2081 replies to this topic

[Safari Suit]

You've got me thinking: should we be excited about Darren Aronofsky's forthcoming ROBOCOP flick?

I'm not too chuffed personally. I liked Pi, but despised Requiem for a Dream.

[Loomis]

Perusing Box Office Mojo, I find that THE DARK KNIGHT is now the highest-grossing film of 2008 in the United States, its haul currently standing at $324,299,793. Here's the top five:

1. THE DARK KNIGHT - $324,299,793

2. IRON MAN - $314,967,980

3. INDIANA JONES AND THE KINGDOM OF THE CRYSTAL SKULL - $313,719,527

4. KUNG FU PANDA - $209,159,482

5. HANCOCK - $207,560,589

http://www.boxoffice.../...2008&p=.htm

Is it likely that anything else due for release this year will dethrone TDK? The new Harry Potter, for instance?

And what do people think of QUANTUM OF SOLACE's chances of ending up in the top five?

[Harmsway]

Is it likely that anything else due for release this year will dethrone TDK? The new Harry Potter, for instance?

Given that THE DARK KNIGHT looks able to climb to $400 domestically without much trouble, I'm going to guess it'll be the champion. Even Harry Potter shall fall.

And what do people think of QUANTUM OF SOLACE's chances of ending up in the top five?

Slim, just because I have trouble seeing it break past $200 million. But maybe.

Oh, and the news just broke that Aronofsky's ROBOCOP isn't a sequel - it's a remake.

[Loomis]

Is it likely that anything else due for release this year will dethrone TDK? The new Harry Potter, for instance?

Given that THE DARK KNIGHT looks able to climb to $400 domestically without much trouble, I'm going to guess it'll be the champion. Even Harry Potter shall fall.

Good. About time the little brat got his comeuppance.

And what do people think of QUANTUM OF SOLACE's chances of ending up in the top five?

Slim, just because I have trouble seeing it break past $200 million.

Agreed.

Oh, and the news just broke that Aronofsky's ROBOCOP isn't a sequel - it's a remake.

Well, I guess that ain't surprising. In a strange way, though, I'm disappointed, because the idea of an Aronofsky-directed followup to ROBOCOP 3 (or indeed the idea of any kind of sequel to ROBOCOP 3!) was so deliciously lunatic that I was intrigued as to what exactly the filmmakers had up their sleeves. Instead, it seems it's just another remake. Ho-hum.

[Skudor]

Perusing Box Office Mojo, I find that THE DARK KNIGHT is now the highest-grossing film of 2008 in the United States, its haul currently standing at $324,299,793. Here's the top five:

1. THE DARK KNIGHT - $324,299,793

2. IRON MAN - $314,967,980

3. INDIANA JONES AND THE KINGDOM OF THE CRYSTAL SKULL - $313,719,527

4. KUNG FU PANDA - $209,159,482

5. HANCOCK - $207,560,589

http://www.boxoffice.../...2008&p=.htm

Is it likely that anything else due for release this year will dethrone TDK? The new Harry Potter, for instance?

And what do people think of QUANTUM OF SOLACE's chances of ending up in the top five?

TDK will be badest bat of them all this year. Potter is unlikely to beat $400 million.

I'd also doubt that Bond will exceed $200 million, based on past form in the land of the malls - which clearly keeps him out of the top five.

[dodge]

Why not just flip the coin before he goes to the person and holds a gun to his head? This way, it saves him the trouble of having to do all that work. The gimmick of the coin really becomes just an insight into what the screen writer is thinking. It is not pure chance, of course, just the illusion of it. It somehow feels cheap in the end.

Well, the problem I have with it is: if you're gonna be an avenger and go out on missions (as I gather Dent wishes to do under the guise of Two-Face), you don't bring a coin along to make your decisions. And you definitely don't play "best of three".

It may have been in the comics going back to 1896 or whenever, but it still feels cheap and, like quite a few other things, out of place in what is allegedly not merely a "smart" Batman flick but nothing less than the frickin' GODFATHER II of our times.

Oh, and this one is really an open question:

Spoiler

Concerning the end. Gordon tells him that the public needed an answer for the death of the cops. I found myself wondering, "I am really to believe that EVERY CRIME IN GOTHAM CITY is solved? Seems to me that an unsolved crime is the norm here. And, since there is zero evidence regardless, why not blame the Joker or the mob boss? Just why is it that Batman has to take the fall?

