Dark Knight - Discussion of Flaws and Plot Holes - SPOILERS [Archive]

Person_Man

2008-07-21, 11:25 AM

I saw the Dark Knight Friday Morning at 12:01 am. Great flick. Will probably go see it again. Will definitely buy the dvd.

Having said that, there was a huge amount of fridge logic (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/FridgeLogic) that has been bugging the heck out of me.

So here's a thread to discuss every flaw, plot hole, and thing that you dislike about Dark Knight. Hopefully talking about them will exorcise my doubts.

THIS THREAD WILL NO DOUBT BE FILLED WITH MANY SPOILERS. DO NOT READ IT IF YOU HAVEN'T SEEN THE MOVIE. ON BALANCE, IT'S A GREAT MOVIE THAT YOU SHOULD SEE, UNRUINED BY MY EX POST FACTO NITPICKING.

Things that still bug me:

Why replace Katie Holmes with Maggie Gyllenhaal? Gyllenhaal is a superior actor, and much more attractive IMO. But one of the people I saw the movie, not knowing she had been replaced and not remembering the details of Batman Begins, was confused as to who she was and what her relationship with Bruce was about until halfway through the movie.

Why did Rachel promise Bruce she'd be with him after he gave up being Batman, and then turn around 5 minute later and write a note saying she was going to be with Harvey?

Why doesn't Batman just use a voice modulator? The strep throat thing was just annoying - Christian Bale just couldn't pull it off.

The mob/Hong Kong/banking sub-plot was just pointless, and the characters were largely unnecessary. Why include them in such a long movie?

How did Bruce know that hitting Reese's car (the auditor guy who was going to expose his identity) would somehow prevent him from being killed?

How did the Joker, dressed as a retro nurse (which made him MORE conspicuous), get into the hospital and past a cop without anybody calling 911? I know that there was an evacuation going on, but seriously, there's no way he could have just snuck in past that many people.

Why didn't the cops bother to move Harvey out of the hospital while it was being evacuated?

Why did the Joker give the switch up the locations of Rachel and Harvey? I assume it was to force Batman to make a choice and then to take that choice away from him. But then why didn't the Joker rub it into Batman's face that he had outsmarted him?

Why did the Joker give two different explanations as to how he got his scars? If they wanted it to be a running plot point where the utterly crazy Joker makes up a new explanation ever time he's about to torture someone, they should have done it at least 3 times, and they should have put the successful times before the unsuccessful time when Batman stopped him. Putting two in just made it confusing.

Why didn't the people on the quite-possibly-soon-to-be-exploded ferries just swim away?

At the end of the movie, why not blame the Joker and/or his minions for all of Two Face's murders? It would have been easy to blame the Joker, and he was already a known mass murderer. There was no reason for Batman to throw himself in front of a bus to protect the memory of a dead man.

JonathanC

2008-07-21, 11:53 AM

I'm not really seeing any flaws or plot holes in your post...just complaints, often about stuff that (in my opinion) doesn't matter, or was unavoidable for the filmmakers.

Why replace Katie Holmes with Maggie Gyllenhaal? Gyllenhaal is a superior actor, and much more attractive IMO. But one of the people I saw the movie, not knowing she had been replaced and not remembering the details of Batman Begins, was confused as to who she was and what her relationship with Bruce was about until halfway through the movie.
Holmes declined to act in this film, due to her schedule. I don't know if you remember, but she was pregnant. And anyone who was confused about who she was after seeing Holmes in Batman Begins lacks the sense to understand any plot; they call her "Rachel Dawes" throughout the movie, and make frequent references to her relationship with Bruce. Audience stupidity is not a flaw in the film.

Why did Rachel promise Bruce she'd be with him after he gave up being Batman, and then turn around 5 minute later and write a note saying she was going to be with Harvey?
Were you watching the movie? Do you not remember what happened in between these two scenes? Bruce willingly allows Harvey Dent to declare that he is Batman, so that Batman can continue to exist, much to Rachel's disgust. She complains to Alfred about it, and later writes the letter. His actions proved to her that he would do anything to keep being Batman, no matter the cost.

Why doesn't Batman just use a voice modulator? The strep throat thing was just annoying - Christian Bale just couldn't pull it off.
Whether he can pull it off is a matter of opinion; I found his Batman voice to be a lot less hamstrung than it was in Batman Begins. As for why he doesn't wear a modulator...I don't know if you noticed, but he doesn't cover his mouth. It would kinda mess up the costume look. If you want a modulated gravelly voice, go watch Iron Man again.

The mob/Hong Kong/banking sub-plot was just pointless, and the characters were largely unnecessary. Why include them in such a long movie?
It's called a plot device. There would be no explanation for half of what the Joker does, and why he's getting support from the city's gangsters, without the banking sub-plot which explains why the entire underworld is so desperate to be rid of Dent, Gordon, and Batman that they're willing to place their trust in a psychotic clown.

How did Bruce know that hitting Reese's car (the auditor guy who was going to expose his identity) would somehow prevent him from being killed?
He didn't hit Reese's car. He knew that Reese was in danger due to the Joker's threat against the hospitals, and wanted to keep an eye on the transport. He drove like a madman to catch up, and when they approached the intersection, the shotgun went off a moment before someone tried to T-Bone the armored truck. This wouldn't have killed Reese at all; it would have stopped the truck though, and Gordon alone couldn't have protected Reese. By interscepting the hit, Bruce protected the truck, so that it could continue to protective custody.

How did the Joker, dressed as a retro nurse (which made him MORE conspicuous), get into the hospital and past a cop without anybody calling 911? I know that there was an evacuation going on, but seriously, there's no way he could have just snuck in past that many people.
Seriously...where were you during this movie? The hospital was *empty* when the Joker was in there, except for a cop who was trying to evacuate Dent...and the Joker shot that guy. We're not talking about an orderly evacuation...the city was in a panic. You could have walked in there dressed like a martian and not been stopped, especially since, as I said before, the place was basically empty by the time we see the Joker in there.

Why didn't the cops bother to move Harvey out of the hospital while it was being evacuated?
They did. The guy who tried was killed.

Why did the Joker give the switch up the locations of Rachel and Harvey? I assume it was to force Batman to make a choice and then to take that choice away from him. But then why didn't the Joker rub it into Batman's face that he had outsmarted him?
This is exactly what I mean when I say that nothing here is a flaw or a plot hole. This is just you trying to re-write the film, often for the worse. The Joker doesn't have to rub anything in anyone's face, and he generally doesn't, unless he has a good reason. He wasn't taunting the cop with all of the other cops he'd killed for his own amusement; he did it so the cop would attack him, thus getting close enough for the Joker to mess him up and take him hostage. The death of Rachel stings more because the Joker *isn't* calling them up to brag about it and point out the obvious. Yes, he switched up the locations...how diabolical. You know how you make that less diabolical? By stupidly pointing out how clever you were to switch the locations. You look a lot smarter when you aren't pointing out how smart you are every 5 minutes.

Why did the Joker give two different explanations as to how he got his scars? If they wanted it to be a running plot point where the utterly crazy Joker makes up a new explanation ever time he's about to torture someone, they should have done it at least 3 times, and they should have put the successful times before the unsuccessful time when Batman stopped him. Putting two in just made it confusing.
They *did* do it three times...he didn't get to finish the third one, because Batman didn't care how he got the scars, and used the opportunity to shot the Joker with batarangs.

Why didn't the people on the quite-possibly-soon-to-be-exploded ferries just swim away?
Because it was clearly stated that if anyone got off the boat, everyone would be killed. Seriously, are you one of those guys who text messages people during movies? Is that why you seem to be missing so much of the plot?

At the end of the movie, why not blame the Joker and/or his minions for all of Two Face's murders? It would have been easy to blame the Joker, and he was already a known mass murderer. There was no reason for Batman to throw himself in front of a bus to protect the memory of a dead man.
Kinda hard to blame Harvey Dent's death by falling on the Joker, who was hanging upside down from the Port building when it happened. THen there's the fact that the building was already surrounded by cops...who had been there for quite some time...there's no way you could blame the hostage situation with Gordon's family on the Joker, or his minions, who were confirmed to be in another location. You couldn't sneak any minion bodies in there either, because...you know...it's surrounded by cops. The reason you can't blame any of those crimes on the Joker is that he was doing a bunch of *other* bad stuff at the same time, and he's really, really noticeable. Batman was also somewhere else, but you generally don't see Batman, so you can't confirm that he wasn't at that bar, killing the crooked cop.

WalkingTarget

2008-07-21, 11:58 AM

THIS THREAD WILL NO DOUBT BE FILLED WITH MANY SPOILERS. DO NOT READ IT IF YOU HAVEN'T SEEN THE MOVIE. ON BALANCE, IT'S A GREAT MOVIE THAT YOU SHOULD SEE, UNRUINED BY MY EX POST FACTO NITPICKING.

I'll forgo my own spoiler tags since this is obviously a spoilerific thread in the first place.

Why replace Katie Holmes with Maggie Gyllenhaal? Gyllenhaal is a superior actor, and much more attractive IMO. But one of the people I saw the movie, not knowing she had been replaced and not remembering the details of Batman Begins, was confused as to who she was and what her relationship with Bruce was about until halfway through the movie.

My understanding was that Holmes wasn't available. Sometimes actors/actresses just don't have the time.

How did Bruce know that hitting Reese's car (the auditor guy who was going to expose his identity) would somehow prevent him from being killed?

I thought he interposed his car between Reese and the guys who were trying to kill him (i.e. Bruce's car gets hit instead of Reese's).

Why did the Joker give the switch up the locations of Rachel and Harvey? I assume it was to force Batman to make a choice and then to take that choice away from him. But then why didn't the Joker rub it into Batman's face that he had outsmarted him?

You nailed it, make him choose but screw him over for doing so. He didn't rub it in his face because he doesn't need to. He knows that he won that exchange and knows that Batman is smart enough to know it as well. Frankly, I think it improves the character in that they didn't have him resort to "ha ha, I'm smarter than you" style taunts.

Why did the Joker give two different explanations as to how he got his scars? If they wanted it to be a running plot point where the utterly crazy Joker makes up a new explanation ever time he's about to torture someone, they should have done it at least 3 times, and they should have put the successful times before the unsuccessful time when Batman stopped him. Putting two in just made it confusing.

I agree that a third story to bring home the multiple-choice nature of his background would have been nice, but I liked that they at least made sure that you, the audience, don't know what really happened to make him this way. Think about Hannibal Lecter. He was much scarier before he was explained, in my opinion. I think it works for the Joker too.

Why didn't the people on the quite-possibly-soon-to-be-exploded ferries just swim away?

Joker said that if anybody jumped off a boat he'd blow them both up.

Edit - danged ninjas, not out of place in a Batman thread though...

Zeta Kai

2008-07-21, 12:55 PM

I believe the previous 2 replies pretty much explain away the perceived "plot holes" rather nicely. I just want to suggest that the OP go watch the movie again, because he must not have been paying much attention the first time. I was confused by the Dent-Dawes switch, too, as the mention of the switch is a little easy to miss, but subsequent viewing has cleared my vision.

Quirinus_Obsidian

2008-07-21, 01:55 PM

Have to say first of all... The Dark Knight was the best Batman flick ever. Heath Ledger kicked Jack Nicolson's arse 10 ways from Sunday. I was entranced by the entire flick; the only tihing that struck me as odd was the 'tacked in' drug bust with the Scarecrow early on. I know that it was a plot device, and a bit of closure.. but, it just seemed odd.
Also,
For those that think the Two-Face thing was just a tack on itself, I offer this rebuttal: Two-Face could not be the primary villain in any Batman flick; he needs too much backstory and development to make sense of him. They squeezed in him capturing 500+ bad-people within 15 minutes because they had to. .

Overall, I was glued to my seat for the entire thing. Popcorn went stale, the Snickers bar melted in my hand, the ice in the soda became warm water, and I did not even notice. Pure. AWESOME.

Cristo Meyers

2008-07-21, 02:42 PM

Fri

2008-07-21, 03:19 PM

I guess this should be merged with the main thread. Anyway it's a fantastic movie, and the Joker is seriously creeps me. He's. Damn. Scary. As. Heck.

The only thing that bothers me is well.. how it feels like one-and-a-half movie. They should left two face for the sequel. Harvey's (or everyone's) descent into darkness is awesome, but they should left Harvey, at most after joker taunts him in the hospital.

And ah, there's another one. Heath Ledger. Why he had to die. Damn, now there's absolutely no chance that this joker will be in any of the sequel

HardboiledJJ

2008-07-21, 04:24 PM

One thing I will agree with is that I don't like Bale's Batman voice. It's been pretty much my only complaint about both movies. Its just too gravelly and unintelligible. For me, Batman shouldn't have to be forcing it so much to be intimidating. I'm a much bigger fan of how BTAS just had the voice actor talk a couple steps lower and let the dialogue/imagery do the intimidation-not a bunch of barking.

An amazing movie. I'm almost stretching to find a problem in the above. I was even okay with the Two-Face "add-on" as some people think of it. For me, it wasn't so much that Two-Face was his own villain, but more like a ticking time bomb Joker had created via his earlier actions. Two-Face may be in the final confrontation, but its still the killer clown's sick joke.

WalkingTarget

2008-07-21, 04:32 PM

People also need to remember their Killing Joke. An important theme comes from it.

The point the Joker tried to make in that is that one bad day can break any one of us. He didn't break Gordon in that example, but it's still the idea he was trying to get across.

Now look at Harvey again in this film. The Joker just gave him a little push.

