Batman Begins/The Dark Knight dissection thread

[Denster]

I don't get the issue with the edit after Harvey's nick name or why it jars some as much as it does. Also the scene at the fun raiser? They went there for Dent - he isn't there and Batman shows up so they leave - the whole dropping rachel out of the window is to distract Batman so they can escape. What's so difficult to comprehend?

First point: fair enough but it's been mentioned by enough people here to show that you seem to be in the minority on this. In my opinion, it's a horrible cut that completely jarrs you out of the moment.

The fund raiser: it's not a question of what the Joker did or didn't do after Batman left, it's the fact that the film/director just forgets about him and doesn't bother to even consider the issue. The primary villain is in the protagonist's house with the main secondary character and...they're just left there. No explanation and no attempt to close the situation, it's just not broached. That's sloppy scriptwriting and if it were any other franchise or director they'd have been called out on it.

I'm not answering this in here.

[The People's ElboReformat]

I don't get the issue with the edit after Harvey's nick name or why it jars some as much as it does. Also the scene at the fun raiser? They went there for Dent - he isn't there and Batman shows up so they leave - the whole dropping rachel out of the window is to distract Batman so they can escape. What's so difficult to comprehend?

First point: fair enough but it's been mentioned by enough people here to show that you seem to be in the minority on this. In my opinion, it's a horrible cut that completely jarrs you out of the moment.

The fund raiser: it's not a question of what the Joker did or didn't do after Batman left, it's the fact that the film/director just forgets about him and doesn't bother to even consider the issue. The primary villain is in the protagonist's house with the main secondary character and...they're just left there. No explanation and no attempt to close the situation, it's just not broached. That's sloppy scriptwriting and if it were any other franchise or director they'd have been called out on it.

What did you want? A scene with Joker in standing in the room with all the people after Batman jumps out the window. And he's all like "Ah well, nothing to do here. Come along henchmen". Then a scene with them standing in the elevator humming to the elevator music as they leave. Then a scene with them all getting into a (clown) car and driving off.








Actually that'd be sweet.

[Skarjo]

I don't get the issue with the edit after Harvey's nick name or why it jars some as much as it does. Also the scene at the fun raiser? They went there for Dent - he isn't there and Batman shows up so they leave - the whole dropping rachel out of the window is to distract Batman so they can escape. What's so difficult to comprehend?

First point: fair enough but it's been mentioned by enough people here to show that you seem to be in the minority on this. In my opinion, it's a horrible cut that completely jarrs you out of the moment.

The fund raiser: it's not a question of what the Joker did or didn't do after Batman left, it's the fact that the film/director just forgets about him and doesn't bother to even consider the issue. The primary villain is in the protagonist's house with the main secondary character and...they're just left there. No explanation and no attempt to close the situation, it's just not broached. That's sloppy scriptwriting and if it were any other franchise or director they'd have been called out on it.

But equally sloppy is the train ride in Begins, given that it completely undermines the Batman character.

That we don't see how the Joker leaves the party is one thing, but the fact that the monorail sequence breaks literally the only rule that four or five decades of Batman comics have established is far less forgiveable.

[Denster]

Stop posting stuff in here.

[Pacman]

Nu

[Tafdolphin]

I don't get the issue with the edit after Harvey's nick name or why it jars some as much as it does. Also the scene at the fun raiser? They went there for Dent - he isn't there and Batman shows up so they leave - the whole dropping rachel out of the window is to distract Batman so they can escape. What's so difficult to comprehend?

First point: fair enough but it's been mentioned by enough people here to show that you seem to be in the minority on this. In my opinion, it's a horrible cut that completely jarrs you out of the moment.

The fund raiser: it's not a question of what the Joker did or didn't do after Batman left, it's the fact that the film/director just forgets about him and doesn't bother to even consider the issue. The primary villain is in the protagonist's house with the main secondary character and...they're just left there. No explanation and no attempt to close the situation, it's just not broached. That's sloppy scriptwriting and if it were any other franchise or director they'd have been called out on it.

But equally sloppy is the train ride in Begins, given that it completely undermines the Batman character.

That we don't see how the Joker leaves the party is one thing, but the fact that the monorail sequence breaks literally the only rule that four or five decades of Batman comics have established is far less forgiveable.

Interesting fact: the "one rule" was not part of the original character sheet for Batman and he used to kill with reckless abandon in his early appearances. And he certainly didn't kill Ra's, just as he didn't kill him at the start or as Ra's didn't kill him at Wayne Manor. Nothing about that scene affected my enjoyment of the film half as much as some of the abrupt cutaways in TDK.