Good question.

And was I alone in being terribly unconvinced by the idea of a bunch of regular shlubs spending their evenings imitating Batman and going out to combat crime? Might have worked had they been convincing heroic types, but they're lardbutts who look barely capable of walking to the fridge. Presumably because the filmmakers thought this was funny.

Also, we're always being told via the film's dialogue that Gotham is going to hell in a handcart, but it looks, on the whole, like a gleaming, functional, successful city.

You've articulated perfectly the point I've been trying to make. To me, it doesn't matter who "got there" first, in terms of tossing the coin. Harmsway may be right that 80% of the public didn't seen NCFOLM and won't recognize the parallel. But the scene played better in that film. And the BM's creative team failed to make the scene as integral to the character as NCFOLM did to its.

[Andrew]

I strongly disagree. The coin flip was far more integral to Two Face than it was to Anton. What really was it's purpose in NO COUNTRY?

Compare that to Two Face, where it's an integral part of the character and is symbolic of his nature, which has been elaborated on previously in this thread. It was far more effective in TDK.

[triviachamp]

It comes so very close to being truly a movie for grownups

This is a Bond forum right?

[HildebrandRarity]

Perusing Box Office Mojo, I find that THE DARK KNIGHT is now the highest-grossing film of 2008 in the United States, its haul currently standing at $324,299,793. Here's the top five:

1. THE DARK KNIGHT - $324,299,793

2. IRON MAN - $314,967,980

3. INDIANA JONES AND THE KINGDOM OF THE CRYSTAL SKULL - $313,719,527

4. KUNG FU PANDA - $209,159,482

5. HANCOCK - $207,560,589

http://www.boxoffice.../...2008&p=.htm

Is it likely that anything else due for release this year will dethrone TDK? The new Harry Potter, for instance?

And what do people think of QUANTUM OF SOLACE's chances of ending up in the top five?

Why are we quoting only US numbers? Everyone knows that James Bond is a global brand. Everyone knows that traditionally (even dating back to Thunderball in 1965 when James Bond was MASSIVE in the US) that 007 does about 30 percent of its business in the US and 70 percent everywhere else, on average.

Also, every accountant and global investor will tell you that one US dollar is worth exactly the same in the US as outside the US...so why all the fascination with US box office numbers?

I imagine Quantum will handily beat Iron Man, Kung Fu Panda and Hancock once all the global box office numbers are in but will have a hard time toppling the fantasy worlds of Harry Potter, Indy Jones and Batman.

Chalk QOS up as the 4th highest grossing film of 2008 world-wide...which is exactly the position for CR in 2006.

Lastly, Batman and Indy is bigger than Harry Potter in the US...whereas Harry Potter is bigger, for instance, in the UK. I think Harry Potter will beat Indy globally but Batman trumps them both...possibly.

Final 2008 Global:

1 Harry Potter/The Dark Knight
2 The Dark Knight/Harry Potter
3 Indy Jones
4 Quantum
5 Iron Man

[Harmsway]

The coin flip was far more integral to Two Face than it was to Anton.

Agreed. Philosophically, it carries about the same weight in each film. But it certainly means more to the character of Harvey Dent than it does to Anton. With Harvey Dent, it's integrally related to who he is. With Anton, it's more of a, "Oh, that's cool" moment.

In truth, Anton Chigurh isn't much of a character. He's an effective scary dude, but beyond that, he's got nothing to bring to the table beyond an awful haircut and a monotone voice.

[Mister Asterix]

I don’t think they handled the coin flip as well as they could have as a device. To me the coin was meant to be Harvey Dent’s moral compass. He knew that given a choice between good and evil as long as heads was good that he would always make the right choice.

So, the coin should have been the last straw that sent Harvey over the edge. If Harvey is mad, angry, and vengeful and then put in a situation where he has a chance to do the right thing, so he flips the coin only then to find the coin scarred, he would have seen it as fate and that would’ve sent him down his path of evil. As it is in The Dark Knight he essentially just gets his two headed coin replaced with a normal coin, and therefore the coin isn’t as sinister.