Santanya

2008-07-22, 03:41 AM

Why did the Joker give the switch up the locations of Rachel and Harvey? I assume it was to force Batman to make a choice and then to take that choice away from him. But then why didn't the Joker rub it into Batman's face that he had outsmarted him?

I admit now that I could stand to go see the movie again. When I watched it originally I got the impression that the Joker did reverse the locations, but... Given Batman's belief in Dent, and what he did at the end, is it possible that he DIDN'T reverse the locations? Was this another sacrifice that Batman/Bruce chose to make? Obviously if there was showing of where each location was it would prove this wrong... I need to go see it again.

Zeta Kai

2008-07-22, 06:04 AM

I admit now that I could stand to go see the movie again. When I watched it originally I got the impression that the Joker did reverse the locations, but... Given Batman's belief in Dent, and what he did at the end, is it possible that he DIDN'T reverse the locations? Was this another sacrifice that Batman/Bruce chose to make? Obviously if there was showing of where each location was it would prove this wrong... I need to go see it again.

No, it is not possible. Batman said (or rather, gravelly growled) that he was going after Rachel, he told Gordon to go after Dent. Joker revealed that he switched the locations (this was easy to miss, as he was saying all sorts of insane stuff at this point). Then Batman finds Dent, & appears to be momentarily surprised to see him (which is also easy to miss, as the mask covers most of his face; he does pause breifly in the doorway, though).

Shatteredtower

2008-07-22, 10:53 AM

People covered the rest of this adequately, but this question was only half answered:

Why did the Joker give two different explanations as to how he got his scars?

As noted earlier, he was interupted on the third occasion, but I think the "Why?" part of the question deserves a bit more attention. Personally, I think it's a nod to one of the Joker's lines in The Killing Joke:

"If I'm going to have a past, I prefer it to be multiple choice!"

Now on to a few spoilers that weren't mentioned above:

I'm a bit irked by the fact that the movie followed the comic tradition of stuffing a woman into a fridge. It does give Two-Face the most plausible motive for going off the deep end (well, that and refusing painkillers in the face of such maddening pain) the way he did, but it's still a sore point.

Curiously, I'm more irritated by just how many charges the Joker would have had to set in Gotham General Hospital to get it to blow up like that. Forget crazy -- the Joker would have to be wins-the-lottery-jackpot-twice-a-week lucky to be able to set that up and not have it go off early. Not that he'd care if it went off early, but that's not the point.

I'm not entirely thrilled with the handling of potential bombs in the movie either. I'd expect the police to be more cautious about handling packages left for them from a known psychopath. I'd also expect them to show a bit more caution once they discover that one of the known associates of that clown is sporting a rectangular shaped protusion under his skin. Maybe I'm expecting too much?

JonathanC

2008-07-22, 11:08 AM

People covered the rest of this adequately, but this question was only half answered:

As noted earlier, he was interupted on the third occasion, but I think the "Why?" part of the question deserves a bit more attention. Personally, I think it's a nod to one of the Joker's lines in The Killing Joke:

"If I'm going to have a past, I prefer it to be multiple choice!"

Now on to a few spoilers that weren't mentioned above:

I'm a bit irked by the fact that the movie followed the comic tradition of stuffing a woman into a fridge. It does give Two-Face the most plausible motive for going off the deep end (well, that and refusing painkillers in the face of such maddening pain) the way he did, but it's still a sore point.

Curiously, I'm more irritated by just how many charges the Joker would have had to set in Gotham General Hospital to get it to blow up like that. Forget crazy -- the Joker would have to be wins-the-lottery-jackpot-twice-a-week lucky to be able to set that up and not have it go off early. Not that he'd care if it went off early, but that's not the point.

I'm not entirely thrilled with the handling of potential bombs in the movie either. I'd expect the police to be more cautious about handling packages left for them from a known psychopath. I'd also expect them to show a bit more caution once they discover that one of the known associates of that clown is sporting a rectangular shaped protusion under his skin. Maybe I'm expecting too much?

I suppose we'd have to ask Gail Simone to be sure, but I don't think Rachel Dawes qualifies as a "Women in Refrigerators" moment, which has more to do with women who have no place in a story other than being in danger, or powerful women who are rapidly depowered, both usually for the purpose of advancing a male character's plot. In this case, both Dawes and Dent were in danger, and it was strongly hinted at, just before the end, that Dent could be the one to catch the bad end. Rachel Dawes was also fairly active in this film, especially on contrast to Batman Begins, which is worth pointing out, especially since (as far as I know) she is completely non-existent in the comics.

Muz

2008-07-22, 12:26 PM

Curiously, I'm more irritated by just how many charges the Joker would have had to set in Gotham General Hospital to get it to blow up like that. Forget crazy -- the Joker would have to be wins-the-lottery-jackpot-twice-a-week lucky to be able to set that up and not have it go off early. Not that he'd care if it went off early, but that's not the point.

Exactly! Security in Gotham SUCKS. Forget having it go off early, what about just plain being noticed? Likewise with the ferries. The ones here in Washington don't even let you carry a spare jug of gasoline on board, to say nothing of the sort of amounts the Joker would've had to sneak on completely unnoticed.

And it's my understanding that they weren't blaming Dent's death on Batman, they were blaming the murders Dent committed on Batman. They could have EASILY blamed that on the Joker. (You mean to tell me a populace terrorized by a homocidal lunatic wouldn't so easily accept that the Joker killed those people, too? Obviously there were no witnesses, or they couldn't so easily falsely accuse Batman, so why not just pin it on the Joker?) I know the filmmakers wanted to keep Batman a vigilante on the run, but they should have found a way to do it that didn't include giving Batman and Gordon the Idiot Ball.

Another one (and I may have misunderstood, so let me know if I'm remembering wrong), but the whole bit with faking Gordon's death and having Dent claim to be Batman was so that the Joker would go after Dent and Batman/Gordon could surprise him, yes? So Batman was in on the whole ruse, told Dent to claim to be Batman, etc. So why--other than to pull a nice "screw you, we fooled you!" on the audience--does Wayne close up the Batcave (Bat-Big Room?), tell Alfred he's turning himself in, tell Rachel the same thing, etc?

Semidi

2008-07-22, 12:30 PM

Another one (and I may have misunderstood, so let me know if I'm remembering wrong), but the whole bit with faking Gordon's death and having Dent claim to be Batman was so that the Joker would go after Dent and Batman/Gordon could surprise him, yes? So Batman was in on the whole ruse, told Dent to claim to be Batman, etc. So why--other than to pull a nice "screw you, we fooled you!" on the audience--does Wayne close up the Batcave (Bat-Big Room?), tell Alfred he's turning himself in, tell Rachel the same thing, etc?

That's because neither Batman nor Dent knew that Gordon was alive. Gordon was playing things close to the chest to protect his own family.

Cristo Meyers

2008-07-22, 12:36 PM

That's because neither Batman nor Dent knew that Gordon was alive. Gordon was playing things close to the chest to protect his own family.

And Dent was acting on his own when he claimed to be Batman. Wayne was fully prepared to turn himself in and even steps forward at the press conference when Dent says to "arrest Batman." He didn't know that Dent was going to do that.

Querzis

2008-07-22, 01:02 PM

And it's my understanding that they weren't blaming Dent's death on Batman, they were blaming the murders Dent committed on Batman. They could have EASILY blamed that on the Joker. (You mean to tell me a populace terrorized by a homocidal lunatic wouldn't so easily accept that the Joker killed those people, too? Obviously there were no witnesses, or they couldn't so easily falsely accuse Batman, so why not just pin it on the Joker?) I know the filmmakers wanted to keep Batman a vigilante on the run, but they should have found a way to do it that didn't include giving Batman and Gordon the Idiot Ball.

Well your understanding is pretty damn wrong and it doesnt seems like you even read the entire thread first because JonathanC already answered that. The building was surrounded by cops, how the hell would you expect them to blame the hostage situation or Dent death otherwise? It was either Dent or it was Batman since they were the only two who were at the scene with Gordon family! Beside, its really easy to prove that the gun Dent had was also the one who killed everyone else so, once again, either the gun was Dent gun or it was Batman gun because they were the only one there!

There was no way out, either Dent was the hero who tried to get the gun from Batman and died when he fell with him or it was the other way around. Seriously, not only did you guys werent paying attention to the movie, you arent even paying attention to the other post in this thread.

The only complain that made sense was the one by Shattered Tower but I gotta ask, why do you assume the explosive where there for a long time? The hospital was empty and the Jokers mans already managed to take control of an autobus full of hostages, I kinda assume they placed the explosive just before blowing everything up, when the hospital was empty. Especially since the Joker never did anything for no reason until now, he said a hospital was going to blow up because otherwise it would have been impossible to blow up the hospital! It really fit the Joker.

Thormag

2008-07-22, 01:14 PM

Why replace Katie Holmes with Maggie Gyllenhaal? Gyllenhaal is a superior actor, and much more attractive IMO. But one of the people I saw the movie, not knowing she had been replaced and not remembering the details of Batman Begins, was confused as to who she was and what her relationship with Bruce was about until halfway through the movie.

Katie Holmes couldn't reprise her role as Rachel, so the director was forced to cast Maggie to replace Holmes. It wasn't because Gyllenhaal is a superior actor (though she is).

Why did Rachel promise Bruce she'd be with him after he gave up being Batman, and then turn around 5 minute later and write a note saying she was going to be with Harvey?

Because Rachel promised Bruce in the first movie that she was going to be with him if he gave up being Batman. Since Bruce will always need Batman for himself, she would've waited him forever. Plus, she loved Harvey.

Why doesn't Batman just use a voice modulator? The strep throat thing was just annoying - Christian Bale just couldn't pull it off.

I liked his voice. But it's a matter of personal preference I guess.

The mob/Hong Kong/banking sub-plot was just pointless, and the characters were largely unnecessary. Why include them in such a long movie?

The chinese mob guy was needed because he was the one with all the mob's money. If Harvey wanted to prosecute them, he would've needed the evidence (read: money) to back up his claims. I think...

How did Bruce know that hitting Reese's car (the auditor guy who was going to expose his identity) would somehow prevent him from being killed?

He didn't hit the car. He let himself being hitted to avoid a car crash that would've probably killed Reese. Watch the movie carefully again.

How did the Joker, dressed as a retro nurse (which made him MORE conspicuous), get into the hospital and past a cop without anybody calling 911? I know that there was an evacuation going on, but seriously, there's no way he could have just snuck in past that many people.

Chaos my friend, that's how he got in.

Why didn't the cops bother to move Harvey out of the hospital while it was being evacuated?

There was a cop going into Harvey's room (and probably another went in, also), but the Joker kill him/them.

Why did the Joker give the switch up the locations of Rachel and Harvey? I assume it was to force Batman to make a choice and then to take that choice away from him. But then why didn't the Joker rub it into Batman's face that he had outsmarted him?

It's the Joker, making the Bat miserable is his fun.

Why did the Joker give two different explanations as to how he got his scars? If they wanted it to be a running plot point where the utterly crazy Joker makes up a new explanation ever time he's about to torture someone, they should have done it at least 3 times, and they should have put the successful times before the unsuccessful time when Batman stopped him. Putting two in just made it confusing.

He was going to give a third explanation... but Batman shut him up. Plus, I don't think it was confusing the different explanations, considering the guy's pretty messed up.

Why didn't the people on the quite-possibly-soon-to-be-exploded ferries just swim away?

The Joker clearly said that if anyone got out of the boat, he would blow both of the ferries up.

At the end of the movie, why not blame the Joker and/or his minions for all of Two Face's murders? It would have been easy to blame the Joker, and he was already a known mass murderer. There was no reason for Batman to throw himself in front of a bus to protect the memory of a dead man.

I don't know how to answer this one. But I'm sure there's an explanation and not a plot hole somewhere there...

My answers in the spoiler box.

EDIT: Damn Ninjas!

Muz

2008-07-22, 02:51 PM

Well your understanding is pretty damn wrong and it doesnt seems like you even read the entire thread first because JonathanC already answered that. The building was surrounded by cops, how the hell would you expect them to blame the hostage situation or Dent death otherwise? It was either Dent or it was Batman since they were the only two who were at the scene with Gordon family! Beside, its really easy to prove that the gun Dent had was also the one who killed everyone else so, once again, either the gun was Dent gun or it was Batman gun because they were the only one there!

There was no way out, either Dent was the hero who tried to get the gun from Batman and died when he fell with him or it was the other way around. Seriously, not only did you guys werent paying attention to the movie, you arent even paying attention to the other post in this thread.

First of all, I DID read the thread, and I'll thank you not to curse at me. My original question/plot hole even addressed JonathanC's answer in saying that it wasn't Dent's death but the people Dent killed. In the movie Gordon and Batman were talking about the "five people that Dent killed" and NOT the hostage situation.

However, even though the building where the hostage situation was taking place was surrounded by cops, obviously none of those cops SAW Dent there or they'd have cried foul when it was blamed on Batman. Ergo, none of the cops saw anything, and Batman and Gordon could make up whatever story they wanted. Dent was already presumed dead in the hospital explosion. Batman takes the gun and Dent's body away, blame it on some nameless mob guy or Joker flunky who got away, and there's no more problem. Obviously the cops weren't rushing to Dent's body if Batman and Gordon could sit around and have their little discussion.

If the filmmakers had framed the problem better, then yeah, I could see it, but the fact is they didn't, and Batman/Gordon's solution to the problem came out looking contrived due to there being much easier ways to solve the problem that didn't involve ruining Batman's rep.

