Because I'm a freak, and have to analyze every single aspect of any movie that impacts me the way The Dark Knight did, I wrote this overly-long and probably-way-too-complicated look at not only what I took away from the movie, but more importantly, what the explorations of themes in TDK imply for what is to come in the next film. I do things like this as an exercise in trying to understand how to better my own writing - and when it comes to this movie, it was the master of all teachers. For the record, this was one of the most thematically complicated, rich and compelling movies I have ever seen. I can't tell you how much I learned as far as how implement certain devices into my own writing... but enough of that...

Here...

We...

Go...



RELEASE DATE

Director Christopher Nolan and company will most likely be back for the third (and probably final, for them anyway) film. This should happen sooner rather than later. Warner Brothers wants this sequel as fast as they can get it. Summer 2010 is most likely out of the question (they’d have to start filming this spring, which is near impossible), so summer 2011 is pretty much set in stone as the target release date. MAYBE Christmas 2010 (this is apparently a legitimate consideration), but I highly doubt it.

After Batman Begins, Warner Brothers essentially rewarded Nolan with the time and their blessing to shoot The Prestige before getting back in the saddle with The Dark Knight. He gave them a critically acclaimed blockbuster, they in turn gave him the money and backing to do a “smaller,” more intimate film he was very passionate about. However, this may not be the case this time around. Warner Brothers wants to capitalize on the success and momentum of TDK and get a second sequel as fast as they can get it from Nolan. If this means paying him a hefty sum instead of “rewarding” him with the time and freedom to do another more “intimate” film before hand, then that’s what I imagine they’ll do.

You also have to understand that Warner Brothers’ still-undecided plans with the Superman franchise will factor into all of this as well. If Bryan Singer stays on board to direct a sequel to Superman Returns, it’ll hit theaters summer 2010, thus ensuring a summer 2011 release for a third Batman film. However, if they make the decision to revamp the Superman franchise and start anew with a fresh story/team, it will be pushed back for a summer 2011 release. Since Warner Brothers would never release both movies in the same summer, Batman would then most likely be forced into an earlier slot. From what I understand, a decision on which way to take the Superman franchise will be made by fall, along with Nolan’s deal, so we should have (tentative) release dates for both films within the next couple of months. The success of TDK this weekend will hopefully speed up this process.

Finally, and this is pure speculation, but you can bet that this next Batman film will be the last from Nolan and company (though obviously not the last of this particular series). Christian Bale himself has even been quoted as saying he wants to come back for a third in order to “complete the trilogy.” Further, Nolan is simply becoming too big of a director to extend the franchise beyond a third film, especially if he doesn’t get a “courtesy” film (of sorts) before having to go right in to this next sequel. Using his new-found clout, he’s going to want to move onto different, “bigger and better” things. Having the kind of power he’s about to encounter is a rare thing for a director, and he’s not going to waste that power on a fourth Batman film.



THE TITLE

A bunch of us were at dinner after the film, talking about any and every aspect of what we had just witnessed, and we got to talking about possible title options for the third one. A few were tossed around (like The Dark Knight Returns, etc.), then I finally had a thought; “What if they just called it Batman?” My reason being is that it would fit with the progression of what has already come. The first title, Batman Begins, is pretty self explanatory. The second, The Dark Knight, is an allusion to what he had to become; a vigilante hero in a sense, someone truly disliked and on the run, but someone Gotham needs nonetheless. But now, this third installment will very likely be about acceptance, not only in the public’s eyes, but with Bruce Wayne’s own personal acceptance of his parent’s death, acceptance of Gotham’s ultimate fate (whatever that may be), etc. The point I’m trying to make is that by the third film’s end, he’ll finally just be. There will be no adjective, allusion, or misconception in describing who he is (as each title spells out for us). He’ll finally just be accepted as BATMAN, and nothing more. He’ll find his constant, his state of zen, if you will, and the public will finally see him for the hero he is, which is simply Batman… whatever that ultimately stands for in the “end.”