[Harmsway]

To me the coin was meant to be Harvey Dent’s moral compass.

I don't see it presented as such. From my vantage point, there's not much connecting it to Dent's internal struggle in THE DARK KNIGHT. I mean, you can conceivably interpret it in that light, but all the dialogue and actions that frame the coin seem to point to a different conclusion. Namely, that the coin seems to relate to Harvey Dent's perceived handle on life.

The coin is intially representative of Harvey Dent's hold on life, ala "I make my own luck." He's secure, cocky, and the coin is just one of many things playing into that. He's sure he can take down corruption. But later, we see a transfer. Then later comes his belief that control is just an illusion, that all human efforts, including efforts for justice, are just at the whim of chance itself. And then the coin is representative of the whims of fate.

So, the coin should have been the last straw that sent Harvey over the edge.

I think it was, albeit in a different fashion than you're talking about. That one scene where he sees the coin, and he thinks Rachel made it. And then he turns it over, sees the blackened side, and knows that she died, followed by that agonizing scream which we see, but don't hear. It's one of the finest moments of the film.

[Mister Asterix]

So, the coin should have been the last straw that sent Harvey over the edge.

I think it was, albeit in a different fashion than you're talking about. That one scene where he sees the coin, and he thinks Rachel made it. And then he turns it over, sees the blackened side, and knows that she died, followed by that agonizing scream which we see, but don't hear. It's one of the finest moments of the film.

Ahh... I see what you’re saying. That either didn’t come off clearly enough or it slipped my mind by the end of the picture.

I’ll take a look when the film makes it to DVD.

[[dark]]

All of this makes me feel that THE DARK KNIGHT's ending would be a brave and brilliant conclusion to the Nolan Batman saga.

Ultimately, Bruce Wayne discovers that society cannot accommodate a vigilante such as himself, however well-meaning or occasionally successful at bringing down bad guys, for his existence fundamentally runs counter to everything he aims to protect.

In the end, he is a fugitive, his crusade - when all is said and done - a failure. He has learnt that balance in the world can never be restored by one man acting off his own (pardon the pun) bat. And Rachel Dawes' beliefs in BATMAN BEGINS are finally vindicated.

Of course, BATMAN BEGINS 3 is completely guaranteed, but what a great ending for this particular interpretation of Batman, if I smugly say so myself. Bruce Wayne, when all is said and done, is not a hero but just a misguided, grubby little man brought low by his stupidity, self-righteousness and contempt for almost everyone who doesn't happen to be Bruce Wayne, in addition to his lunatic notion that everything can be fixed by money.

A two-film cautionary tale for those who would take the law into their own hands, and a wonderfully iconoclastic telling of the Batman story.

A great Loomis post, er, Loomis.

While the studio will no doubt continue this franchise, perhaps Nolan, unsure of whether he'll return to helm another film, believed precisely what you've written above. And should he decide to come back, The Dark Knight's ending is an awesome point to leap into a third film exploring redemption.

Okay, but I think the filmmakers might as well have gone for broke, with a hard R a la RAMBO, or at least vintage DIE HARD levels of gore. Watching THE DARK KNIGHT it feels as though bloodshed was trimmed by the censors or taken out by a nervous studio, even if it wasn't even there in the first place. It feels curiously neutered.

Disagree here, though. It wasn't until I read a review that noted the film was easy on the blood that I even realised it. The action and violence are as uncompromising as the film's themes; they're just handled so well that you don't even notice the lack of any explicit gore.

[Harmsway]

All of this makes me feel that THE DARK KNIGHT's ending would be a brave and brilliant conclusion to the Nolan Batman saga.

I agree with that, but not with your reasoning for it.

Bruce Wayne, when all is said and done, is not a hero but just a misguided, grubby little man brought low by his stupidity, self-righteousness and contempt for almost everyone who doesn't happen to be Bruce Wayne, in addition to his lunatic notion that everything can be fixed by money.

Well, I see absolutely none of that in the rather heroic and trumpeted finale of THE DARK KNIGHT, nor do I see that in the characterization of Bruce Wayne. The ending wasn't a condemnation of Batman, it was his vindication, and it gave every indication that his crusade would continue.

And "Contempt for almost everyone who doesn't happen to be Bruce Wayne"? "The lunatic notion that everything can be fixed by money"? Where are these things in either BEGINS or THE DARK KNIGHT?