The only complain that made sense was the one by Shattered Tower but I gotta ask, why do you assume the explosive where there for a long time? The hospital was empty and the Jokers mans already managed to take control of an autobus full of hostages, I kinda assume they placed the explosive just before blowing everything up, when the hospital was empty. Especially since the Joker never did anything for no reason until now, he said a hospital was going to blow up because otherwise it would have been impossible to blow up the hospital! It really fit the Joker.

I assume it was there for a long time because the building is BIG, and I really didn't figure there was time for the Joker to get in, kill the cop, get Dent out, then go in and set the 20 or 30 charges (explosive barrels?) that it took to blow up the place.

Edit: I suppose it's possible that he had some smaller, more powerful explosive charges that he could've carried in one giant bag or something and not been seen amid the chaos. Then again, he does kinda stick out. (It was a cool scene, just something I had a "Hey, wait a minute..." moment shortly thereafter.) :smallsmile:

turkishproverb

2008-07-22, 09:03 PM

I saw the Dark Knight Friday Morning at 12:01 am. Great flick. Will probably go see it again. Will definitely buy the dvd.

Good. Agreed.

Having said that, there was a huge amount of fridge logic (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/FridgeLogic) that has been bugging the heck out of me.

So here's a thread to discuss every flaw, plot hole, and thing that you dislike about Dark Knight. Hopefully talking about them will exorcise my doubts.

THIS THREAD WILL NO DOUBT BE FILLED WITH MANY SPOILERS. DO NOT READ IT IF YOU HAVEN'T SEEN THE MOVIE. ON BALANCE, IT'S A GREAT MOVIE THAT YOU SHOULD SEE, UNRUINED BY MY EX POST FACTO NITPICKING.

Well, let's see how much of this stuff is just you missing things or not understanding, how much is possible plotholes, and how much is real plotholes.

Why replace Katie Holmes with Maggie Gyllenhaal? Gyllenhaal is a superior actor, and much more attractive IMO. But one of the people I saw the movie, not knowing she had been replaced and not remembering the details of Batman Begins, was confused as to who she was and what her relationship with Bruce was about until halfway through the movie.

Point 1: not a plothole

Point 2: Katie wouldn't agree to come back. I didn't get confused though. Gyllenhaal worked well and didn't skip a beat.

Why did Rachel promise Bruce she'd be with him after he gave up being Batman, and then turn around 5 minute later and write a note saying she was going to be with Harvey?

Point 1: Not a real plothole, though perhaps one of the few thinner spots

Point 2: She did wait until after Harvey claimed to be batman. that probably made her realize her decision.

Besides that, I think we've all been in a situation where we were at list tempted to say "yea, ok" to someone we really cared about even if it wasn't "that way"

Why doesn't Batman just use a voice modulator? The strep throat thing was just annoying - Christian Bale just couldn't pull it off.

point 1: not a plothole.

Point 2: I liked his batman voice. Realistic, yet not a voice modulator.

The mob/Hong Kong/banking sub-plot was just pointless, and the characters were largely unnecessary. Why include them in such a long movie?

1: Not a plothole

2: Needed Hong Kong to make the Mob subplot work, needed Mob to make joker work ANYTHING REMOTELY LIKE HE DID.

3: Film complexity is a nolan staple.

How did Bruce know that hitting Reese's car (the auditor guy who was going to expose his identity) would somehow prevent him from being killed?

1: I'll gove you closer to a plothole on this, though easily figured out, and most likely merely was a scene where they didn't go out of there way to pander to the audience

2: Depends on what you mean? By (a) the other car, or the (b) Cop with the family member in hospital?

3: If a, he pushed the car out of the way with his smaller less damaging vehicle

4: If b, he was jostling the cop enough for gordon to get his chance.

5: If both, see 3 and 4.

How did the Joker, dressed as a retro nurse (which made him MORE conspicuous), get into the hospital and past a cop without anybody calling 911? I know that there was an evacuation going on, but seriously, there's no way he could have just snuck in past that many people.

1 Potential plothole only if you don't think about the situation.

2 People were panicking, many elderly and sick.

3 In addition, we see that he did leave with the LAST bus of people who were supposed to be evacuated, implying not too many people would have been inside when he was.

Why didn't the cops bother to move Harvey out of the hospital while it was being evacuated?

1 not a plothole.

2 :In a word? BANG! He was one of the most screwed up, would take longer to move. probably all people in his ward were those joker took captive on last bus

Why did the Joker give the switch up the locations of Rachel and Harvey? I assume it was to force Batman to make a choice and then to take that choice away from him. But then why didn't the Joker rub it into Batman's face that he had outsmarted him?

1: Far from a plothole

2: Because he found it funny? HOnestly, the joker burned cash he could've bought more bombs with, and THIS concerns you? TO say nothing of the fact we see him giving a "outsmarted you speech" only when he had good reason, while he has nothing else to do and it hanging upside down (nothing else to do, opportunity to see the problem), and while he was using up time for his bombs talking to batman. Basically, only when he had good reason.

Why did the Joker give two different explanations as to how he got his scars? If they wanted it to be a running plot point where the utterly crazy Joker makes up a new explanation ever time he's about to torture someone, they should have done it at least 3 times, and they should have put the successful times before the unsuccessful time when Batman stopped him. Putting two in just made it confusing.

1: Not a plothole. not even plot confusion.

2: He started a third, Batman just spiked his face for it.

3: 2 and a half was fine. with 3 it would've felt forced, most likely. (though we'll never know on THIS version of batman)

Why didn't the people on the quite-possibly-soon-to-be-exploded ferries just swim away?

1. NOt a plothole. Ignoring joker's lines.

2: HE SAID HE"D BLOW THEM UP!

At the end of the movie, why not blame the Joker and/or his minions for all of Two Face's murders? It would have been easy to blame the Joker, and he was already a known mass murderer. There was no reason for Batman to throw himself in front of a bus to protect the memory of a dead man.[/spoiler]

1: Closest to a plothole of all.

2: Joker was clearly in another area for some of the two-face murders.

3: several people had survived encounters with him, including the flippign coin, such as Rimerez, and so using joker, a man whom would be denying his guilt of ONLY those crimes (because it would create chaos) would break believability (adding the voice of the accused to the voice of dissenter. Batman just remains silent).

4: They needed an explanation for Dent's death.

5: Building surrounded by police. how do they claim a killer escaped.

6: Bruce needed people to stop idolizing batman in the way the imitators did. He had become a bit of the wrong kind of symbol.

Pokemaster

2008-07-22, 09:33 PM

I just assumed that the Joker drove around Gotham at 3AM and stuffed random buildings full of explosives just in case he ever felt like blowing something up.

turkishproverb

2008-07-22, 09:37 PM

I just assumed that the Joker drove around Gotham at 3AM and stuffed random buildings full of explosives just in case he ever felt like blowing something up.

Doesn't everybody?

BRC

2008-07-22, 09:44 PM

Doesn't everybody?
Not at 3:AM...

Anyway, I know how he got inside Gotham General, but it's apparent that he got the bombs inside by shoving them through a plot hole.

Somthing I noticed
. In the warehouse after capturing the chinese guy on top of the giant pile O' Cash, when talking to the greek mobster ( I think he was greek) The Joker says "I'm a simple man. I like simple things, Gunpowder, Gasolene. And do you know what these things have in common, they don't cost very much." Come on, I know the Joker is supposed to be crazy, but he MUST have walked past a gas station at some point.

turkishproverb

2008-07-22, 10:06 PM

Not at 3:AM...

*checks watch*

I guess your right.

Anyway, I know how he got inside Gotham General, but it's apparent that he got the bombs inside by shoving them through a plot hole.

That's an easy one. I told you how he got inside, and part of the joke was he didn't plant the bombs until after the evacuation when he snuck in as a nurse. All the better to make sure they can't stop it.

Somthing I noticed
. In the warehouse after capturing the chinese guy on top of the giant pile O' Cash, when talking to the greek mobster ( I think he was greek) The Joker says "I'm a simple man. I like simple things, Gunpowder, Gasolene. And do you know what these things have in common, they don't cost very much." Come on, I know the Joker is supposed to be crazy, but he MUST have walked past a gas station at some point.

Good joke. on the serious side though:
oh, yea, he's really going to have a problem driving away from a pump.

to say nothing of the fact that

he was talking to mobsters who had 2000 dollar suits

Gavin Sage

2008-07-22, 10:22 PM

I'd like to reiterate what other have said about the scars, reflects the Joker's lack of origin in the comics. He has had multiple origins and each is ambigous since as Joker says he likes "multiple choice" on the matter. The different tellings are one of the best parts of the movie.

As for stuff like the Nurse outfit and bombs all over the place... well the Joker has something of a talent for pulling off ridiculous schemes. In his last appearence in the well regarded DCAU cartoons he booby traps Las Vegas.

The rest is fairly minor except for Batman taking the fall, but I'd like to add its not like Batman to blame even someone like the Joker for something he didn't do. Taking the blame personally is much more in line with Batman to save Harvey's reputation, and echoes Alfred's speech about how the Batman can be the outcast and outlaw.

Dave Rapp

2008-07-22, 10:46 PM

Maybe I'm stupid, maybe it had been too long since I saw Batman Begins, but I didn't even notice that Rachel had a different actress.

For the sake of those who didn't catch on to the multiple origins thing, they could have put in a third explaination for the Joker's scars before the one Batman interrupts. They could have worked it in to the scene where he's alone in the room with the cop, or when he's in the cell after being arrested, or maybe just before Batman shoots spikes into his face.

Answer (assuming I was told correctly):

This was actually at Cillian Murphy's request. He wanted to forgo an appearance in this film (since he'd just be overshadowed by Ledger) so they could give him a major appearance in another.

I like that. I can picture Scarecrow and Joker in Arkham together, developing (or maybe just weaponizing) Joker Venom for a future movie...

Heath Ledger. Why he had to die. Damn, now there's absolutely no chance that this joker will be in any of the sequel

....and if they wait at least one movie before making another one with the Joker (that'll be something like six years, ish.) they can get away with having a different actor as the Joker. Keep in mind that no matter how bad or good an actor you are, everything you say and do was made by the writers, and your apperance was made by the makeup department. No disrecpect to Ledger's acting skills, but to say that nobody else could ever play the Joker like he did is crazy. It could be done, easily, probably.

I just assumed that the Joker drove around Gotham at 3AM and stuffed random buildings full of explosives just in case he ever felt like blowing something up.

CLASSIC Joker.

I can literally picture him saying, "Sometimes when I'm bored at 3AM, I drive around town planting explosives just in case I feel like blowing something up later!"

turkishproverb

2008-07-22, 11:04 PM

I can literally picture him saying, "Sometimes when I'm bored at 3AM, I drive around town planting explosives just in case I feel like blowing something up later!"

Doesn't everyone?

BRC

2008-07-22, 11:06 PM

Doesn't everyone?
Not at 3:AM...

And my point about the gas was that he mentioned it was cheap. I don't think he actually PAYS for anything, but he would know it wasn't cheap.

kpenguin

2008-07-22, 11:19 PM

Not at 3:AM...

And my point about the gas was that he mentioned it was cheap. I don't think he actually PAYS for anything, but he would know it wasn't cheap.

Compared to bombs and guns and such? Yeah, it is.

BRC

2008-07-22, 11:22 PM

Compared to bombs and guns and such? Yeah, it is.
Maybe, Maybe. Heck, Maybe the fuel crisis is because the joker has been stealing a gajillion barrels of oil and putting them in ferrys and old buildings with bombs at 2:30 in the morning.

Swordguy

2008-07-23, 01:43 AM

That's how Joker keeps himself funded. He bought a WHOLE LOT of oil when he was Iran's ambassador back in Death in the Family and he's been working off the speculation of his personal oil reserves ever since.

Hence, "oil's cheap..."

Aquillion

2008-07-23, 03:40 AM

There was no way out, either Dent was the hero who tried to get the gun from Batman and died when he fell with him or it was the other way around. Seriously, not only did you guys werent paying attention to the movie, you arent even paying attention to the other post in this thread.Why not blame the little boy? He's young enough to get off with a few years in juvie.

It'd build character.

(Alternately: Blame Superman. Since he can fly, he could easily be anywhere whenever he wants. And since he's Superman, it's not like they're going to try and arrest him. Yes, I know, it doesn't make any sense for Superman to use a gun, but so what?)

tetsubo

2008-07-23, 07:50 AM

One of the major resons that batman took the fall was so people would be afraid of him again. THe whole movie was about what makes you a good guy and how far you can go before you become a bad guy. Joker was trying to basically take down Gotham's only 3 good guys. He got one. Batman was becomeing idolized in the public and no longer something to be feared. It was also well know that Batman had a code and would not kill. Making him no longer freard by the baddies. By taking the fall He gets those things back. He still has his code but the air of doubt is back in the people. Which is what he needs to be effective in what he does.

Shatteredtower

2008-07-23, 01:03 PM

The only complain that made sense was the one by Shattered Tower but I gotta ask, why do you assume the explosive where there for a long time?The hospital's destruction wasn't the work of a single explosive device. It was the work of a large number of charges, as can be seen by the number of blasts that occured -- not exactly the sort of arrangement a madman could have set up unnoticed in a couple of hours of evacuation, especially not with how thoroughly the structure collapsed.

Muz makes a better point about the ferries, though. The security involved in transporting such a large number of prisoners is not going to overlook such an obvious display of explosives just because it's below decks. It's not a matter of killing some guy assigned to check below decks, either -- even assuming only one person was assigned to the task and was killed, the vessel wouldn't be going anywhere if that person didn't report back and there would be another search of that area.

