This is discussion archived from a time before the current discussion method was installed.
Griffinhart - Pulled one instance of Evil Cannot Comprehend Good off of the article, as it gets listed a few lines down later on, with a justification of sorts. (Unless it was a Department of Redundancy Department joke that someone didn't pot hole for?)
Jack Butler: Removed the spoiler tag from the fact that Harvey Dent becomes Two Face. Fifty-seven years, people. If you don't know it by now, its your own fault.
Guesss Who: Scariest thing about the movie to me is that the Joker has a point about horrifying plans. Oh, and that Two-Face's worldview is surprisingly valid, when you think about it.
Canvas Wolf Doll: Am I the only one to notice a theme among these movies villain wise? In the first one, the big bad advertised was Scarecrow, while Ras al Ghul snuck in, while in the second The Joker was the advertised villain, while two-face was only hinted to.
Neophos: This one is listed under Adaptation Distillation while Tim Burton's movies are Adaptation Decay? Why is the ones more faithful to the original decay while the ones who are barely even Batman movies distillations?
Springjack Depends which "original" you mean, largely. Note that Adaptation Distillation can mean removing campy baggage, and Adaptation Decay can mean the failure of said campiness to work in another medium. Also, subjective trope.
Sqweaktoy: Removed the Xanatos Roulette example. It wasn't a grand plan of the Joker's so much as a series of IndyPloys which semi-failed, and joker just sort of rolled with the punches.
Springjack Assuming he wasn't lying about that to Dent.
Servitor_2152: Removed the Smug Snake example. A Smug Snake is one who tries to be a Magnificent Bastard, and who acts like a Magnificent Bastard, but fails to actually make the mark. Whether Joker counts as a Magnificent Bastard is a matter of opinion (and in my opinion, he does), but he lacks the smarminess necessary to be a true Smug Snake.
Meta Four: Removed the reference to Harvey Dent being a Knight Templar. He doesn't take extreme measures like a true Templar, at least not until he becomes Two-Face. At which point he stops believing in any morality (falling into Nietzsche Wannabe territory), thus lacking the absolute certainty of his own rightness that a true Templar would have.
Springjack I dunno..... when Batman stops him from interrogating the schizo guy.... he was heading into Knight Templar territory.
Macavity: Changed spoiler reveal about Batgirl's ID in Comics. Perhaps previous poster got confused with Batman and Robin?
Wascally Wabbit: Removed This! Is! SPARTA! examples for being nothing of the sort.
Sean Tucker: Could someone go through and mark the TDK spoilers separately from the Batman Begins spoilers? I've already seen Batman Begins, but I don't want The Dark Knight spoiled for me.
Indigo: The PG-13 rating isn't really all that lenient. The director was very clever. The violence all stops short of showing what would give an R rating, but Your Mind Makes It Real.
- There's very little visible blood, so that wouldn't crank up the rating.
- The Joker's magic trick should've had blood, but we don't see it.
- The bit where Batman drops the mobster from just high enough to break his legs should've had blood, but there wasn't.
- The most explicit bit of gore was when they showed us Harvey's horribly burned face.
- Even the people who die onscreen don't die bloodily or violently; no worse, in fact, than the 1989 Batman movie.
- There are no curse words. You get one F Bomb in a PG-13 movie.
- There are no boobies on display. You can display three boobies [Yes, three] in PG-13. Four will get you an R rating.
Grimace: Haha! That's fascinating. I'm not being sarky here, I genuinely didn't know the rating guidelines were so...clerical. Of course, it's different here in Australia I imagine, but probably along the same lines (it got an M rating here)
Nosferatu5: Corrections: Actually, there could be more than 1 Fbomb in a PG-13 movie, probably up to three or four. Also, it's true about the boobies, but... Do you mean in the whole movie, or how?? And can it be three depictions of breasts of the same person? Ex: Titanic.
Chuckles: It's lenient in the sense that most people who see this film at the age of 13 aren't going to want to see it again in a hurry. It got the rating thanks to careful use of editing.
Thanks to whoever moved my Start of Darkness example for the Joker to Freudian Excuse. I always mix those two up.
Air Of Mystery: Coooould anyone explain to me why exactly the Joker goes through the Hero's Journey? Far as I can tell, Joker skips the Village and the Crossing of the Void, maybe does the Belly of the Whale thing but I can't think of much else.
Grimace: Random question - what accent would you peg The Joker's? I'm aware Heath Ledger is a good ol' fellow Aussie, but he obviously doesn't use his own voice for the role. It sounds somewhat like a pseudo-Brookyln accent, but as I know diddly about American accents, was curious if a US-Troper with an ear for these things could help me out?
