't hear people arguing over who the real Wolverine is, or Spiderman is. At his core, Batman is a bit crazy. The Joker alluded to it when he said in the movie that they are the same - freaks. Batman has a messiah complex and he dresses in tights to do the job of law enforcement. He thinks he can do it better than the authorities can. As Rachel said it in the last movie, his parents died a long time ago. Bruce Wayne's parents died almost 30 years ago, and Bruce Wayne died with them in that alley. As some Batman writers have said, Bruce Wayne became Batman at the point his parents died. He only acts like Bruce Wayne when Alfred reminds him of his familial ties.

I will say it again. The first two movies are retreads of Batman Year One and Two. As dark as this movie was, it gets darker for Batman. There is not going to be a sequel to the movie called Batman Goes to Visit The Smurfs. DC won't allow anything to hurt their cash cow. You will see Nolan replaced before you see Batman's essence be changed so drastically.

[Castigator]

Originally Posted by Lyrical

Notice I said that this was some viewers standpoint, and not mine. What is retarded is to argue that Batman has a happy ending, because we know that when the story moves forward, it gets worse for Batman. .

Who the fuck ever talked about a happy ending? Are you actually reading stuff or just talking out of your ass. All we argued about was whether the word 'disguise' was appropriatly used to describe Batman in TDK. Thats it.. we didn't talk about any endings, happy or otherwise. Not about comics, not about foreshadowings you seem to see everywhere. Not about DCs care of the franchise.

Infact the whole point was to not talk about endings but to look at stuff happening in the movie, such as Bruce Wayne straining his voice as not to be recognized.

[Lyrical]

The comment was aimed more toward Banal, but since you bring it up...

Originally Posted by Castigator

Thats it.. we didn't talk about any endings, happy or otherwise. Not about comics, not about foreshadowings you seem to see everywhere.

You didn't talk about an ending at all, in any shape, or form? I guess this is someone else below that took your computer over and started deriding the feasiblity of this storyline.

Originally Posted by Castigator

Either way, you're argument is even more retarded than Arbitrary, cause you take it from obscure cyber-batman comics that are in no way common to a general movie audience and will never be made into a mainstream motion picture.

Make up your mind. You are so busy e-thugging it up that you can't remember what you type in from post-to-post. This is an orign story that fits into the whole.

Why are you ignoring the fact that for the last 30 years the writers as well DC officials have told us that Bruce Wayne is the disguise? I can't think of any other charachter that has two personas (not including heroes that have no private identity like the Fantastic Four) where the writers and officials have implicitly and explicitly stated that the human alter ego is the disguise. Bruce Wayne is the shell, and as far as Batman is concerned, he is disposable.

You've been provided footnotes with their comments. Feel free to go read them instead of mucking up this thread.

[Jabberwhacky]

Originally Posted by Dom Devore

What's so hard to understand? The device was able to simultaneously spy on every single person in Gotham. That includes the ability to see what people do in the privacy of their own home.

As for why Fox agreed to do it once, I would chalk it up to simple loyalty and the dire need of the situation.

That's great that you would "chalk it up to the dire need;" you know who else said there was a dire need for wiretapping? The current administration, and we all know how fucked up that is. And yet, here in Batman land, it's fine for the good guy and his moral compass to say "Fuck you ethics" whenever they want.

I look forward to the waterboarding scene in the next movie when Batman catches a guy who knows the location of the Penguin's secret hide-out. I'm sure Lucius will have a fancy new device that can be used only once *wink.* I mean shit, now they have a fucking precident, since the last time they tossed ethics to the wind they captured a homicidal maniac.

[Twobit Whore]

Originally Posted by Jabberwhacky

That's great that you would "chalk it up to the dire need;" you know who else said there was a dire need for wiretapping? The current administration, and we all know how fucked up that is. And yet, here in Batman land, it's fine for the good guy and his moral compass to say "Fuck you ethics" whenever they want.

Uh, I think that was the entire point and someone hinted at it earlier. It was most definitely a play on the gov't/big brother especially with how prominent it has been recently. That's why Fox didn't want to have anything to do with it.. but his loyalty to Batman and his understanding of the direness of the situation convinced him to do it once for one purpose and then he would resign.

I don't expect Batman to push Fox on his morals like that again with severe backlash, or losing his confidence entirely.

It's nice that you got the social commentary, but somehow still managed to miss it.