Sure, it's a standard Joker stunt, and I thought it set up a very powerful scene. It's still a hole in the plot. :smallwink:

turkishproverb

2008-07-23, 01:16 PM

The hospital's destruction wasn't the work of a single explosive device. It was the work of a large number of charges, as can be seen by the number of blasts that occured -- not exactly the sort of arrangement a madman could have set up unnoticed in a couple of hours of evacuation, especially not with how thoroughly the structure collapsed.

Muz makes a better point about the ferries, though. The security involved in transporting such a large number of prisoners is not going to overlook such an obvious display of explosives just because it's below decks. It's not a matter of killing some guy assigned to check below decks, either -- even assuming only one person was assigned to the task and was killed, the vessel wouldn't be going anywhere if that person didn't report back and there would be another search of that area.

Sure, it's a standard Joker stunt, and I thought it set up a very powerful scene. It's still a hole in the plot. :smallwink:

He set them after going in. part of the joke. I explained this already.

Aquillion

2008-07-23, 07:13 PM

itsmyisliand

2008-07-23, 10:36 PM

a quick idea on the movie

ok the actress who played bruce's squeeze wasnt that good
she didnt suit the part but that was a side story in its own

the joker was trying to portray in this movie that everyone can change granted they are given a good scare

and rescuing the girl wouldve been bad because than the joker wouldve found out that batman liked her
and used her for bait

also think about this one really hard

what if bruce wayne had read that letter?
what couldve happened?

the major symbolism in the movie is the 2 boats
one has convicts who committed horrible crimes
the other has innocent men, women, and children
and when the convict threw the remote out the window
it showed that even some un-civil people can be civil.

and ps i dont think that the joker was 100% on the switches because remember when he said that he "just does"
and about the bomb in the hospital?
he had people in high places
eventually the dc of gotham
so those bombs couldve been planted by:
nurses
doctors
residents
anyone

and batman took the blame at the end because as we like to say
an eye for an eye
two-face took the blame for being batman
so bruce took the blame for the murders

and the joker wasnt committed of any crimes remember
primarily because he wasnt the one who "committed" those crimes his goons were

over all i dont think that in a million years anyone could do a better job than heith ledger
he was probably the best actor this year so far
actually im gonna say deffinately the best
:)

StGlebidiah

2008-07-23, 10:54 PM

I agree that a third story to bring home the multiple-choice nature of his background would have been nice, but I liked that they at least made sure that you, the audience, don't know what really happened to make him this way. Think about Hannibal Lecter. He was much scarier before he was explained, in my opinion. I think it works for the Joker too.

I completely agree with the first two replies to this thread. I just wanted to single this one out because it's the oddest coincidence - I recently reviewed (for my own enjoyment) Red Dragon, Silence of the Lambs, and Hannibal and came to the exact same conclusion about the good Doctor. Hell, I don't even WANT to read Hannibal Rising.

Also, I am personally happy that they switched the actress for Rachel - the last movie starred Katie Holmes' nipples so prominently I almost expected them to be credited with the role.

Pronounceable

2008-07-25, 08:03 AM

I didn't realize Rachel was a different actress either. Then again, I paid her no attention in the first movie.

What I'm more interested in is; how did Joker get the judge and dc? Could've rigged judge's car beforehand, but what about the envelope? Or was it the turncoat cop who gave her the envelope? And doesn't anyone watch over dc's office? And merely swapping a bottle of acid seems too half hearted an attempt on Joker's part: it could've been discovered or Gordon could've stopped him two seconds before and dc'd live. It worked, but seems far less guaranteed than his other plans.

And by FAR the largest, biggest gaping plot hole was that no one stepped up and blasted the other ferry. There were an awful lot of people, and only one made any attempt at all. It'd only take ONE person with an overpowering survival instinct to press the button. Hell, there were people with their KIDS, surely someone would think it acceptable to blow up a ferryful of criminals to save their children.

Mind you even if one did, I'm sure Joker lied about the remotes as he did with Dent and Rachel...

redcodekevin

2008-07-25, 10:54 AM

<snipp'd>
Mind you even if one did, I'm sure Joker lied about the remotes as he did with Dent and Rachel...

Me and my friends were pretty sure of this, though it seems a bit obvious precisely after what he did about Rachel and Dent. Even more, I think both detonators blew up both boats.

I must say I liked the Joker a HUGE lot. Though, I really don't picture him not planning at all... I mean, everything was perfect from the very first scene (gape among schoolbuses, there I go).

Mewtarthio

2008-07-25, 11:13 AM

What I'm more interested in is; how did Joker get the judge and dc? Could've rigged judge's car beforehand, but what about the envelope? Or was it the turncoat cop who gave her the envelope? And doesn't anyone watch over dc's office? And merely swapping a bottle of acid seems too half hearted an attempt on Joker's part: it could've been discovered or Gordon could've stopped him two seconds before and dc'd live. It worked, but seems far less guaranteed than his other plans.

You have a point there. But still: Melting his throat out with acid!

And by FAR the largest, biggest gaping plot hole was that no one stepped up and blasted the other ferry. There were an awful lot of people, and only one made any attempt at all. It'd only take ONE person with an overpowering survival instinct to press the button. Hell, there were people with their KIDS, surely someone would think it acceptable to blow up a ferryful of criminals to save their children.

The point of that scene was that nobody was willing to kill the other boat to save themselves, thus proving Joker wrong about human nature. Now, you can argue all you want about whether or not the writers are being too idealistic, but it's not really a plot hole if it's actually a major theme of the movie (in essence, you have to assume it's true that neither ferry would blow up the other to get anything at all out of the movie).

Me and my friends were pretty sure of this, though it seems a bit obvious precisely after what he did about Rachel and Dent. Even more, I think both detonators blew up both boats.

I don't think so. If the Joker did that, everyone would just assume he'd gotten jumpy and blown them both himself. I do think he'd rig the ferries to blow themselves, though, if only so that the innocent ferry would be the one to take the fall. Heck, he might even rig the ferries to blow themselves, then broadcast a message about how the survivors are murderers who don't deserve to live before blowing them himself, just to make sure there are no witnesses.

redcodekevin

2008-07-25, 01:24 PM

<snipp'd>

I don't think so. If the Joker did that, everyone would just assume he'd gotten jumpy and blown them both himself. I do think he'd rig the ferries to blow themselves, though, if only so that the innocent ferry would be the one to take the fall. Heck, he might even rig the ferries to blow themselves, then broadcast a message about how the survivors are murderers who don't deserve to live before blowing them himself, just to make sure there are no witnesses.

But that was not the point, was it? It was a social experiment, after all, in Joker's own words. Everything in the movie was one for him. He wanted the people to be so desperate as to fall down the bottom and pull the trigger themselves, not do it himself. Actually, after no one does, it's the only moment in which we detect frustration in Joker's face, as the people did not act as he expected to for the first time in the movie.

turkishproverb

2008-07-26, 02:25 AM

But that was not the point, was it? It was a social experiment, after all, in Joker's own words. Everything in the movie was one for him. He wanted the people to be so desperate as to fall down the bottom and pull the trigger themselves, not do it himself. Actually, after no one does, it's the only moment in which we detect frustration in Joker's face, as the people did not act as he expected to for the first time in the movie.

Bingo. And really, if this is what's getting called a plothole in this movie, that's kind've weak.

Arameus

2008-07-26, 05:37 PM

A lot of these aren't plot holes, but can still be considered less-than stellar moments. And I don't really fault the movie or its makers for these moments; they fit the films' idiom, they please the fans, and they are entertaining. They weren't making M*A*S*H here; as Ebert and Roeper said: it's pulp, but it's some of the best pulp evarz. I paraphrased that a bit.

The only two things that really jumped right out at me were the thing with the exploding prisoner and a point about Batman's weapons.

The exploding prisoner thing was already mentioned, but it was the only point in the movie where I really thought, "Are the police just complete retards? No wonder this place needs superheroes!" Oh well; it fits the setting, I forgive it.

The only thing that struck me as an actual plothole, however, was when Joker gets shot with Batman's bracer spikes. Think back to when Q Branch Lucius is showing James Bruce the new suit and he fires them by accident. Don't they stick into a solid-steel I-beam? From what range, exactly? A few feet? Maybe they just stuck into solid concrete, but that still makes them on par with bullets, or perhaps even more powerful than a standard bullet. And then at the end of the movie, Batman shoots them directly into the Joker's chest from point blank range, which would jam an entire rack of them into and through every single one of his major organs. No amount of armor will stop that. And he reacts as though he got hit in the nuts 'kinda hard.' Oh well, I guess that in a movie packed with shooting, burning, exploding, stabbing, slicing, dropping, and poisoning people to death, stabbing out eyes with pencils, sewing bombs into people, assassinations by rifle and rocket, forced fights to the death with your friends for minion candidacy, exposed facial myoskeletal systems, kidnappings, semicomical serial murder, the glorification of vigilantism, the threatened murder of a man's children in front of him, and Deebo, I guess the one thing that would bump you from PG-13 to R is having your hero kill your villain. Oh yeah, I know the whole 'Batman no-kill' thing, but it's still retarded.

SmartAlec

2008-07-26, 06:24 PM

Did they actually hit? I had the impression the Joker avoided them, but that the distraction of several sharp bits of metal whizzing near his face was enough of a distraction for Batman to free himself.

Aside from that, I guess there's every reason in the world for the Joker to be wearing a kevlar vest under that suit, especially if he knew he was going to go one-on-one with the Batman.

Arameus

2008-07-26, 06:47 PM

I really wondered myself what exactly happened there. One of few things I didn't like about the movie was its cinematography, which makes Cloverfield look like The Sound of Music with how jumpy and unfocused all the action is, so that I generally had no clue who was doing what at any given moment in fight scenes. Given that the whole movie has as much light as a Silent Hill game, and that I had to sit in the second row back in the crowded theater, I usually had a vague feeling of dizziness trying to follow it. My guess is that it would improve somewhat if I had had a better seat, but I recognize bad cinematography when I see it.

Can someone confirm exactly where the spikes struck, if at all? I was under the impression that they struck him squarely in the chest and abdomen due to how Batman was pinned and where the Joker was above him; he would have had few options considering how he has to hold his arm to fire those things, and shooting at his head seemed impossible if he wasn't also going to strike the throat and chest, just due to where he could physically aim and how long the rack of spikes is. But as I said, I was having trouble following it, and I know at least one of you must know, so can someone please verify?

If they actually struck the Joker, however, they should have killed him. There is no way that a bulletproof vest would have stopped the spikes from killing him almost instantly; the power that they show off the bracers as having is simply far, far too great. With power like that, it's more likely that kevlar would merely force the shrapnel to stay in the Joker's heart, lungs, pancreas, &c rather than just going all the way out of his back like they would have otherwise. And that's with the assumption that the Joker was even wearing any protection, which seems unlikely to me. He's a bit nutty like that, and I don't think he really anticipated needing any. But that's a moot point since armor would have done jack squat unless he was wearing an inch-thick steel plate under that purple suit, which seems even less likely, although perhaps more appropriate; he's a bit nutty like that.

So, I guess the question is, did the spikes strike him?

If no, it's a misunderstanding on my part, albeit one caused by the Batman movies' real archenemy: the camera.

If yes, it's a plot hole, and one with pretty transparent motivations.

Callos_DeTerran

2008-07-26, 06:57 PM

If they did strike him, and I'm pretty sure they didn't, then they only would have hit him in the shoulder and arm not in the torso for a killing shot. Even then with the way the Joker moved and came back down so quick I'm pretty sure they missed.

Also it could have been they were that sharp not thrown that hard that could account for the sticking in whateveritwasitstuckintcauseIdon'thingitwasmetalan difitwasthentheydidn'tgoveryfarintothemetalatallin thefirstplace,just enoughtohangthere.

turkishproverb

2008-07-26, 07:13 PM

to say nothing of the fact that that is an assumption about the blades sticking due to force and not material, as well as the fact it was possible he had the force they shot out at changed somewhat.

Rare Pink Leech

2008-07-26, 07:26 PM

Most of the original points have been covered very well, but there's a couple of things I'd like to talk about:

What happened to the spikes, and whether or not they hit the Joker, is something that's confused me as well. During the movie I tried to see some wounds, but as far as I can tell there weren't any. Despite the fact that it appears they had to hit them, it would seem that they missed.

Oh, and about the question about how the Joker got all those explosives into the hospital/ferries: while I like the explanations that he planted the explosives in the hospital after the evacuation and that it would be easy to overlook the oil drums in the ferry, don't forget that Gotham is still a corrupt town. It would have been easy to pay someone to plant them/look the other way/kill anyone who found out, etc.

turkishproverb

2008-07-26, 09:29 PM

Most of the original points have been covered very well, but there's a couple of things I'd like to talk about:

What happened to the spikes, and whether or not they hit the Joker, is something that's confused me as well. During the movie I tried to see some wounds, but as far as I can tell there weren't any. Despite the fact that it appears they had to hit them, it would seem that they missed.

This is the ONLY Plothole i could find with the movie and givent he lighting I wasn't even sure about it.

Oh, and about the question about how the Joker got all those explosives into the hospital/ferries: while I like the explanations that he planted the explosives in the hospital after the evacuation and that it would be easy to overlook the oil drums in the ferry, don't forget that Gotham is still a corrupt town. It would have been easy to pay someone to plant them/look the other way/kill anyone who found out, etc.

Exactly, although I still maintain the explosives after the evacuation option.

Innis Cabal

2008-07-26, 09:34 PM

Bronathair

2008-07-26, 09:40 PM

I saw the movie... and I just can't fathom how they could possibly make a third movie. Dark Knight was a movie that's untrumpable.