The title also comes full circle with the 89’ title, while simultaneously tying in nicely with Nolan’s end to his trilogy. He’s setting out to prove his reasoning of why the Batman franchise should be this way. Begins was his thesis, TDK was his anti-thesis, and Batman will be his synthesis, the coming together of everything laid out before.



THE VILLAINS


"You either die a hero, or you live long enough to see yourself become the villain."

- Harvey Dent, The Dark Knight


Forget who’s left to choose from. Forget all your assumptions. You have to first understand that Batman himself is now the villain. Not the Riddler. Not the Penguin. Not Catwoman. Batman is the true villain of the next movie.

I see part three mirroring The Fugitive in a small way. The good guy (Harrison Ford) is the “bad guy” in the good guy’s eyes, while the “bad guys” (the ones chasing Ford) are the good guys in actuality (get that?). In other words, the regular villain vs. hero set up will most likely not apply here. This is a triangle now (and not just in that this is the third film). By nature, this one will be more complicated. Whoever the technical “villain” is the next go-around, he’ll complete the triangle and not just be one half of a joust with Batman. He’ll most likely either be working with the cops to hunt down Batman, or working with Batman to help him “against” the cops. It’ll probably even be a combination of the two. However, whoever he or she is, that person will obviously be in it for themselves, on their OWN side as well. So think of the villain in those terms. Possibly choosing from Batman’s rouge’s gallery (even dipping into the lesser knowns), who is someone that can “help” the cops on a (Bat)man-hunt? Inversely, who is someone that can “help” Batman on the run (besides Alfred or Fox), someone who can actually be there in the trenches with him? Maybe this third corner of the triangle is actually BOTH of these people, working together, working both sides.

Granted, I could very well be COMPLETELY wrong with these assumptions, and Batman won't necessarily be "on the run." He does have the luxury of a secret identity. I’m just trying to say that the conventional, very “public,” mano-a-mano villain will most likely have no place in the third film…


- THE RIDDLER

In his current incarnation, the Riddler is out of the question (no pun intended). Not only is he too much like the Joker (leaving clues, a little loopy, etc), but he also doesn’t fit the mold of who the villain needs to be. Besides, why introduce a villain who’s only slightly different than the one from the previous movie (one who was so iconically amazing, nonetheless)?

However, one way to possibly make the Riddler work would be to portray an aspect of the third film as murder mystery/thriller. Think Seven or Zodiac, where we DON’T KNOW who the killer is throughout a majority of the film. Imagine, for the third film, implementing a similar aspect, having the Riddler as a serial killer of sorts, leaving a trail of riddles at each murder scene, in the news papers, etc. You could save his true identity for the climax, building on the idea that he’s more of a notion or force to be reckoned with, rather than a living, breathing villain (until film’s end). Almost like Keyser Soze. This aspect would also definitely put Batman’s detective skills to the test, no doubt. Of course, you’d have to have a more formidable villain as well who Batman could see and touch (who would also meet the criteria I’ve already mention), but I think this aspect could be right at home the world Nolan has created.


- THE PENGUIN

Nolan is on record as saying he has never liked the Penguin for this world, so he’s probably out of the question as well. Even if he does pop up, don’t expect the once-often-rumored Philip Seymour Hoffman or Bob Haskins in the role (though I could definitely get behind Paul Giamatti if they went with that mold). Heath Ledger proved they’re thinking out of the box when it comes to not only casting, but the presentation of the character as well. If anything, I could see him in a smaller villain role, like the Scarecrow’s role from Begins, but nothing more. Maybe as a club owner, arms dealer, or something similar. Having him in his familiar political figure model would be challenging, seeing as though Dent already not only exemplified that aspect perfectly, but there’s a still a bad taste in my mouth from the Penguins political escapades in Tim Burton’s Batman Returns.


- CATWOMAN

As is, I think she'd stretch the limits of plausibility in this world Nolan has created. One man dressing up as a bat is already pushing it, so having some chick in a cat outfit as well might take it over the edge. Then again, I have absolutely no doubt, if so inclined, Nolan and company could make her work if need be (perhaps a very subdued, subtle version).