While the studio will no doubt continue this franchise, perhaps Nolan, unsure of whether he'll return to helm another film, believed precisely what you've written above.

Given his own comments, I doubt it. He sees THE DARK KNIGHT as opening onto the traditional Batman universe, and furthermore believes in the ultimate success of Batman's crusade. Here are Nolan's comments from aroudn the release of BATMAN BEGINS (in a rather fantastic interview with Box Office Mojo, the full text of which is available here):

BOM: But isn't Batman in business to put himself out of business?

Nolan: I think he is, but I believe that to be futile. There is no utopia. There is no Heaven on earth. We all sort of accept that—it's not possible. If you look at the history of the comics, there are a lot of interesting explorations of the father's life and organized crime, and the nature of the enemy changes. These things can't ever be perfect or balanced or reconciled—it's a constant struggle. As soon as we solve one problem in our lives, something else crops up.

BOM: Is it a malevolent or benevolent universe?

Nolan: I think it's a benevolent universe. Ultimately, I think what Batman is trying to do is tip the balance against corruption—and that's a specific type of evil that can't ebb and flow, and it can be defeated in a sense. I do believe that. That's why his quest makes sense to me.

BOM: That's against a prevalent view that we're all doomed and everything is dark and horrible—

Nolan: It's interesting that you say that because, particularly with Batman, there's a demand, particularly from the fans, that you treat it with appropriate darkness and, to me, it was never about making a darker film. It was about making a realistic film and, to me, there's great [virtue] in the character. The discussion we were having about heroism is something I've thought a lot about Batman because, yes, you can make him very dark but you can't ignore the question of his heroism and his inherent ability. Otherwise, he ceases to be Batman—he becomes a different character, the Punisher, the Crow. The fans can argue about what defines Batman, but the heroism—the positivity of what he's actually doing—isn't up for discussion. Again, it's not just about making him darker—it's about making him more realistic.

BOM: For me, Batman's defining moment is when Lieutenant Gordon says to him, "I never thanked you," and Batman responds: "And you'll never have to." That's the cashing in of everything that's come before because that's when he stands for something—for something honorable…

Nolan: Yes.

BOM: …and he's not just this dark, martyred knight who's defined by torture and suffering…

Nolan: Yes.

BOM: …whereas in so many movies, the evil is more interesting, more compelling, than the good…

Nolan: Definitely. Yet the immediate response to Batman's standing up for what's good is a proportional escalation of evil, and that's not philosophical—it's not that it will always be that way—it's about how bad things have to get before things become good. Batman is positive, but I believe that, in the first couple of years, he's going to find an increasingly negative response from society, because the truth is that, when you have a powerful, negative city like Gotham, it didn't become corrupt by accident, and those entrenched people are going to respond very vigorously.

BOM: Sounds like a good sequel.

Nolan: Absolutely. And that's the point of the final scene. That [fighting evil] is not going to be easy. It's going to get harder.

[sharpshooter]

More stills:

Attached Files

•  1217384093.jpg   529.87KB   23 downloads
•  2myyhz8.jpg   251.64KB   9 downloads
•  becuvp.jpg   147.13KB   10 downloads
•  azf5uw.jpg   241.69KB   10 downloads
•  nwfsds.jpg   404.17KB   9 downloads
•  ne8eo.jpg   206.5KB   9 downloads

[Cruiserweight]

Director Christopher Nolan took the helm as director of the new Batman franchise with the 2005 film Batman Begins. In The Gotham Times, a viral marketing website promoting the 2008 film The Dark Knight, Edward Nashton, an alias of The Riddler, is credited for a letter to the editor titled "Dent Cannot Be Believed" in Issue 2 page 2. Although Anthony Michael Hall was rumored to be playing the Riddler, he actually played a reporter named Mike Engel. While doing press for The Dark Knight, Gary Oldman alluded that the Riddler could be the villain in the proposed third film. Doctor Who actor David Tennant has recently expressed an interest in playing the role.

[TortillaFactory]

So, the coin should have been the last straw that sent Harvey over the edge.

I think it was, albeit in a different fashion than you're talking about. That one scene where he sees the coin, and he thinks Rachel made it. And then he turns it over, sees the blackened side, and knows that she died, followed by that agonizing scream which we see, but don't hear. It's one of the finest moments of the film.