Semidi

2008-07-26, 09:41 PM

i wouldnt call this a plot hole, but a good deal of inconsitance.

The Joker admitted he didnt plan, yet...the whole attack on the armored cars(for starts) the attack on the helecopter(the most extreme case of over planning even if it worked) and basicaly that whole scene.

I wouldn't call the that inconsistent; the Joker is prone to contradicting himself. The Joker is consistently inconsistent... Or something.

Bronathair

2008-07-26, 09:43 PM

i wouldnt call this a plot hole, but a good deal of inconsitance.

The Joker admitted he didnt plan, yet...the whole attack on the armored cars(for starts) the attack on the helecopter(the most extreme case of over planning even if it worked) and basicaly that whole scene.

the joker was just saying that to make Harvey Dent overly paranoid and turn on the cops and ultimately become evil... as explained in the end. The Joker wanted an icon of good to go bad to "win"

Raiser Blade

2008-07-26, 09:58 PM

Oh and @OP

Batman does use a voice modulator. At least the director has been quoted as saying so.

redcodekevin

2008-07-27, 12:19 AM

What happened to the spikes,

The Batman is pretty sure they will hit ("I know how you got these!"), I don't think he would miss. However, if they were really lethal, I don't think he was planning them to strike. Maybe the theory about him not really needing them to strike, only to distract big J is the correct one.

Oh, and just to clarify, when the spikes are accidentally fired they are thrown into a file cabinet. You can bend those with a good kick.

IF they hit, I'm not sure the Joker's physical response to pain is all good. I mean, his fingers in the interrogation, dammit.

All in all: if they did hit, they were not much good. If they did not, they worked just fine.

Oh, and about the question about how the Joker got all those explosives into the hospital/ferries:

Many of Joker's goons were infiltrated even inside the Police itself. Should be easy to pass by. At least for the boats; in regards of the hospital I vote for him setting the bombs after it was empty.

Roupe

2008-07-27, 08:30 AM

a warning of SPOILER, but it seems people reading this would already have been spoiled.

I must say i was somewhat impressed by this movie, it didn't do the overused cliche "evil must pay", & villain dies ( for example the Disney "they falls to their death ending").

Regarding the Joker, The joker didn't kill that many "civilians" and didn't even kill when had both chances and "quota" to fill up. After all he had threatened to kill people until batman revealed himself. Joker always did things with a reason, in contrast of his claims of not being a planner. The Joker was portraid with a code of conduct, and would not attack just for kicks (unlike other jokers in earlier films). When he made his argument of the need for chaos, I got the feeling he did all of this for a sense of greater good.

Following this line of thought, I would say that The joker felt that the evolution of Gotham, was forming heading toward something monstrous, and that he felt he needed to steer Gotham away from that monstrosity.

The joker was thus a "chaos" batman or chaos knight, where as Batman was a Order Knight. The criminal world had been hunted into a corner and the joker became the result, just like batman once was when law (order) suffered the same press.

and now for the plot holes

-wasnt there still a hostage situation with the (trust fund brigade)-when batman decided to jump after his girl?
Giving the result of : Batman rescuing one girl but sacrifices (by not protecting them) party guests (100+) of high society & Alfred.

Nothing at that point was to stop the Joker from killing all of Bruce Waynes party guests, when Batman jumped out and Joker was left alone with them.

If the Joker would have killed the guests- That would have portraid the joker as more evil & monstrous and Batman as not so bright. But I think that act of killings would have gone against the Jokers character & motivation.

Grynning

2008-07-27, 09:25 AM

Aquillion

2008-07-27, 09:44 AM

sikyon

2008-07-27, 09:49 AM

I've been posting this on the other Dark Knight thread, but maybe this one is more appropriate:

At the end, Gordon says Two-face killed 5 people. In the movie we only see him kill 2, possibly 3 (depending on whether Maroni survived the crash). Does anyone know why they let this blatant discrepancy slip through? Deleted scenes or something?

Also, I think Batman taking the fall for the murders at the end is completely contrived, but I'll let it go because that speech at the end was awesome.

Why do you say it was contrived?

you can say

1) Dent, the shining knight of gotham has gone insane and even the best of us can fall. Mass media panic, people go nuts, the city falls.

2) Batman did it. Some crazed vigilante started killing people, oh look, crooks who know he doesn't kill now think he does. He's now even MORE threatening. and it's not like police can even catch him.

3) What, the joker did it? That's a horrible thing to do, basically framing someone. Yes, he's a criminal, but his crimes are specific. The murder of 200 and 201 people may not seem like a difference to you, but it's still not right. Why not just kill the joker then?

Tallis

2008-07-27, 12:04 PM

ok the actress who played bruce's squeeze wasnt that good
she didnt suit the part but that was a side story in its own

Personally I think Maggie Gyllenhell is a much better actress than Katie Holmes, but I guess everyone has a right to their own opinion. (As long as they, you know, agree with me:smallwink:)

and rescuing the girl wouldve been bad because than the joker wouldve found out that batman liked her and used her for bait

The Joker already knew that Batman liked her. He asks Batman if Dent knows about him and Rachel at one point. Also Batman was trying to rescue her, Joker lied about their locations.

and ps i dont think that the joker was 100% on the switches because remember when he said that he "just does"

Several people have brought this up. Think about it for a second. The Joker was constantly lying and using misdirection. Almost every major statement he made in the movie was a lie. He planned everything. I would go so far as to say that the ferries not blowing each other up was the first time in the whole movie that things were not following his plan. He was orchestrating events right from that first bank robbery.

and about the bomb in the hospital?
he had people in high places
eventually the dc of gotham
so those bombs couldve been planted by:
nurses
doctors
residents
anyone

Here I agree with you.
Just one question: I realize when you say dc you're talking about the police commisioner, but what does the d stand for? I really hope I don't feel stupid when I get the answer o this :smallredface:.

and batman took the blame at the end because as we like to say
an eye for an eye
two-face took the blame for being batman
so bruce took the blame for the murders

That's an interesting theory. It might even be part of the reason, but the main reason was to preserve Dent's good name as a symbol to the people. Batman took the blame because he was the only other plausible suspect at that point. I also agree with what others have said. Batman might be willing to take the blame for something he didn't do, but he would never frame someone else for it. Not even someone as bad as the Joker.

and the joker wasnt committed of any crimes remember
primarily because he wasnt the one who "committed" those crimes his goons were

I think we can assume that he was convicted of many crimes after the events of the movie. Though he obviously would be declared insane and sent to Arkham rather than jail. He did personally murder several people, blow up the police station, hold hostages, attack a police convoy, etc...
Also, planning crimes for other people to commit is conspiracy, which is also a crime. To use an extreme real world example: Osama Bin Laden did not personally attack the World Trade Center, but he sure is being held responsible for planning it. Now if we could just catch him...

over all i dont think that in a million years anyone could do a better job than heith ledger
he was probably the best actor this year so far
actually im gonna say deffinately the best
:)

Again I agree with you. But that doesn't mean that someone else couldn't do a good job. If the script calls for it I'm sure we'll see the joker again. I heard rumors that Johnny Depp had been up for the role.

To hit a few other points: (wish I knew how to add quotes from multiple post to mine:smallfrown:)

The bat-blades: it looked to me like they grazed the Joker's face. He certainly didn't react like it had been a body shot, but I suppose it could've hit him in the shoulder. Of course I did not see any blood afterword, so it could've been a miss.

The Joker was working towards the greater good: Ummmm......
That is an interesting theory. But I'm going to have to disagree with you. The Joker was pure evil. He didn't kill any civilians only because Batman stopped him. He was trying. He also called himself a dark reflection of Batman (one of the few statements he made that I think were truthful). In this case I take dark to mean evil.

The 5 deaths Batman was taking the blame for:
The dirty cop
Maroni's driver
Maroni (killed in the crash)
The cop guarding Gordon's family (we can assume Two-Face would have to have killed him/her to get to the Gordons).
Harvey Dent.
At least that's how I interpretted it. It fits Gordon's statement of 5 people including 2 cops.

Ganurath

2008-07-27, 12:48 PM

Methinks thusly:
1. Bartender
2. Fat Cop in Bar
3. Maroni
4. Maroni's Driver
5. Female Cop (Gordon would assume she died since the other four did.)

Rare Pink Leech

2008-07-27, 01:16 PM

Tallis

2008-07-27, 01:35 PM

Could the judge be considered one of the people Batman "killed"? Or was that too early in the movie? I can't remember.

The Joker took credit for that one.

@Ganurath: Bartender makes sense. I'd consider him as a replacement for Dent in my list, but I don't think Gordon would just assume that Ramirez was dead without evidence. Also there'd still have to be an explanation for Dent's death.

Fin

2008-07-27, 06:01 PM

Overall I think the movie was awesome but I do have a hang-up over the whole location switch of Harvey and Rachael.

Most people think it was to mess with batman but that can't be true for two reasons.

1) He doesn't know Batman is Wayne (so why would he think he loved racael?) However this may have been because the Joker wanted Dent to die and assumed batman would go after him, thinking to save the man that would get rid of all the crims.

2) He later explains the whole 'dent and his girlfriend thing' as 'nothing personal' as he doesn't plan things he just does them! So like I said i actually belive he switched them in order to get Dent killed.

I actually really liked the fact that batman took the fall for the dent murders as it was a great example of him being the 'hero gotham deserves, not the one they need.' They needed someone like dent to be whiter than white for the sake of their sanity and they deserve the man protected by a mask to take the blame because they had to face these horrors without any protection. (I also agree that it would be stretching the point to try and the pin those murders on the otherwise very preoccupied Joker)

Innis Cabal

2008-07-27, 06:05 PM

[QUOTE=Fin;4604458]Overall I think the movie was awesome but I do have a hang-up over the whole location switch of Harvey and Rachael.

Most people think it was to mess with batman but that can't be true for two reasons.

1) He doesn't know Batman is Wayne (so why would he think he loved racael?) However this may have been because the Joker wanted Dent to die and assumed batman would go after him, thinking to save the man that would get rid of all the crims.

2) He later explains the whole 'dent and his girlfriend thing' as 'nothing personal' as he doesn't plan things he just does them! So like I said i actually belive he switched them in order to get Dent killed.
[QUOTE]

He didnt want Dent to die. He wanted Dent to lose everything to show that all good has evil along side it. He wanted to show the fall of true ideals. He wanted to show people the world was just like him. He knew that Batman had contact with both, the party scene wasnt for show. He didn't know who batman was, true, but he knew that Batman protected the girl, and that Dent wouldnt want to lose her. It wasnt a plot hole, it wasnt even a slip up or a useless move.

Arameus

2008-07-27, 09:47 PM

Could the judge be considered one of the people Batman "killed"? Or was that too early in the movie? I can't remember.

Also, I've been thinking about the "did Batman hit the Joker with the razors or not?" question, and I think that if he did (which, based on the positioning, he surely must have) then the reason the Joker survived was because, well, Batman doesn't kill people. He'll horribly wound them (which is what would have happened), but never kill them.

Yeah, but that was sort of my point: the Batman doesn't kill, that's his code, but in light of the force of the strike, he should have died. Saying Batman's code is the reason he didn't die is like saying Batman could wail on your face with a spiked maul and you'd survive becasue that's his code; physiology makes no exceptions for intention.

Even if it was a file cabinet, they still stuck into metal from range. That means their either very powerful or very, very sharp, either of which would score a kill on a direct hit. If they're just powerful, they'd penetrate the chest plate and eviscerate him, and if they're just sharp but not necessarily forceful, the exact same thing would happen; a shark does not have as powerful a bite as many other predators (about 300 pounds/square inch), but their bite is far, far more deadly because their teeth are an order of magnitude sharper. Either path will get you there, so it doesn't really matter if the spikes were 'just sharp.'

And yeah, Bruce could have, unveknownst to the entire audience and for very little fathomable reason, toned down the bracers to the point that they would be nonlethal even within a foot, but really, that theory is pretty unreasonable and if we're going with that one we're really just grasping at straws for justification, aren't we?

The whole reason it didn't kill the Joker is simple: violence is just fine in a PG-13 movie, but not if the good guy does it. If all the goons and villains blow things up and slaughter people, that's fine because they're bad. But if you actually present your good guy as having the capability to fire lethal spikes into someone and then hang them upside down, so that he can rapidly bleed to death from several plainly visible wounds causing massive internal injuries, you cross into R-rated territory, regardless of whether the bad guy had it coming. And when you do that, you alienate an appreciable part of you audience and lose all that scrumptious money.

The fact that Batman doesn't kill is convenient, but ultimately coincidental in light of the far more powerful motivations: millions of dollars. Good enough reason? Yeah, I'd do it too; integrity can bite my wallet!

Innis Cabal

2008-07-27, 09:53 PM

Yeah, but that was sort of my point: the Batman doesn't kill, that's his code, but in light of the force of the strike, he should have died. Saying Batman's code is the reason he didn't die is like saying Batman could wail on your face with a spiked maul and you'd survive becasue that's his code; physiology makes no exceptions for intention.

Even if it was a file cabinet, they still stuck into metal from range. That means their either very powerful or very, very sharp, either of which would score a kill on a direct hit. If they're just powerful, they'd penetrate the chest plate and eviscerate him, and if they're just sharp but not necessarily forceful, the exact same thing would happen; a shark does not have as powerful a bite as many other predators (about 300 pounds/square inch), but their bite is far, far more deadly because their teeth are an order of magnitude sharper. Either path will get you there, so it doesn't really matter if the spikes were 'just sharp.'