There was, however, a nod to Catwoman in TDK when Bruce is asking Lucious Fox about a possible new batsuit…

BRUCE: "How will it hold up against dogs?"

FOX: "You talking chihuahuas or rottweilers? It should do fine against cats.”

Then again, I took this as more of a joke or nod to the character than an actual hint at a villain to come.


- TALIA AL GHUL

In the comics, Talia is the daughter of Batman Begins villain Ra’s al Ghul (Liam Neeson). From Wikipedia:

quote:

---

The now-estranged daughter of the supervillain Ra's al Ghul, and a love interest of Batman… Her usual role is as a recurring romantic interest for Batman… She is a complex character, not quite heroine nor villainess but more of an anti-hero. She has undoubtedly committed criminal acts; however, they were usually committed due to her loyalty to her father rather than for personal gain. She has saved Batman's life or helped him on numerous occasions.

---

I think she’d make a perfect addition to the third film’s story. Not only could Talia easily fit the mold of the quasi-villain / love interest / “help” with Batman “on the run,” but she’d also somewhat allow Nolan’s trilogy to come full circle, introducing the daughter of the man Batman “let die” in Begins.


- HUGO STRANGE

From Wikipedia:

quote:

---

Strange is a psychologist hired to use his skills to help bring in Batman. He eventually figures out Batman's secret identity, but instead of revealing it to the public, he keeps it secret.

---

In the hunt for Batman, an alternative means of tracking him down will be via his true identity. You discover his true identity, you find Batman. And you can bet that Gotham PD will now employ whatever tactics necessary to find out who Batman really is. One way of doing this would be to hire a physiological expert, someone who could at least narrow down the list of candidates, someone who can eventually get into Wayne’s head, so to speak. Strange would be a great way for the audience – along with Wayne himself – to really try and understand the psychology of what makes Bruce Wayne/Batman tick.

Also, with Batman able to essentially “hide out” as Bruce Wayne, from a strictly plot-based perspective, the pressure is going to have to be put on Wayne as well. Along with Batman, there can eventually be no where for him to hide.


- BLACK MASK

From Wikipedia:

quote:

---

When the very first details about The Dark Knight were released, they alleged that Roman Sionis/Black Mask was to be one of the antagonists of the film. He was described as an industrial heir who loses his company to Bruce Wayne and adopts the Black Mask persona for revenge. By the time Jonathan Nolan wrote the final draft, he was cut.

---

Seeing as though Black Mask was considered for the sequel, there may be some ideas developed by the Nolan brothers lying around still yet to be used. As stated above, Wayne will need to have someone after him as well. Black Mask would be the perfect antagonist for Wayne. It’s essential someone in this film be after Wayne and NOT Batman. Black Mask definitely fits the bill.


- VICKI VALE

She is obviously not a villain in any way, but she is definitely a character who could help with the investigation to bring Batman in – or, as a reporter, at least chronicle the investigation to bring Batman in. To me, she’s one of the last of the core group of Batman characters who has yet to be re-introduced in Nolan’s world. With Rachel gone, the third movie is ripe for a love interest and I believe a re-imagined Vale would be the perfect choice. Not only that, but her persona would be a fitting match up if pitted against someone like Talia al Ghul for Batman’s/Wayne’s affections; Vale as the ultimate winner in a somewhat hinted at love triangle. Not to mention, in Nolan’s telling, we have yet to be properly introduced to the media world of Gotham and she would make for a great introduction.

(Ultimately, along with the inclusion of Vale, a slight redesign of the Batmobile, and a possible title of Batman, we could truly come full-circle to a vague, unique homage of sorts to Burton’s original film. With Vale, Batman could truly become Batman.)