Ahh... I see what you’re saying. That either didn’t come off clearly enough or it slipped my mind by the end of the picture.

I’ll take a look when the film makes it to DVD.

I didn't notice the implication of the coin the first time around either, and now I can't imagine why because it's so obvious to me. But I'll outline it as I remember it, and perhaps it will jog your memory -

Batman picks up the coin, finding one side burned. He leaves it on Harvey's beside table.
Harvey picks up the coin, and has a flashback to the scene where he gave Rachael the coin. He has a flash of impossible hope that Rachael has made it, and then -
He flips the coin, finding one side burnt. He realizes what has happened.

While I missed the significance the first time around because I'd forgotten that Rach had the coin in the first place, I think it was pretty obvious that his original coin had become burned on one side, just like him. Where did you think he'd found a replacement burnt coin, just out of curiosity?

[Loomis]

All of this makes me feel that THE DARK KNIGHT's ending would be a brave and brilliant conclusion to the Nolan Batman saga.

I agree with that, but not with your reasoning for it.

Bruce Wayne, when all is said and done, is not a hero but just a misguided, grubby little man brought low by his stupidity, self-righteousness and contempt for almost everyone who doesn't happen to be Bruce Wayne, in addition to his lunatic notion that everything can be fixed by money.

Well, I see absolutely none of that in the rather heroic and trumpeted finale of THE DARK KNIGHT, nor do I see that in the characterization of Bruce Wayne. The ending wasn't a condemnation of Batman, it was his vindication, and it gave every indication that his crusade would continue.

And "Contempt for almost everyone who doesn't happen to be Bruce Wayne"? "The lunatic notion that everything can be fixed by money"? Where are these things in either BEGINS or THE DARK KNIGHT?

Well, I was exaggerating a little, of course, but it seems to me that Wayne is someone who uses other people quite ruthlessly in the service of his ultimately selfish crusade: notably Lucius Fox and Alfred, without regard to how their lives may be impacted. He allows these "friends" to give him advice, of course, but he rarely if ever acts on it. He goes his own way, always, and either drags other people along with him (e.g. the abovementioned Lucius and Alfred, as well as Gordon) or fights them. Even Rachel.... the actions of Wayne/Batman show contempt for her beliefs, and while I've no doubt that he does love her (or, at least, lusts after her), I see little evidence that he has much respect for her.... or anyone else.

I call it an "ultimately selfish crusade" because---- well, answer me this: does Batman do what he does out of a genuine desire to do good and rid the world of evil, or is he really just lashing out in what M would call inconsolable rage in order to avenge his childhood trauma at the hands of Joe Chill? Does it ultimately boil down to serial revenge, with our "hero" letting himself off the moral hook on the grounds that his prey are, to quote Arnie in TRUE LIES, all bad?

And, yes, the money issue. Money is the ultimate source of Wayne's power. As Ducard points out at the start of BB, he's in the Chinese prison by choice. When he's posing as just a spoilt playboy in both BB and TDK, we see him lording it over others, wielding his vast fortune as a weapon. It's a caricature that he deliberately uses to close his mind to the fact that, as the "noble" Batman, he essentially does precisely the same thing.

Now, obviously, this is an extremely harsh and negative interpretation of the protagonist of BB and TDK, but it is an interpretation that holds, I think, at least a certain amount of water. One could just as easily look at the two films and conclude that Bruce Wayne was the finest fellow who ever drew breath. (How would that be interesting, though?) It's an eye of the beholder thing. Similarly, it's possible to view Craig's Bond in CASINO ROYALE as little more than a manipulative brute who relishes the opportunities for violence provided by his career.

You say that "the ending wasn't a condemnation of Batman, it was his vindication", but where is the vindication? All I see is a Wayne's all-consuming obsession crumbling around him, with disastrous consequences for himself and others (indeed, for the whole of Gotham).

[Harmsway]

I call it an "ultimately selfish crusade" because---- well, answer me this: does Batman do what he does out of a genuine desire to do good and rid the world of evil, or is he really just lashing out in what M would call inconsolable rage in order to avenge his childhood trauma at the hands of Joe Chill?