And yeah, Bruce could have, unveknownst to the entire audience and for very little fathomable reason, toned down the bracers to the point that they would be nonlethal even within a foot, but really, that theory is pretty unreasonable and if we're going with that one we're really just grasping at straws for justification, aren't we?

The whole reason it didn't kill the Joker is simple: violence is just fine in a PG-13 movie, but not if the good guy does it. If all the goons and villains blow things up and slaughter people, that's fine because they're bad. But if you actually present your good guy as having the capability to fire lethal spikes into someone and then hang them upside down, so that he can rapidly bleed to death from several plainly visible wounds causing massive internal injuries, you cross into R-rated territory, regardless of whether the bad guy had it coming. And when you do that, you alienate an appreciable part of you audience and lose all that scrumptious money.

The fact that Batman doesn't kill is convenient, but ultimately coincidental in light of the far more powerful motivations: millions of dollars. Good enough reason? Yeah, I'd do it too; integrity can bite my wallet!

Actually if you want to get really technical, he didnt die in the movie because fans would have been outraged, and because its the joker. Not because its a PG-13 movie, villians die in those all the times, not a great example but Wild Wild West....

Also, people can survive stab wounds, and gun shot wounds at with far greater force then those small arm launching blades. The joker recoiled back, shouted, and was taken off guard. They had the effect needed no matter what.

Aeriander

2008-07-27, 10:11 PM

AHHHH!
About the bombs in the hospital, it's one of the MAIN THINGS IN THE MOVIE.
The Joker had PEOPLE ON THE INSIDE. THAT'S HOW. IT'S SIMPLE.

Aquillion

2008-07-27, 10:20 PM

1) He doesn't know Batman is Wayne (so why would he think he loved racael?) However this may have been because the Joker wanted Dent to die and assumed batman would go after him, thinking to save the man that would get rid of all the crims.Batman (as Batman) threw himself off the building to save Rachael while the Joker was there. That's kind of a giveaway.

Grynning

2008-07-28, 01:43 PM

Batman (as Batman) threw himself off the building to save Rachael while the Joker was there. That's kind of a giveaway.

The Joker even points this out when he's telling Bats that he has her too. "For a second there I thought you really were Dent, the way you threw yourself after her." Also, the Joker probably figured that big damn hero types love saving the damsel in distress, even when it's not someone they're in love with.

Back on the subject of how many people Two-face wasted: How does Gordon even know Two-face shot anyone at all? He doesn't find out that Harv is running around with a gun until he gets on the phone with his wife. Harvey never mentions killing anyone else in the scene at the end, and even if the cops had found the other (THREE!! NOT FIVE!! and yes that's counting Maroni's driver) bodies, they would have no way of knowing Dent was the one who did it...other than by reading the script.

Evil DM Mark3

2008-07-29, 10:36 AM

Why replace Katie Holmes with Maggie Gyllenhaal? Holmes' choice.

Why did Rachel promise Bruce she'd be with him? She meant it. Then along came true love.

Why doesn't Batman just use a voice modulator? Because you can tell when someone is using a voice modulator and voice modulation can be undone by a good enough sound technician. The voice he puts on, no one knows if he is putting on a voice.

The mob/Hong Kong/banking sub-plot was just pointless, and the characters were largely unnecessary. Why include them in such a long movie? To give a reason for the Joker to even be in it. I thought this was kinda obvious myself.

How did Bruce know that hitting Reese's car (the auditor guy who was going to expose his identity) would somehow prevent him from being killed? He saw the other guy about to ram the car and, after all, this guy now owes Bruce Wayne his life. In addition if the guy dies the Joker has turned an ordinary man into a murderer.

How did the Joker, dressed as a retro nurse (which made him MORE conspicuous), get into the hospital and past a cop without anybody calling 911? He probably knew ahead of time and stashed the clothes and makeup (note it is better than before in this scene so he has touched it up) and walked in as an ordinary, facepaintless, guy.

Why didn't the cops bother to move Harvey out of the hospital while it was being evacuated? Waiting for secure transport, it takes longer than commandeering some buses.

Why did the Joker give the switch up the locations of Rachel and Harvey? Because he could.
But then why didn't the Joker rub it into Batman's face that he had outsmarted him? Because he didn't need to.

Why did the Joker give two different explanations as to how he got his scars? He clearly tells whatever story he feels like, or more likely whatever story he thinks will get the best reaction. Batman just does not care.

Why didn't the people on the quite-possibly-soon-to-be-exploded ferries just swim away? And have the Joker blow them up? Seriously? When it is doom or doom you hope for a last minute reprieve.

At the end of the movie, why not blame the Joker and/or his minions for all of Two Face's murders? Because that lie would get undone in about 5 minutes by a half decent journalist. They where in the wrong places at the wrong times.

The_JJ

2008-07-29, 01:01 PM

As to the whole batrazor things I thought that the Joker got winged in the face. Hardly leathal. But hey, that's just what I thought I saw.

Aquillion

2008-07-29, 01:36 PM

The voice he puts on, no one knows if he is putting on a voice.
Oh, come on. We've all heard that voice. It's the most obvious "I am disguising my voice, kthxbye" voice anyone could possibly make.

At the end of the movie, why not blame the Joker and/or his minions for all of Two Face's murders? Because that lie would get undone in about 5 minutes by a half decent journalist. They where in the wrong places at the wrong times.The joker could still have done it by proxy. But -- motive. Yes, the joker is insane and might have done it by proxy -- but once it comes out that those cops were involved in Rachel's death, suspicion would be directed at Dent anyway, especially given the suspicious circumstances of his death, and particularly if anyone knew how odd he was acting after he was injured. It might not be enough to convict him in court, but he's dead anyway -- and it could hurt his reputation.

The only other person who might be driven to murder over it is Batman, because of his rivalry with the Joker (and possibly over Rachel, if anyone else at the party noticed how quickly he threw himself off the building after her.)

Evil DM Mark3

2008-07-29, 01:39 PM

Oh, come on. We've all heard that voice. It's the most obvious "I am disguising my voice, kthxbye" voice anyone could possibly make.

Point. However a disguised voice like that is much harder (if not impossible) to unscramble. As a rule by the time a digitally altered voice is beyond unscrambling it also tends to be a long way beyond understanding.

valadil

2008-07-29, 02:01 PM

I had serious problems understanding Batman's voice. I understand that he didn't want to be recognized but it was a little too much and subtitles would have made the movie a lot clearer for me.

I was also bothered by the cell phone sonar, but only because I had a similar idea for an upcoming RPG and now my PCs will think I ripped it off.

karmuno

2008-07-29, 02:11 PM

Regarding the spikes, even if they were powerful/sharp enough to bite through steel (which I'm sure they were, because they would be a pointless gadget, rated slightly above batskates in their effectiveness otherwise), I think that, in the hands of Batman, they wouldn't need to be lethal. Take, for example, Frank Miller's The Dark Knight Returns*, in which Batman embeds a shuriken in a man's skull (non-lethally), not to mention breaking the Joker's neck just enough as to not kill him, but allow the Joker to finish it himself and lethally break his own neck Clearly, Batman knows how to punish people with an expertise no normal superhero would be able to pull off.

Now, given that, thanks to the Cinematography, I'm not exactly sure what happened to the spikes either.

On other topics, I think the growlly voice was more bearable in this movie, possibly because it was introduced earlier in the film. In Batman Begins, I laughed when I first heard Bale's intimidating Batvoice just because of the stark contrast with the laid-back tone he had for the past hour or so. I still kind of hate it though, and think that it would've been much better to just use a normal speaking voice, even if one has to suspend a little more disbelief.

Jonny Depp's the only actor I can think of right now who would be able to remotely do the part of the Joker justice. Thanks to Heath Ledger's performance, I just can't think of how another Batman movie could possibly be better. I'm very happy that this movie was made before his death, but I also wish that there was one more between this and Batman Begins, because I get the feeling that any other Batman movie would just be a let down. I would absolutely love to be proven wrong, though.

*Yes, I know it's not canon. Luckily, neither are the movies.

Rare Pink Leech

2008-07-29, 02:15 PM

I had serious problems understanding Batman's voice. I understand that he didn't want to be recognized but it was a little too much and subtitles would have made the movie a lot clearer for me.

This (http://youtube.com/watch?v=w2yv8aT0UFc&feature=bz303) is clearly the video for you.

Personally, I understood Batman perfectly well, although it started to grate on my nerves by the end of the movie. But I do understand why they use it - it disguises his voice, and is, quite frankly, intimidating. It sounds like he's ready to burst and start beating something up at the drop of a pin, which will make any criminal drop a brick if they haven't already at his appearance.

Edit:

Yeah, but that was sort of my point: the Batman doesn't kill, that's his code, but in light of the force of the strike, he should have died. Saying Batman's code is the reason he didn't die is like saying Batman could wail on your face with a spiked maul and you'd survive becasue that's his code; physiology makes no exceptions for intention.

I agree with you that the Joker should have died if the shot was lethal. Saying that the Joker magically survived because Batman doesn't kill people is ridiculous, as you point out with your maul example. What I meant to say was that Batman wouldn't have done a "kill" shot, he would merely have aimed to wound the Joker, by, I don't know, grazing him or something. That makes the most sense in my mind - Batman didn't try to kill the Joker (which would have been all too easy) but only to wound him so he could get the Joker off him and tie him up. Whether or not that was what really happened, and whether or not the angles are right, is of course a matter of carefully watching that scene again.

Closet_Skeleton

2008-07-29, 06:49 PM

I have a plot hole:

The mobster's legs broke when Batman dropped him off a building but later in the movie he's walking around fine.

Aeriander

2008-07-29, 06:57 PM

I have a plot hole:

The mobster's legs broke when Batman dropped him off a building but later in the movie he's walking around fine.

He had a cane.

Michael

2008-07-31, 10:21 AM

Hey,

I also think it's a great movie, marred by some avoidable flaws.

The main plothole is one already mentioned here but not yet responded to:

When Batman leaps out the window to save Rachel (by falling 50 stories to the street), he's left the Joker and his armed men with a ballroom full of potential victims. The Joker is searching for Dent, who is on the premisies. The next scene we cut to is the following day. So, what happened with the Joker in the ballroom? Did he kill everyone? Only a few? It would have taken the filmmakers a few seconds to clear it up.

And that's my biggest problem with the film: lack of clarity. That the batfans on this messboard (let alone the average viewer) are unsure of whether Batman hit the Joker with his wrist-a-rangs or not at the climax of their big epic battle, or who were Dent's 5 murder victims, or why Batman showed up at Dent's deathtrap and not Rachel's, or how the Joker pulled off half of what he did, is a problem.

Other flaws, which are not necessarily plotholes:

-Batman is taken down by dogs?? This guy can wipe out swat teams or packs of ninjas. Turns out all you really needed was three dogs.

-The lead mobster's legs are broken and we next see him at the hospital without his cane. Later we see him holding a cane but not requiring it to bounce into his limo. After breaking your legs most people need leg casts and physical therapy for a while before moving to a cane.

-Someone here said the Joker can't be pinned for Dent's crimes because his whereabouts were known to be elsewhere? Huh? In this movie, the Joker can be everywhere and anywhere! His men can kidnap whoever he wants (while his whereabouts are known to be in jail). He can fill ferries with explosives without anyone knowing it! He can rig an entire hospital to blow in a 60 minute timeframe and leave time for the hospital to be evacuated first!
But he can't shoot another mobster or some more cops?

-In the first sequence, the Joker is picked up on a street corner by his bank robbers. It turns out he was standing there in full Joker face paint. He puts the clown mask on when the van comes into his line of sight. But his men don't know that one of their number is the nefarious Joker.

-The driver who tries to ram the police paddy wagon holding Reese the black mailer is stopped by Wayne's sportscar. But how did the trucker know Reese was in the paddy wagon?

-The ridiculous Batman voice.

-When the Joker's one phonecall detonates the belly bomb, everyone in the squadroom falls down from the explosion except the Joker.

I think the director made a 3 hour movie and was told to cut 30 minutes from it. He couldn't bear to part with any of his big set pieces when honestly the film would've worked better as a whole if they had ejected one of the following:

-the pointless trip to Hong Kong
-Two Face (who could've been saved for the next film, leaving more time for the Joker in this one)
-the whole cellphone thing that went nowhere
-the Reese blackmail subplot

Instead he kept all his big scenes and eroded the glue that held it together that took time to explain what was happening clearly. I look forward to the 3 hour version of this film on DVD. And I'll watch it with subtitles.

karmuno

2008-07-31, 11:08 AM

After watching the movie again last night, it seems that one of the spikes grazed the side of the Joker's face, leaving what appeared to be a reddish mark that wasn't a clear continuation of his existing scars. Of, course, it was very dark, so I could be mistaken. Plus he wasn't, as far as I could tell, bleeding.

And I'd forgotten about the whole being taken down by dogs thing which, it turns out, had absolutely no dramatic purpose and could have been cut (other than Joker's little speech about being a wild dog, which becomes symbolically manifest in the one thing that can successfully take down Batman, or something).

Samurai Jill

2008-07-31, 11:39 AM

And that's my biggest problem with the film: lack of clarity. That the batfans on this messboard (let alone the average viewer) are unsure of whether Batman hit the Joker with his wrist-a-rangs or not at the climax of their big epic battle, or who were Dent's 5 murder victims, or why Batman showed up at Dent's deathtrap and not Rachel's, or how the Joker pulled off half of what he did, is a problem.
I agree with you here. I'm also confused about, how, exactly, Batman is supposed to take the fall for the people that Dent didn't kill- Maroni and Rodriguez. Did I miss them being killed later, because otherwise I don't see an easy way to shut them up about Dent's very real crimes.