- TWO-FACE

Jonathan Nolan (writer of TDK and director Chris’ brother), among others, has stated that they have no clear-cut ideas of what will happen in the third film. Chris Nolan only concentrates on one film at a time and truly has no “big plan” for the third film. I’m sure they have plenty of ideas and a general notion for where they want to go with it, but the somewhat vague “death” of Harvey Dent showed me only one thing, and that is that Harvey Dent is dead. Not necessarily Two-Face. There was no burial scene, there was no right-out proclamation of death. Because Nolan and company aren’t yet sure of the exact plot and characters for part three, my guess is that they wanted to leave themselves an out. If they decide they want to keep Harvey Dent/Two-Face dead, then great, he died at the end of TDK. But if they want to bring him back, then they could easily say, well no, Two-Face is still alive, but Commissioner Gordan and company are keeping him out of the public and hidden (i.e. he’s “dead”) for PR sake, for the sake of Gotham’s morale (as Batman stated in the end). In other words, I don’t think there were truly any “clues” to be taken from the finale as to his true fate. I think it’s merely the film makers leaving themselves the option to bring him back if need be. So don’t count him out quite yet. Though, the nature of Gotham's police department would make a cover-up extremely tough.

Personally, I believe he's dead. For those who felt cheated by Harvey's death and still want to see more Two-Face, try not to think of it in terms of how much Two-Face himself was explored/analyzed. Rather, try to think of it in terms of how BATMAN was explored/analyzed through Two-Face. In that sense, Two-Face served his purpose. Batman came to grips with what he has to become now. That's the only reason the Harvey Dent/Two-Face character ultimately existed. Batman/Bruce Wayne is the main character here (obviously) and EVERYTHING revolves around him. Every other main character is a different lens not only for us to view Batman, but for Batman to view himself. In the end, Harvey was Joker's "Ace in the Hole." We're lead to believe that the Joker wanted to bring down Gotham by a major terrorist attack, etc., but it was all just a distraction to bring the city down from the inside with Dent. That was the Joker's punchline. The purpose of Harvey Dent/Two-Face has reached its potential in this way as well.


- THE JOKER

In a similar way to Two-Face, but not quite to the same degree, I don't think Nolan and company knew exactly where they wanted to take the Joker for the third film… if they want(ed) to take him anywhere at all. If they choose to use him, fine, he can break out of custody/Arkham. If they don't want to use him, they can just say he was still locked up wherever and then have some kind of cameo tease at the end (or even as a main finale in the third). But now that Ledger will obviously not be reprising the character, DON’T expect the Joker back under Nolan’s watch. And I can confirm that the Johnny Depp replacing him rumor is complete BS as well. Talks have never happened and this has NOT been officially discussed or considered in any way. As of now, this role will not be recast. Like Two-Face, his character examination is complete. He served his purpose. It's time to move on...


In so many words, as I mentioned above, you have to view these films as investigations of themes rather than outright stories. EVERYTHING is subtext. Even in the climax of TDK, the underlying reason for using sonar as a means for Batman to find the Joker was to hint at Batman truly being a bat. Bats are essentially blind and use sonar to “see” and navigate. Whatever your thoughts were on the execution of the idea, the subtext of the idea was brilliant. Everything in these movies, even something as small as that, has an underlying, deeper meaning.

The Joker stood for chaos and escalation, the two themes or “lenses” Batman had to be examined through at that particular stage in his crusade. Just as the first movie was about fear and how Batman had to overcome his fear in order to find his true calling, those villains (Ra's al Ghul and Scarecrow) existed as agents, as obstacles, as “lenses” for Batman to conquer and be examined through.

There’s a reason the Joker didn’t have a back-story. There’s a reason, other than for plot purposes, that he didn’t have fingerprints, known aliases, or ID. He was truly a METAPHOR. In the end, Batman overcame the Joker. Thus, he overcame chaos (with the help of the citizens he believed in). Just as the theme of overcoming fear was not featured in TDK (and thus no Ra's or Scarecrow (majorly)), the theme of overcoming chaos and escalation will not be featured (to that extent) in the third film (and thus no Joker). Those stories, those themes have been examined. Those particular demons, for the most part, have been defeated. From a purely thematical standpoint, there is no NEED for the Joker anymore… and theme has the final say in these films. Granted, in further films, the Joker could serve to represent a different or more evolved version of the theme he stood for, but given the circumstances, the story will be better served to move on to more pertinent themes, and thus more pertinent villains.