Well, no. I don't think it's an "ultimately selfish crusade." I actually believe the whole of BEGINS is about Wayne moving away from personal gratification to a life of sacrifice.

At the very least, that's what Nolan intended:

Box Office Mojo: Is Batman a hero?

Christopher Nolan: Hero has become such a bandied about word, used so broadly, and it ceases to have any meaning. Is Batman a hero? Certainly, he's more a hero than superhero [but] I think the word "hero" is very problematic. He has no superpowers, but he's a heroic figure. The reason to me he's heroic is because he's altruistic. He's trying to help other people with no benefit to himself and, whatever motivates him—and this was the tricky thing to really try and nail with Batman Begins as opposed to previous incarnations—is the difference between him and a common vigilante, the Punisher or Charles Bronson in Death Wish. To me, the difference is he is not seeking personal vengeance. We did not want his quest to be for vengeance, we wanted it to be for justice. That's what sends him looking for an outlet for his rage and frustration. What he chooses to do with it is, I believe, selfless, and therefore, heroic. And that, to me, is really the distinction—selfishness versus selflessness—and that is very noble. But it is a very fine distinction. I do think he is a heroic figure.

BOM: But he does gain a value—justice is a value, even to Batman. Is he really selfless—or does he want to have a life to call his own?

Nolan: To me, he's not selfish in terms of how the word is generally understood—he's not obtaining personal gratification in an immediate sense. He's having to obliterate his own immediate [short-term] self-interest. I could tap into the reality of the story if I felt that he saw his mission as an achievable goal.

BOM: So his is a higher, more rational form of selfishness, as against irrational, short-range immediate gratification?

Nolan: Yes.

BOM: What is the movie's theme in essential terms?

Nolan: The struggle and the conflict between the desire for personal gratification or vengeance and the greater good for a constructive, positive sort—something more universal. Because Batman is limited by being an ordinary man, there's a constant tension between pragmatism and idealism.

Now, obviously, this is an extremely harsh and negative interpretation of the protagonist of BB and TDK, but it is an interpretation that holds, I think, at least a certain amount of water.

Only in the sense that you can read that into the character of Bruce Wayne, but I think you'd have trouble reconciling it with the rest of the film, which seems to want to drive in hard that Batman's heroic and noble. It just doesn't fit with the overall context, and therefore, IMO, does more violence against the film than supports it.

It's considerably different than CASINO ROYALE, which doesn't really lay out a context for Bond to be seen in. You're free to make of Bond what you will.

One could just as easily look at the two films and conclude that Bruce Wayne was the finest fellow who ever drew breath. (How would that be interesting, though?)

Well, one not need think Wayne is the finest fellow on the face of the earth to say he's a heroic, noble figure.

You say that "the ending wasn't a condemnation of Batman, it was his vindication", but where is the vindication?

What, you missed Gary Oldman's giant monologue about heroism and how Batman's pretty much the most awesome, noble thing ever, and how he's the real hero of Gotham because he's the one who'll sacrifice for it, complete with rousing score in the background?

[Judo chop]

What, you missed Gary Oldman's giant monologue about heroism and how Batman's pretty much the most awesome, noble thing ever, and how he's the real hero of Gotham because he's the one who'll sacrifice for it, complete with rousing score in the background?

Actually, I did miss it. The first time. The mix was unevenly balanced and all I could hear was music and the roar of Batman’s bike.

But back to the point about the hero thing… it sounds to me like Oldman’s final dialogue echoes Nolan’s thoughts up above. I’m talking about the part of Gordon’s dialogue that I had questioned earlier, when he says “Because <Batman> is the hero that Gotham deserves”, and then goes on to say “Because <Batman> is not a hero… he’s a guardian, a protector, a knight.”

That sounds like a blatant contradiction, which it is. And so I wonder if Nolan was trying to make his point (which, admittedly, is a little ambiguous) that ‘hero’ isn’t really the proper word for Batman. He seems to be saying the very same thing in the paragraph you quoted above.

[Loomis]

I call it an "ultimately selfish crusade" because---- well, answer me this: does Batman do what he does out of a genuine desire to do good and rid the world of evil, or is he really just lashing out in what M would call inconsolable rage in order to avenge his childhood trauma at the hands of Joe Chill?