I also had some difficulty accepting that Dent's descent into madness could be so carefully and casually controlled with so little (relative) effort. People just aren't that predictable- or at least, interesting characters shouldn't be.
I'm also not sure enough time was given to showing the Joker's rise to power and general deterioration of the city into a state of chaos. I mean, there's a scene where a citizen cries out 'But things are worse than they ever were!", and I'm not seeing the evidence for it, relative to how Godsawful the city obviously was in Batman Begins, and given that the entire mob was on the verge of conviction, like, ten minutes beforehand. I'm probably missing something here, but in that case, it may have been a bit easy to miss.

Michael

2008-07-31, 01:00 PM

I also had some difficulty accepting that Dent's descent into madness could be so carefully and casually controlled with so little (relative) effort. People just aren't that predictable- or at least, interesting characters shouldn't be.

Great point. Two Face was rushed because they had to cram it in to make it fit. I hope the three hour director's cut gives this more time to happen.

Your comment on the fall of the city reminds me of another flaw: Gotham City is supposed to be a character in its own right. Batman Begins created a menacing noir city that wasn't as over the top as Tim Burton's version.
But here we keep seeing Gotham in broad daylight and it looks really mundane because it's just Chicago.

Vikingkingq

2008-07-31, 01:02 PM

I agree with you here. I'm also confused about, how, exactly, Batman is supposed to take the fall for the people that Dent didn't kill- Maroni and Rodriguez. Did I miss them being killed later, because otherwise I don't see an easy way to shut them up about Dent's very real crimes.
.

Maroni got killed when Dent shot his driver, causing the car to crash.

Vikingkingq

2008-07-31, 01:03 PM

I have a plot hole:

The mobster's legs broke when Batman dropped him off a building but later in the movie he's walking around fine.

Only his ankles broke, not his legs.

Michael

2008-07-31, 05:14 PM

Only his ankles broke, not his legs.

Oh, ONLY his ankles. That explains it.
:smallwink:

thubby

2008-07-31, 05:26 PM

Oh, ONLY his ankles. That explains it.
:smallwink:

do we even know if he actually broke anything? maybe he was just hurt.

Samurai Jill

2008-07-31, 07:37 PM

-Batman is taken down by dogs?? This guy can wipe out swat teams or packs of ninjas. Turns out all you really needed was three dogs.
That bothered me a bit too. He seemed really... inept in that final brawl with the Joker.

...Also, the part where he dives off a rooftop to save rachel and they both land with no more than cuts and bruises.

Someone here said the Joker can't be pinned for Dent's crimes because his whereabouts were known to be elsewhere? Huh? In this movie, the Joker can be everywhere and anywhere!
Yeah, but he still has to operate by proxy. Nobody entered or left the building that they could pin the kidnapping on aside from Batman, Dent, and Gordon himself. Besides, the problem with pinning these crimes on the Joker (or some of his cronies) is that the Joker is actually in custody- it may easily be possible for him to clear himself if he's of a mind to, simply by giving a detailed account of real evidence for where he and his goons were at a given point in time- or just a sufficiently convincing alibi. Even if it means he and his clowns get charged with a whole new set of crimes. And he'd do it, too, if it lets him tear down Dent.

-When the Joker's one phonecall detonates the belly bomb, everyone in the squadroom falls down from the explosion except the Joker.
...Also odd.

-the pointless trip to Hong Kong
I think the point was to secure access to a critical prosecution witness and retrieve the marked bills which would help indict the mob.

-the whole cellphone thing that went nowhere
I think that allowed the capture of said prosecution witness by mapping out the layout of his offices, and traced the joker's final location.

Maroni got killed when Dent shot his driver, causing the car to crash.
In that case, it's very odd that Dent was able to walk away totally uninjured.
I guess, maybe Rodriguez the guilty accomplice won't want to spill the beans herself.

NEO|Phyte

2008-07-31, 08:24 PM

In that case, it's very odd that Dent was able to walk away totally uninjured.

It seemed to me that Dent was getting ready to hop out of the car prior to his shooting the driver.

loopy

2008-07-31, 09:43 PM

It seemed to me that Dent was getting ready to hop out of the car prior to his shooting the driver.

He was actually putting a seatbelt on. The two Mob characters in the car obviously thought they were too hardcore for road safety. ;)

Ramien

2008-08-01, 10:46 AM

Aquillion

2008-08-01, 11:13 AM

Here's a bit of a plot hole:

How come Harvey and Rachel weren't under an ethics investigation? You had a D.A. and an assistant D.A. having a relationship that would have been ready-made for the front pages of the tabloids, and nobody seemed to notice any irregularities there.Because this is Gotham? The rest of the city was thankful they just hadn't killed anyone. Compared to everyone else, they were shining beacons of ethical virtue.

TheRiov

2008-08-01, 02:17 PM

Michael

2008-08-01, 05:26 PM

do we even know if he actually broke anything? maybe he was just hurt.

I heard bone cracking sound effects when he hit the pavement.

I think the point was to secure access to a critical prosecution witness and retrieve the marked bills which would help indict the mob....
I think that allowed the capture of said prosecution witness by mapping out the layout of his offices, and traced the joker's final location.

Actually, they just allowed more special effects: the imax rooftop scene in Hong Kong and the cgi of the cellphone sonar affect.
Neither were crucial to the story.
The banker could have been captured before he flew Gotham, and they could have traced the Joker a different way to shorten the movie. But I think they didn't want to part with the special effects these sequences gave.

Aquillion

2008-08-01, 08:09 PM

I just didn't understand how the police could have possibly missed the explosives in the hospital. The explosives were clearly planted throughout the building (as evidenced by the room-by-room explosions) yet the cops who were going room to room and explicitly ordered to search for them, somehow missed them ALL????
It's because they weren't Batman.

Seriously, that's the reason. The basic ground-rules of the setting state that only Batman (and, to a much more limited extent, his close friends and confidantes) can really accomplish anything. I mean, for the hostage thing, they called in the entire police force to one building (from all over the city, unless they were idiots, which would mean any cops on beat a few blocks away could have just ran there), and just Batman to the other.

Guess which one arrived in time and which one failed.

thubby

2008-08-01, 10:04 PM

to the whole dent-car thing, i think it's been proven that pain won't stop him (as evidenced by his lack of reaction to his face, WITHOUT pain meds), so he could receive just about any non-lethal injury that wouldn't restrict his mobility and continue to the end of the movie, including broken ribs, some kinds of head trauma, minor breaks or fractures on the extremities, even internal injury.

Hawriel

2008-08-02, 05:20 AM

the hong kong trip was not a whole. It was unessassary. I think this because after the conversain with Gordon and how Batman was not legaly tied to juristiction, they could have just jumped ahead to the accountant sitting on the steps with the note. Exept this one part makes the trip have some merrit. The cellphone sonar gadget.

This is the only thing I can think of as a plot hole. And its kinda big. Not Lukskywalker joins redsquadren in an hour big, but sizable nun the less. Fox showed the cellphone to Wayne for the first time for that trip. By the climax of the movie wich only took place maybe a week later, the whole city had sonar cellphones networked together to the computer in the bat(im living in my garage)cave. There was no time to 1)have the cellphones massproduced. 2)have the public buy them in the numbers needed to map out the whole city in real time. 3) Build the damn computer cellphone node in the batgarage, and have it tested so it worked perfectly.

4) But this is my nitpick in why I hate the batman character from the comic books. Batman would never give that power up. He is a meglomaniac shadowdictator. He believes he owns gothem, and is totaly deluding himself into thinking he trying to save it. He wants to controle it. end nerd rant.

Harvys personality should have been shown more. I meen the bad part. Harvy had anger issues Thats why he flipped into twoface. There was already a foundation for going nuts. Thats why I think his fall happened a little to quickly. They should have forshadowed it with some privat dark, angry micro expressions earlyer in the movie. Not just flipping a coin for closing arguments.

Aquillion

2008-08-02, 08:26 AM

Harvys personality should have been shown more. I meen the bad part. Harvy had anger issues Thats why he flipped into twoface. There was already a foundation for going nuts. Thats why I think his fall happened a little to quickly. They should have forshadowed it with some privat dark, angry micro expressions earlyer in the movie. Not just flipping a coin for closing arguments.More than that: Remember, the coin was double-headed (and not scarred, at that point.) I thought that was pretty cleverly done, even if (as you say) it eliminated the darkness in his personality.

For instance, when he's interrogating that guy in the warehouse, and tells him he'll kill him when the coin comes up tails? Yep. Still double-headed; it was exactly the same thing Batman had done a few minutes earlier, only he managed to do it without actually hurting anyone.

SilentNight

2008-08-03, 09:48 AM

What I'm confused about it the prominence of "Why so serious?" In the teasers and other posters even though it's only in that one speech. :smallconfused:

Flabbicus

2008-08-03, 09:56 AM

What I'm confused about it the prominence of "Why so serious?" In the teasers and other posters even though it's only in that one speech. :smallconfused:

Two speeches. One for the mobster and one for Rachel Dawes.

It embodies what the Joker is and what he does very succinctly. The justification for why he does what he does is to inject a little insanity into the world and brighten up everyone's day, but nobody gets the joke before he kills them. They also used the line "What doesn't kill you makes you... Stranger," which he only uses a few times as well.

Dave Rapp

2008-08-03, 10:07 AM

Two speeches. One for the mobster and one for Rachel Dawes.

It embodies what the Joker is and what he does very succinctly. The justification for why he does what he does is to inject a little insanity into the world and brighten up everyone's day, but nobody gets the joke before he kills them. They also used the line "What doesn't kill you makes you... Stranger," which he only uses a few times as well.

Batman said somewhere that the Joker's plans only make sense to one person; the Joker.

Verruckt

2008-08-04, 05:38 AM

SilentNight

2008-08-04, 09:05 AM

Two speeches. One for the mobster and one for Rachel Dawes.

It embodies what the Joker is and what he does very succinctly. The justification for why he does what he does is to inject a little insanity into the world and brighten up everyone's day, but nobody gets the joke before he kills them. They also used the line "What doesn't kill you makes you... Stranger," which he only uses a few times as well.

Huh, I don't remember him using it in the Rachel Dawson speech. I was kind of tired when I saw it though.

Da'Shain

2008-08-05, 01:38 PM

-Batman is taken down by dogs?? This guy can wipe out swat teams or packs of ninjas. Turns out all you really needed was three dogs.Well, yeah. First of all, Batman's trained to fight all different manners of human opponents, but no humans fight like dogs. Dogs fight by biting and tearing a chunk out of you if they can, or simply latching on and bleeding you if they can't. They rush you, leap on you and immobilize you as quickly as they can, which is faster than humans can. Secondly, they don't think like humans do. They aren't scared by the man in the big scary batsuit, because their noses tell them it's still just a man. They have no problems swarming a single opponent, because they're smaller and there's little chance of them biting one of their fellow dogs. Third, Batman doesn't really have any special technology for dealing with them. He's got smoke grenades, grappling hooks, batarangs, etc. for disarming and immobilizing humans, but dogs are smaller targets, have lower centers of gravity and move fast enough that they're hard to hit before they're on you.

You'll also notice that Batman does indeed defeat the dogs in both instances; he's just far less graceful about it, because he isn't trained in fancy tricks for dog wrangling.

-When the Joker's one phonecall detonates the belly bomb, everyone in the squadroom falls down from the explosion except the Joker.That was rather odd, yes. I chalk it down to the Joker being the only one that knew to brace himself against the blast, and knew that it wasn't about to kill him so he didn't spend several seconds clutching himself and making sure he was okay.

-the pointless trip to Hong Kong This is something I hear a lot of people discuss, and I just don't get. The trip to Hong Kong was there for several reasons, both plot-wise and movie-wise. First, plot-wise, it was Batman showing the mobsters that they had no other choice but to turn to the Joker if they wanted their criminal enterprises to survive. Second, also plot-wise, it cemented him in Dent's good graces and allowed Dent to win a major, major victory in cleaning up the streets. Third, the mob's money had to be taken care of, and Feng (I think that was his name) was the one who knew where it all was. Movie-wise, it had been, IIRC, thirty minutes since the last major action sequence, and while this movie held itself aloft as much on plot as it did on action, it is still an action superhero movie. Half the point of making the movie is to see Batman do cool things.

I just didn't understand how the police could have possibly missed the explosives in the hospital. The explosives were clearly planted throughout the building (as evidenced by the room-by-room explosions) yet the cops who were going room to room and explicitly ordered to search for them, somehow missed them ALL????The police were busy evacuating, not searching for bombs. Gordon specifically mobilizes them to evacuate every hospital, with the priority being on Gotham General. Once they were done evacuating, bomb-teams would likely have gone in, but there was really only a span of minutes between the last people being gotten out and the Joker finally blowing the hospital up.

Actually, they just allowed more special effects: the imax rooftop scene in Hong Kong and the cgi of the cellphone sonar affect.
Neither were crucial to the story.
The banker could have been captured before he flew Gotham, and they could have traced the Joker a different way to shorten the movie. But I think they didn't want to part with the special effects these sequences gave.Heck, if you go by that logic, the whole chase scene could have simply ended with the Joker in prison, and Batman could have found some other way to get across town without having to eat up time introducing the Batpod. Sure, they're not strictly necessary, but those scenes were certainly not unnecessary: they both showed the viewer exactly how Batman does what he does instead of simply hitting them with a "Batman wins in the end" sentence from some random onlooker.