Either way, whoever the next foe may be, as I stated above, Batman ends up being the true villain of the third film. HE is who Bruce Wayne has to ultimately overcome. The set-up for Batman as the “enemy” is simply a metaphor for who Bruce has to face and conquer. With his decision at the end of TDK, he is prepared to endure Batman’s current role in society and now he must triumph over it. Batman is at “war” with the cops, Batman is at “war” with himself. No villain can ever fight this fight. This is a fight within. There is no villain as we know them now who is up to challenge of not only replacing Ledger's Joker, but also up to the challenge of helping Nolan escalate what he has done here. There's no point in even trying. Only Batman can serve to be the villain, his own villain, who is capable of outshining them all.



WHAT WE HAVE TO LOOK FORWARD TO

Think about what is left to come and what it means for the final and “third act” of the trilogy. Batman is now a vigilante looking for public and inner redemption. Similarly, Wayne Manor, the Batcave and the Batmobile are still in ruin, either in the process of being redone or have yet to be reconstructed. Again, these are perfect metaphors Nolan is blatantly giving us for the third film. Not only will Batman be “rebuilt,” but so will his immediate world. Everything from Wayne Manor, to the Batcave, to a redesign of the Batmobile will be made anew by trilogy’s end, just like Batman himself. There’s a deeper, more layered reason as to why these things – including Batman – were knocked down and destroyed. They are simply metaphors for redemption.


“And why do we fall Bruce? So that we can learn to pick ourselves up.”

- Alfred, Batman Begins



[This message has been edited by TCTTS (edited 7/22/2008 11:49a).]

good stuff there.

Great insight and information. I always look forward to info from TCTTS.

mmm i disagree. and here's why...











what?

so the cat scratch referrence about his new armor doesnt mean the next villian is cat woman....that was my theory

quote:

---

Possibly choosing from Batman’s rouge’s gallery (even dipping into the lesser knowns), who is someone that can “help” the cops on a (Bat)man-hunt? Inversely, who is someone (even female) that can “help” Batman on the run (besides Alfred or Fox), someone who can actually be there in the trenches with him? Maybe this third corner of the triangle is actually BOTH of these people, working together, working both sides.

---

I could definately see Talia Al Ghul in this role. She could offer assistance through the League of Shadows to both Batman and the cops to pit them against each other while she secretly is working to fulfill her father's goal of destroying Gotham.

I also think another plausible villian might be the Black Mask as a villian with a grudge against Bruce Wayne. This could help explore the dual personality of Wayne and Batman.

Also, David Goyer has stated that the Nolan series would try to focus on villians that hadn't been previously shown in films (I guess Joker and Two-face were too central to Batman folklore to exclude). There were rumors earlier on that the Blck Mask was originally going to appear in the Dark Knight.

[This message has been edited by boomchild06 (edited 7/20/2008 1:06p).]

Soco - Catwoman could very well be an option. However, I do think she'd stretch the limits of plausibility in this world Nolan has created. One man dressing up as a bat is already pushing it, so having some chick in a cat outfit in addition might take it over the edge. Though, I know they could make it work.

boomchild06 - I really like the Talia idea. I don't know much about her character, but I think someone like her would be PERFECT and fit the mold I'm talking about to a tee. It would also help the story to come full circle in many ways.

[This message has been edited by TCTTS (edited 7/20/2008 6:24p).]

good stuff.

what do you think of the title: Batman: Redemption? i know it's a tad cheesy, but i hope at the end of the movie he's a good guy again in the public eye.

do you see Joker being locked up in Gotham and possibly being an adviser of sorts to Batman in his quest do defeat whatever villain is in the third one, kinda like lector in SOTL?