Well, no. I don't think it's an "ultimately selfish crusade." I actually believe the whole of BEGINS is about Wayne moving away from personal gratification to a life of sacrifice.

But BB shows no previous lifestyle of personal gratification (a Spoilt Playboy Lifestyle™) for Wayne to abandon in the first place. He doesn't adopt the Batman persona because he's disgusted with himself for being an aimless rich kid. Neither is he suddenly struck by some higher calling to go out and battle injustice. It is shown very clearly that violent childhood tragedy is what motivates his subsequent "life of sacrifice".

The reason to me he's heroic is because he's altruistic. He's trying to help other people with no benefit to himself

No benefit to himself? Altruism is the purest form of selfishness. Batman's crusade is essentially a form of therapy for Bruce Wayne wrapped up in self-righteous flapdoodle. Regardless of what Nolan may claim about how Wayne is different to the guy in DEATH WISH.

What, you missed Gary Oldman's giant monologue about heroism and how Batman's pretty much the most awesome, noble thing ever, and how he's the real hero of Gotham because he's the one who'll sacrifice for it, complete with rousing score in the background?

Uh, I think Gordon was deeply shocked and traumatised at that point and didn't really know what he was saying.

[Judo chop]

The reason to me he's heroic is because he's altruistic. He's trying to help other people with no benefit to himself

No benefit to himself? Altruism is the purest form of selfishness. Batman's crusade is essentially a form of therapy for Bruce Wayne wrapped up in self-righteous flapdoodle. Regardless of what Nolan may claim about how Wayne is different to the guy in DEATH WISH.

Wading into the deeper waters of philosophy here.

In any case Loomis, it’s not really fair to start a conversation re: selfishness and selflessness, and then half-way through pull the plug and claim that there is no such thing as selflessness at all.

I think the therapy thing is what started Wayne on his crusade, but that it has become, or more to the point, is becoming, a higher, less-selfish, thing.

Not speaking up to defend Harmsway as if he needs it. I’d just like to see the conversation remain on track. You know… for my own selfishness.

[BoogieBond]

I agree about the concluding thoughts. These hit hard in a way that the happier resolution could not.
In essence the theme of "Things are always going to get worse" and the theme of consequences came right through. It may have been a grim realisation that to play equally with an enemy who doesn't have any rules, you cannot seem to have any. This 2-pointed meaning, meant he could seem to operate outside rules, and at the same time ensure Dent's reputation is not tarnished. It was felt to be the right choice, full of thought, rather than emotions, as the choices made by Batman earlier in the film.
Gordon must be thick skinned though, going public with a lie, for the greater good.

Edited by BoogieBond, 31 July 2008 - 02:13 PM.

[Harmsway]

But BB shows no previous lifestyle of personal gratification (a Spoilt Playboy Lifestyle™) for Wayne to abandon in the first place.

I'm talking about revenge. Wayne moves from seeking vengeance, from just going out to indulge his anger, to focusing his outrage to a higher goal, one that doesn't really allow him his revenge in the same way. That's what I'm talking about.

Altruism is the purest form of selfishness.

I don't agree with that at all. And I imagine that would start a debate of its own, one that's probably very inappropriate for this thread.

In any case Loomis, it’s not really fair to start a conversation re: selfishness and selflessness, and then half-way through pull the plug and claim that there is no such thing as selflessness at all.

I think the therapy thing is what started Wayne on his crusade, but that it has become, or more to the point, is becoming, a higher, less-selfish, thing.

[Loomis]

Altruism is the purest form of selfishness.

I don't agree with that at all.

Neither do I, actually - but I thought I'd float it as an idea.

At what point in the BB/TDK saga does Wayne move "from seeking vengeance, from just going out to indulge his anger, to focusing his outrage to a higher goal, one that doesn't really allow him his revenge in the same way"?

You see, the whole problem I have with the idea of Wayne as a selfless do-gooder is that the saga takes great pains to "explain" how violent childhood trauma changed his life and set him upon his present path. And if that isn't a path of revenge I don't know what a path of revenge is.

[Harmsway]

At what point in the BB/TDK saga does Wayne move "from seeking vengeance, from just going out to indulge his anger, to focusing his outrage to a higher goal, one that doesn't really allow him his revenge in the same way"?