SaiyaJedi: The pronunciation is definitely nothing like Brooklyn (or the Northeast in general, for that matter) but as Michael Phillips noted in his review
of the film, Ledger uses a Midwestern, Chicago-ish accent. Seems appropriate, considering where the movie was filmed, and might even be another example of The Windy City at work.
Grimace: Cheers! Just shows what I know - no idea what a Chicago accent sounds like (or Brookyln, apparently), but considering Gotham is basically Chicago-by-Night, that makes perfect sense. Thanks once again.
Matthew The Raven: It sounded like a very nasal cross between a Chicago accent and a Minnesota accent.
OSI: I thought I detected a hint of Bruce Dern in his accent. There's definitely something of Chicago about it, though the diction is straight crazy town. (Chicagoans don't really suck compulsively at their cheeks and jerk up and down the vocal register.)
Skazka: I got really nasal, sing-song Chicago accent out of it, as well as, like Matthew The Raven said, a little bit of Minnesotan. Which frightens me, since I have a Minnesotan accent. At least some upper Midwestern.
Garyuu: I submit my futile request that Batman Begins be put under genuine Adaptation Decay on the grounds that it has great directing, solid performances, a very interesting visual style, and a god awful script that makes me want to gouge my eyes out. Bruce Wayne whines his way through the movie, Ra's is just... not Ra's at all, Bruce is very weakwilled throughout the movie, his love interest was poorly written/acted and it suffered, all in all Bruce wasn't very sympathetic or interesting (WHINE MOAR), like always, the issue of putting two villains in the same movie that really needed to be different movies. I understand this is probably not going to happen and I'm not adding it because of the whole complaining about shows I don't like thing, but I had to say something.
Grimace: While I genuinely applaud your honesty, especially so soon after it was released...I really doubt you'll get much traction with that request. I see your argument, and do kinda get where you're coming from (but disagree, politely >;~]), but at this moment you seem to be in the very small minority, so I doubt adding "Adaptation Decay" will stick for more than 12 second.
KJMackley: That is part of the Rule Of Cautious Editing Judgement. Any form of media will be subjective as to the actual quality but going against the overwhelming majority is simply not fun for anyone. Sometimes even stating things that are the majority opinion is dangerous, if it is a sensitive topic like politics, religion, Subbing Versus Dubbing...
Garyuu: Like I said. I'm not adding it, it was a futile request, but I HAD to say something. I get the rules, I get it's not a popular opinion, but let's just pretend I'm a noisy fucker who has to open his mouth.
Chuckles: The fact that you dislike parts of the film has nothing to do with Adaptation Decay. Adaptation Decay refers to adaptations that make changes that detract from the themes of the source material. While Adaptation Decay tends to be used to mean "a different media version of something that sucks", it doesn't. Call it Wall Banger if you like.
Why is this called a trilogy? There have been six Batman movies for Warner Brothers, and there have only been two movies directed by Christopher Nolan with the a distinct continuity. There's nothing that indicates a three-act structure to the whole thing. Yes, he's probably going to get to make another Batman movie, but he could make another one after that. It just seems an odd thing to call the movie series, no matter what way you divide it.
Ununnilium: See, to me, it positively smacks of the three-act structure, most notably in the Downer Ending of The Dark Knight. They both seem like parts of a single connected story.
Grimace: Strangely enough, to me it smacks of a "saga". ie. no specific amount of movies, but more than one. It could be because I'm so used to those damn Two Part Trilogies of recent years, where the idea of having a sequel that stands on its own merits is a forgotten concept.
But still, while I can easily see it being a Trilogy, I can equally see it being a Tetralogy (or more) if Nolan and co. feel it can be done.
Skyblade: See, I can see "saga" working as a word. I'm just saying "trilogy" is very presumptuous. It's the wrong word to use plain and simple, the previous two movies weren't based on anything that was trilogy, and Nolan has not signed on for, nor even mentioned ideas for, another Batman movie.
Ialdabaoth: I second Skyblade's point, and add as evidence this Yahoo! Movies article dated October 28, 2008: Director unsure about a third Batman movie. Relevant quote:
- Earlier this month, David S. Goyer, the co-writer of both of Nolan's Batman films, said that all the rumors that have been floating around regarding a third film are untrue. "Chris and I haven't even talked about it," Goyer told MTV, adding, "We have mused here and there... [but] there really isn't anything to tell." And Nolan himself seems to confirm that he has not thought much about a possible third film. "Really and in truth, I only deal with one film at a time. I find myself sort of protesting this issue a lot. We've never attempted to save anything for a sequel or set up anything for a sequel.
Ergo, I propose renaming this entry to "Dark Knight Saga" or "Dark Knight Series."