It's definitely not sloppy either, at least not in the sense I'm referring to. The "leaving to die but not actually killing" was set up right at the start of the film. It's a device that's brought up several times throughout the film. It's a conscious decision by the screenwriter. The ending of the party is sloppy due to the lack of conscious decision: it's not closed, it's simply left hanging with the hope that the audience won't notice.

The fund raiser: it's not a question of what the Joker did or didn't do after Batman left, it's the fact that the film/director just forgets about him and doesn't bother to even consider the issue. The primary villain is in the protagonist's house with the main secondary character and...they're just left there. No explanation and no attempt to close the situation, it's just not broached. That's sloppy scriptwriting and if it were any other franchise or director they'd have been called out on it.

What did you want? A scene with Joker in standing in the room with all the people after Batman jumps out the window. And he's all like "Ah well, nothing to do here. Come along henchmen". Then a scene with them standing in the elevator humming to the elevator music as they leave. Then a scene with them all getting into a (clown) car and driving off.

Again, this is not the point. The point is that the scene as it appears in the film leaves a huge flapping plot hole. If they couldn't think of a way to conclude the party scene effectively, why is it there at all? They could have had the Joker attacking Dent in the street, or in court, or anywhere that didn't leave the primary villain in the hero's house with a bunch of his friends.

Also, what's the problem having a dedicated thread for this?

[Dual]

Stop posting stuff in here.

What's your problem m8?

[Denster]

Anny doesnt want this discussion to crop up in the film topics. I like the fact that it does along with the die hard/pixar/c breams/ keyser soze staples. That's why i wont contribute. `Even when people still moan about cutaway editing.

It's like moaning about the same thing in Pulp fiction - can you people not follow a strawberry floating story without signposts?

Seriously - what did you wnat for the Dent / Gordon scene


D - i hear they have another name for me down at MCU?

G - I wouldn't know about that

D - Oh go on, tell me - don't be mean.

G - Seriously, don't know what you're talking about!

D - Awww, Gordooooooonn!

G - No Harvey - stop making me feel uncomfortable. End scene End scene.


Really?

The scene ended perfectly well Gordon was avoiding the answer and wanted out of there. Perfectly natural point to cut.

I'm not even getting started again on the Joker at the penthouse bit - ludicrous.

[Denster]

I realise that this thread has now sucked me in.


Curses!

(shakes fist at Anny)

[Tafdolphin]

It's like moaning about the same thing in Pulp fiction - can you people not follow a strawberry floating story without signposts?

So, we're immediately on different pages here. I've said I like TDK, love it even. A few plot holes and odd editing decisions does not a bad film make. However it makes it, in my mind, less of a perfect film than Begins. Of course I can follow a story without signposts, but with TDK the story is convoluted in the extreme. I agree with Skippy that the fact the film is a character piece negates this somewhat, but the plot definitely could have been far less contrived.

Seriously, try and plot out TDK in a linear manner, then compare it to Begins.

The scene ended perfectly well Gordon was avoiding the answer and wanted out of there. Perfectly natural point to cut.

This is harder to debate without the scene in question and I can't find it on youtube. It's not about the dialogue, it's about filmmaking. Smash cuts are used to create urgency in a film. When you smash cut from one scene to the next, in most cases it'll be during a kinetic sequence such as a chase, a fight or after some sort of huge reveal. Here, it's two people in a room talking, smash cutting to a city shot. There's no urgency, no big reveal. Of course, none of this would matter if it didn't seem strange but even upon first viewing it just felt unnatural to me.

It's not about what Gordon should have said next, it's about the method with which we're extracted from the scene, and the timing of it.

I'm not even getting started again on the Joker at the penthouse bit - ludicrous.

Why not? I want to here your rebuttal!

[Denster]

For my rebuttal - check my rank!

[Tafdolphin]

[Denster]

[satriales]

Sorry Denny but Breaking Bad is way better than The Dark Knight.

[Denster]

You know what the daft thing is. For me there is only 0.5 /10 between them. I adore them both and TDK wouldnt have been anything like as good for me without the excellence of the first.

The introduction of the joker as the next protagonist at the end of BB is probably my biggest strawberry float yeah moment ever ( apart from Star wars LOTR of course!). I came out of the IMAX grinning like a monkey at that.



Nolan