4) But this is my nitpick in why I hate the batman character from the comic books. Batman would never give that power up. He is a meglomaniac shadowdictator. He believes he owns gothem, and is totaly deluding himself into thinking he trying to save it. He wants to controle it. end nerd rant.Batman from the comics would never give that power up, but that Batman lives in a world where he needs every advantage he can get in order to stay toe to toe with the latest unstoppable supervillain dreamed up by the DC team and has lived that way for over a decade. Movie Batman isn't precisely the same. For another example, comic-book Batman would never have left Ra's to die at the end of the first film.

Harvys personality should have been shown more. I meen the bad part. Harvy had anger issues Thats why he flipped into twoface. There was already a foundation for going nuts. Thats why I think his fall happened a little to quickly. They should have forshadowed it with some privat dark, angry micro expressions earlyer in the movie. Not just flipping a coin for closing arguments.He's pretty domineering most of the time. You hear snatches of his later Two-Face voice whenever he yells at someone (which is fairly often), you seem him deck a would-be assassin in the face and later on steal an ambulance so he can threaten a criminal with death in private, and he continually casts aspersions on everyone's trustworthiness, especially Gordon's. I thought they showed him rather well as a man who was a great hero but had tendencies which could lead to villainy if they came to the forefront.

nothingclever

2008-08-05, 02:31 PM

This has probably been said already since I've only bothered to read the first page so far but anyways to people who question how likely the Joker's bomb planting and infiltration stuff would've worked in a realistic setting I'd just like to point out that several times throughout the movie it is made clear that the Joker has great control over the police force that would guard against his attacks.

Like if you find it hard to believe the Joker wouldn't have enough time to do something or be able to sneak into a certain place it could always be possible because of assistance from crooked members of the police force telling him how things would be laid out or simply turning a blind eye.

Crooked cops are attacked by Dent as Twoface and at one point Rachel says that she's safe in the police headquarters and Bruce/Dent/whoever tells her to get out of there right away since it's actually most likely the worst place she could be in. There's also another part where some high ranking police official is talking about how he deals with his fears by drinking alcohol and moments after drinking some from a bottle in his desk drawer he is killed by poison. Plus I think there's a part where the police are in on Rachel's kidnapping and either choose not to do anything about it or help. Then there's some dialogue from Bruce and Dent about how the Joker and his minions never could have known about something unless they had an informant in the police force.

Oh and there's a part in the movie where the Joker holds a detonator and presses it and an explosion occurs but then he's disappointed and presses it a few more times until an even greater one happens and the whole hospital is destroyed as if it was a planned demolition so his bombs did not all go off at exactly the right time even if it was only for comedic value.

Samurai Jill

2008-08-06, 12:28 PM

The banker could have been captured before he flew Gotham...
The banker wasn't IN Gotham at the time that they found they would need to arrest him at all. He was already flying out during his teleconference with the mob.

...and they could have traced the Joker a different way to shorten the movie.
How? The movie already established that anyone who works for the joker is more afraid of him than batman. Like Maroni said:

"We're wise to your act. You've got rules. The Joker- he ain't got no rules. No-one's gonna give him up for you."

Well, yeah. First of all, Batman's trained to fight all different manners of human opponents, but no humans fight like dogs.
Yeah, but Batman can kill dogs without any pangs of guilt. Do you know how hard it is it fight multiple, highly-trained, firearm-wielding opponents, all unarmed, and never kill them? By comparison, having him fall victim to rottweilers was just a plot device.

Besides, Batman ran into those exact same dogs earlier in the film, so he had every reason to research appropriate combat styles.

Movie Batman isn't precisely the same. For another example, comic-book Batman would never have left Ra's to die at the end of the first film.
Yeah, particularly given that Batsy didn't just 'leave him to die'. He very carefully engineered the precise circumstances that made Ra's death unavoidable unless rescued. -i.e, killed him.

Da'Shain

2008-08-06, 12:52 PM

Yeah, but Batman can kill dogs without any pangs of guilt. Do you know how hard it is it fight multiple, highly-trained, firearm-wielding opponents, all unarmed, and never kill them? By comparison, having him fall victim to rottweilers was just a plot device.Firstly, Batman may not be as hesitant to kill dogs as he is to kill humans, but he's obviously not keen on doing so unless it's absolutely necessary, or he'd just toss one of his explode-on-contact grenades at them. Secondly, they're totally different, as I already explained. One is him against a large group of well-armed people who nevertheless are in close quarters, are highly likely to hit their fellows with misplaced fire, and are afraid of a man whose combat abilities seem supernatural because he's specifically trained in being able to knock humans out of a fight in only a second or two; the other is him against three single-minded animals who have no fear of him and whose strategy is to swarm and immobilize him until they can bleed him to death.

Batman is so effective because he knows exactly what he's doing (as Ducard tells him in the first film, something to the effect of "You know how to fight six men, we can teach you how to engage six hundred"); put him in a situation where he doesn't know the exact moves for ending the fight immediately and he's going to seem a lot less badass. And like I said, he does still manage to defeat them. He doesn't simply "fall victim" to them.

Besides, Batman ran into those exact same dogs earlier in the film, so he had every reason to research appropriate combat styles.In the, what, week or so he has where he's on call pretty much the entire time? About all he has time for is to google "dog fighting" and then sift through the thousands of Michael Vick hits.

Yeah, particularly given that Batsy didn't just 'leave him to die'. He very carefully engineered the precise circumstances that made Ra's death unavoidable unless rescued. -i.e, killed him.While he's certainly partly responsible, Ducard himself was the one who made the train unstoppable in the first place by destroying the controls. (One wonders how he was planning to get off after the machine had caused the chain reaction; no doubt he had some fancy ninja moves planned.) Batman was too busy being nearly beaten up to tell Ducard about the railway's destruction, and by the time he's won the fight he's a bit peeved, to say the least.

mayonase

2008-08-06, 01:13 PM

Strange, no one noticed this except me...

'K, the standard beginning tag: The movie was amazing. In my all time top 10, probably 5, maybe 3 (no one beats Kurosawa; sorry Nolan). And I'll agree with the posters who say that most if not all of the complaints so far can be explained away as either stupidity, poor camera angles, or convenient character blindness. But there was one thing that has absolutely no logical explanation whatsoever. I'll give you a hint:

The shattered bullet that Bat pulled for the fingerprint. 'K, pretty impossible outright from a physics/forensics standpoint, but I'll let that slide, except for one small little detail. Know what it is? Think hard about bullets...

...

...

The fingerprint would have been on the brass, not the bullet.

Thormag

2008-08-06, 06:22 PM

The shattered bullet that Bat pulled for the fingerprint. 'K, pretty impossible outright from a physics/forensics standpoint, but I'll let that slide, except for one small little detail. Know what it is? Think hard about bullets...

The fingerprint would have been on the brass, not the bullet.

Pseudo-science!
Comic-book knowledge!

Well, I honestly have no idea if that's actually possible (I'm no science geek after all), but I do know that writers love to write about things they don't know. (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/DidNotDoTheResearch)

Michael

2008-08-06, 07:51 PM

Well, yeah. First of all, Batman's trained to fight all different manners of human opponents, but no humans fight like dogs. Dogs fight by biting and tearing a chunk out of you if they can, or simply latching on and bleeding you if they can't. They rush you, leap on you and immobilize you as quickly as they can, which is faster than humans can. Secondly, they don't think like humans do. They aren't scared by the man in the big scary batsuit, because their noses tell them it's still just a man. They have no problems swarming a single opponent, because they're smaller and there's little chance of them biting one of their fellow dogs. Third, Batman doesn't really have any special technology for dealing with them. He's got smoke grenades, grappling hooks, batarangs, etc. for disarming and immobilizing humans, but dogs are smaller targets, have lower centers of gravity and move fast enough that they're hard to hit before they're on you..

He could have leapt up to a higher girder in the unfinished building. Dogs can't climb.

Thanks to his sonar cellphone trick, he knew where the dogs were long before they were on him.

Sure, they're not strictly necessary, but those scenes were certainly not unnecessary

In a two and a half hour movie, anything not strictly necessary IS unnecessary. :smallsmile:

Michael

2008-08-06, 07:52 PM

Da'Shain

2008-08-06, 08:49 PM

He could have leapt up to a higher girder in the unfinished building. Dogs can't climb.

Thanks to his sonar cellphone trick, he knew where the dogs were long before they were on him.The girders were at spaces taller than he was; he's not superhuman, he can't jump that high. And what would he have done once he got there? Watched while the Joker blew up both boats?

In a two and a half hour movie, anything not strictly necessary IS unnecessary. :smallsmile:It's there because it's a two and half hour movie. As I said, there'd been about a half hour between that and the action filled beginning; anyone who's not engrossed by the plot is starting to get bored by the lack of action on screen. IIRC, there's another fifteen minute gap (at least) between that and the next action scene, the party at Bruce's penthouse. And much of it is very dark: the Joker killing and killing some more. Basically, what it's there for is pumping up audiences with a major Batman victory to prepare them for the coming hour or so of near-total darkness caused by the Joker.

Michael

2008-08-06, 09:37 PM

The girders were at spaces taller than he was; he's not superhuman, he can't jump that high.

Not superhuman? He fell 50 stories in this film!
He could have cabled himself up there, no?

And what would he have done once he got there? Watched while the Joker blew up both boats?

Maybe. Or maybe he could have rained batarangs down on the Joker and his dogs. Springloaded, wrist-mounted batarangs.

Deadmeat.GW

2008-08-07, 12:46 PM

mayonase

2008-08-07, 01:55 PM

Don't recall with 100% clarity, but I seem to remember the fingerprint being on the side of the bullet in the computer generated image, where it would have been encased. But yeah, you're totally right about pressing on the head; no way in H*** I could get my 9mil Glock loaded without some grunting and thumb crunching. I suppose there could have been a print for impossible super-science to detect if it was all on the head...

Damn you Nolan for being so... perfect!

SmartAlec

2008-08-07, 03:55 PM

While he's certainly partly responsible, Ducard himself was the one who made the train unstoppable in the first place by destroying the controls.

Was this the case? I seem to remember Batman breaking free of the fight with 'Ducard' long enough to smash the controls.

tommytae22

2008-08-08, 03:50 AM

I think the biggest flaw in the movie was the relationship between Bruce and Rachel. In the 1st movie, the chemistry between them was well suited, but in The Dark Knight, Rachel seems to take Bruce/Batman for granted. Given the fact that she has a new love interest, I still find it hard to believe that she would give up Bruce so easily. After all, they grew up together and Batman did save her ass a couple of times and ... o yeah saved Gotham as well. Bruce on the other hand doesn't show much emotion after the death of Rachel. I couldn't feel any sense of loss in him and people can argue that he did, but it was briefly shown in the movie.. Briefly....

Lastly, I don't understand why Batman is now barging into fights without implementing the techniques he learned. He used to be sneaky to take out his opponents, but now hes just jumping into the crowd and using his martial arts to knock people down. Like that one scene when the Joker invades Bruce's fundraiser party for Dent, most of the Joker's accomplices had guns. I don't think it would be such a wise idea to just assume that they are going to hold onto their guns and use their hands instead to fight Batman.
Nor do I think Batman would really leave himself vulnerable to gun shots since they did have guns.

Scythe214

2008-12-29, 10:05 PM

"Saggy Maggie" - ©2008

This poem is an ode
To the ugliest bitch ever
I might sound like a jerk
But my words are so damn clever...

I don’t gotta know her
I don’t wanna either
She looks like a bear cub used her face for a teether

It HURTS to watch "Batman"
I’d rather eat squid
She looks like a walking, talking Garbage Pail Kid

Ah, the movie is ruined
I can’t bear to watch
She wouldn’t even look good after one quart of Scotch

Well, now we all know
Why The Joker went nuts
He stared at her too long and got emotional cuts

Like, just look at her face, Scoob
It’s starting to sag
So why is The Scarecrow the one wearing the bag?

In the scene where Bruce kissed her
I had to rewind
’Cause I swore I heard him muttering "Thank GOD bats are blind."

Two-Face stood alone there
When he got sad, and cried
But the audience jumped up and f***in’ cheered when she died

She’s uglier than George, John, Ringo & Paul
Someone please throw a sheet over Maggie Gyllenhaal!

J. Luna

www.stardustcomics.com

Jayngfet

2008-12-29, 10:30 PM

Thought I smelled a bit of necromancy.

Athaniar

2008-12-30, 02:37 PM

A little? More like 4 3/4 months. Heavy necromancy, I'd say Paragon tier.

emaillenin

2010-04-15, 04:05 AM

the hong kong trip was not a whole. It was unessassary. I think this because after the conversain with Gordon and how Batman was not legaly tied to juristiction, they could have just jumped ahead to the accountant sitting on the steps with the note. Exept this one part makes the trip have some merrit. The cellphone sonar gadget.

This is the only thing I can think of as a plot hole. And its kinda big. Not Lukskywalker joins redsquadren in an hour big, but sizable nun the less. Fox showed the cellphone to Wayne for the first time for that trip. By the climax of the movie wich only took place maybe a week later, the whole city had sonar cellphones networked together to the computer in the bat(im living in my garage)cave. There was no time to 1)have the cellphones massproduced. 2)have the public buy them in the numbers needed to map out the whole city in real time. 3) Build the damn computer cellphone node in the batgarage, and have it tested so it worked perfectly.

In the climax, the sonar technology was not placed inside each cellphone. rather, it works via the signals into each cellphone. This should be obvious if you have listened to the speech between Bruce and Fox.
Fox - "Did you reassign R&D?"
Bruce - "Yes. Government telecommunications project. I am playing this close to my chest."
Batman used the Government telecommunications(which networks all cellphones in the city) and his sonar technology together to track everyone cellphone in the city