Twin Bird: Does Batman really qualify as Lawful Good? I'd have to say Batman, especially Nolan's Batman, is Neutral Good at best. Also, do we really need to spoiler the fact that Harvey becomes Two-Face? The details are a spoiler, but nearly everyone knew that; even the non-fans (and they would have to be hardcore non-fans, never having seen Forever or a Two-Face episode of any TV version) probably read it in a review.
Eakin: I've seen this one argued back and forth elsewhere, but the core of the Lawful Good Batman argument is that while he will work outside the law of Gotham City (which is always a corrupt institution anyway) he adheres to his own, stringent moral code particularly against killing criminals. Indeed, the Joker's plan in Dark Knight is basically to get him to chuck the "lawful" aspect entirely in order to stop a greater evil. Plus he's willing to work with non corrupt members of Gotham's PD and has their implicit support. Agreed about the Two Face/Harvey Dent thing though.
How does Batman: Gotham Knight qualify as part of the trilogy whatsoever? None of the shorts have any connection to the movies or to each other. It didn't look to me like they were trying to depict the armored movie version of the Bat at all, clearly it was the comics fella.
Mr Death: It takes place between the two movies. The art styles change, yes, but it was produced in connection with The Dark Knight. A running plot in the shorts is the ongoing mob war (which is the reason the Joker ends up getting involved), for instance, and the female cop in Gotham Knight is in The Dark Knight.
KJMackley: I moved two of the three quotes for The Dark Knight down to appropriate tropes. Administrative Policy says one quote (I feel two at most) for a page, since the description is divided by the movies I think it is okay for one quote per movie. Harvey's quote is now under Well Intention Extremist and The Joker is under Chaotic Evil, I felt Alfreds' quote was the simplest and best evocative of the theme.
Caswin: A recent addition to the page: "If someone ever asks why The Joker burned the money or why Batman didn't just blame him for all of Harvey's crimes instead then the audience has completely missed the point about what kind of characters they are." I'm confused about that second part. While I have heard an explanation for why they did it that way — to discourage the copy-bats — I don't see what's so integral to Batman's character that to question that decision qualifies as Completely Missing The Point. Which apparently means that I myself have fallen victim, as well. Can someone help explain this?
Crowley: The copy-bats? That's just a Fanon reason for the decision. The real reason was a major part of the movie; unfortunately, it's been a while since this Troper has seen the film, and she does not think she can convey it correctly.
Caswin: Mind, I can believe that there was a better reason in the movie. However, accusing any audience who doesn't quite get it of completely missing the point of the character feels harsher than is appropriate.
Some Sort Of Troper: The point was that the crooks knew that Batman wouldn't kill him, that at the end of the day he was a hero who can't be that innately terrifying to them when compared to the mad dogs and killers they normally work with (and especially not when compared to the Joker type of villain). You see evidence of this when he's threatening Maroni with the drop. Even after he drops him, Maroni knows he won't kill him while what the Joker would do to him is truly frightening. The point of the piece is that Bruce can't become the White Knight that Dent could and he knows that while to be effective he has to be far darker.
Caswin: That sounds great and makes a great deal of sense, thank you. However, the page entry doesn't line up with that reasoning at all. So, if no one minds...
Storm: Would everyone be okay with a character sheet for these films? I feel certain characters, especially Joker, are different enough to warrant it. I'd make it myself, but, erm...I'm not entirely sure how. Ehe.
Puffy Treat: Can "Did Not Dothe Research" apply in cases where the writers deliberately chose to do something fantastical for dramatic effect? That seems to be the case for all the complaints given for technology in the film.
Mike Maltani: The Joker's Crowning Moment Of Awesome regarding torching $68 million seems very inaccurate. The whole stack of cash in the warehouse is implied to be literally HALF of the Mob's cash assets that he wanted to screw over the Batman. And if someone's going to fix that line, don't forget the fact that the accountant was on top of the stack when it went up in flames.
Stalkthis: Pretty sure the Chechen's response implies that it's the whole cache, while Jokers 'reassurance' that he's only 'burning [his] half' cements it in this tropers mind.
Goat Boy: I just read about The Long Halloween, which I haven't read, but is the basis for a rather infamous plot development in The Dark Knight. Apparently, in that, Harvey Dent's wife, who "dies" in a warehouse wasn't really dead.
Christopher Nolan, you Magnificent Bastard.
Batfan: On both the main page and the character sheet, The Joker is listed as being both a Complete Monster and a Magnificent Bastard, but I thought that by definition those two tropes were mutually exclusive. Is the Joker just that special, are should we put a Your Milage May Vary tag on it, leaving it up to personal choice as to which he is?
Melloncollie: The Your Milage May Vary tag fixes everything :P
Melloncollie: Is it just me, or is there too many Crowning Moments of Awesome in the examples? Suggestions, anyone?