When he refuses to join the League of Shadows. When he decides he won't kill, when he decides that it's not about his own anger, that it's about helping others. That's what that whole scene is about, and all the subsequent dialogue. It's not like Nolan was particularly subtle about that whole aspect of the story (as you know, the script has all the thematic subtlety of a sledgehammer).

You see, the whole problem I have with the idea of Wayne as a selfless do-gooder is that the saga takes great pains to "explain" how violent childhood trauma changed his life and set him upon his present path. And if that isn't a path of revenge I don't know what a path of revenge is.

I don't see how that follows. Childhood trauma results in a life path, and therefore that life path, by necessity, is revenge? Bruce Wayne takes the hurt and anger resulting from his tragedy and funnels it into a higher purpose, something about genuinely improving the world he knew. How can that be vengeance when its ultimate guiding purpose is about helping others?

[avl]

At what point in the BB/TDK saga does Wayne move "from seeking vengeance, from just going out to indulge his anger, to focusing his outrage to a higher goal, one that doesn't really allow him his revenge in the same way"?

When he refuses to join the League of Shadows. When he decides he won't kill, when he decides that it's not about his own anger, that it's about helping others. That's what that whole scene is about, and all the subsequent dialogue. It's not like Nolan was particularly subtle about that whole aspect of the story (as you know, the script has all the thematic subtlety of a sledgehammer).

You see, the whole problem I have with the idea of Wayne as a selfless do-gooder is that the saga takes great pains to "explain" how violent childhood trauma changed his life and set him upon his present path. And if that isn't a path of revenge I don't know what a path of revenge is.

I don't see how that follows. Childhood trauma results in a life path, and therefore that life path, by necessity, is revenge? Bruce Wayne takes the hurt and anger resulting from his tragedy and funnels it into a higher purpose, something about genuinely improving the world he knew. How can that be vengeance when its ultimate guiding purpose is about helping others?

And is that not the point of these films - to examine the tension between revenge and justice, self-interest and selflessness. Is Batman a "hero" or a "Dark Knight" - even Gordon doesn't seem to know at the end. It's that ambiguity that drives Nolans vision.

[baerrtt]

At what point in the BB/TDK saga does Wayne move "from seeking vengeance, from just going out to indulge his anger, to focusing his outrage to a higher goal, one that doesn't really allow him his revenge in the same way"?

When he refuses to join the League of Shadows. When he decides he won't kill, when he decides that it's not about his own anger, that it's about helping others. That's what that whole scene is about, and all the subsequent dialogue. It's not like Nolan was particularly subtle about that whole aspect of the story (as you know, the script has all the thematic subtlety of a sledgehammer).

You see, the whole problem I have with the idea of Wayne as a selfless do-gooder is that the saga takes great pains to "explain" how violent childhood trauma changed his life and set him upon his present path. And if that isn't a path of revenge I don't know what a path of revenge is.

I don't see how that follows. Childhood trauma results in a life path, and therefore that life path, by necessity, is revenge? Bruce Wayne takes the hurt and anger resulting from his tragedy and funnels it into a higher purpose, something about genuinely improving the world he knew. How can that be vengeance when its ultimate guiding purpose is about helping others?

And is that not the point of these films - to examine the tension between revenge and justice, self-interest and selflessness. Is Batman a "hero" or a "Dark Knight" - even Gordon doesn't seem to know at the end. It's that ambiguity that drives Nolans vision.

Your correct as Bruce's actions/motivations aren't selfish because the risk is all his. He's sacrificing the chances of a stable life for an ideal that can't be achieved(eradicating all crime), that is selfless personified. Imagining dedicating and sacrificing your life to basically achieve an end that will never come in it's entirety? That's why TDK is one of the best depictions of how and why this 'dark' character is ultimately one of the most optimistic visions of heroism in fiction.

Compare to Bond who sacrifices his life because his government tells him to and also because he really doesn't know what else he'll do if it weren't for the military (in some shape or form).

[Aris007]

After a long period of waiting I saw it yesterday! Grrrrrrrrrreat film! Very good! By far the best Batman film ever! Not many effects just pure action! Joker was good in his longest part in any Batman film! Christian Bale was a little funny when his words contained an "S", but never mind! Also it was too long as a film, but it worthed it!