I think they planned for Ledger to be Joker in the third. Thats why he is still alive and Dent it dead. I would imagine that if they knew Ledger was gonna die they would have killed him and kept Dent to be the villian next time. 2Face is one of the best villians in Gotham and it kills me that he is dead.

quote:

---

ith it, but the somewhat vague “death” of Harvey Dent showed me only one thing, and that is that Harvey Dent is dead. Not necessarily TWO-FACE. There was no burial scene, there was no right-out proclamation of death. Because Nolan and company aren’t yet sure of the exact plot and characters for part three, my guess is that they wanted to leave themselves an out.

---

He's dead. It even says so in the script. It would be too difficult to cover up Two-Face's "death" in Gotham anyway. Besides, Two-Face had half his face burnt off. He isn't going to life long like that without more proper medical treatment.

Catwoman would not be out of the question. Plus there was an illusion to catwoman in The Dark Knight. Bruce was asking if the suit would stand against dog bites, and Alfred responded that it would do better against cat scratches.

just posted this on the GB

quote:

---

because i only thought it was a solid 'b' ranking movie. i now know that to be a complete injustice and have flogged myself mercilessly as penance. i had a 6 pack thursday afternoon and slept so when i saw it at midnight i was kind of blurry.

Saw it again today on IMAX. I was worried i wasn't going to really get to appreciate it this time either because I went to bed at 6 am and woke up at 9 am to head to the theater. A red bull, a 'revive' vitamin water and 4 aleve made me functional.

and wow, just wow. This movie was every bit a masterpiece as shawshank. I left the theater practically floating, unable to contain the enjoyment of having seen something so completely perfect.

as soon as the movie ended, this effing poontang sitting next to me said "i still like the original one better" and he said it in a way to act like he was 'deep' for saying it. Blasphemy. TDK annihilates Burton's batman. I pretended to ignore him because I knew if i tried to say anything, the only thing that would come out is the most degrading insults I had. I want him to die.

I asked the friend I saw it with if he liked it. He said "It was great" then "They really can't top this with a third. I think this movie achieved everything possible. They "won" Batman." Very valid point. Before the movie, an usher walked to the front of the theater and announced that TDK had surpassed spiderman3. This was at a 12:20 showing on sunday. Theres a ton of time left today. TDK isn't just going to beat spidey3, it's going to grind it to dust beneath its heel. Movies that make that much dont get left alone, there will be another.

So here's my vision for the third. This is just how I see it going and I am almost certainly going to be wrong.

With the Joker locked in arkham and someone to blame (Batman), the city of Gotham was given a martyr to rally behind...Harvey Dent, whose death was a coverup (he was still breathing after the fall in the warehouse). Both Batman and Gordon knew that they were going to be lying to the public but thought it was for the best, because if they knew that their white knight had turned into an insane killer, the city would literally tear itself apart.

So Gordon, unable to let Dent die for the guilt he had failed him (which was true), but unwilling to let him go and reveal what has happened to him, has him sent off somewhere (i dont know where exactly, maybe a distant asylum or a safehouse) to keep him alive but banished from the public eye.

So behind their martyr, Gotham is inspired to regain the city and eliminate the need for the now hated Batman, which suits Bruce Wayne just fine. He rebuilds Wayne Manor and becomes a recluse as he mourns the loss of Rachel. The city doesnt need Batman.

Well lying to the public has got to come back and bite you in the ass. Two-Face (somehow)returns and Gotham quickly returns right back to chaos now that the public's trust in the police and courts had been shattered. This will provide the conflict to bring Batman, at the urging of Alfred, out of exile.

That's how I see it playing out. Now the rest of the movie is anyone's guess.

/novel

---

the thing about two-face is he doesnt have to be the head of a major crime organization or even play a huge role in the movie to completely devastate Gotham. the mere fact public discovers the beloved dent had fallen from grace is enough.

Byronic Aggie - I'm definitely one to believe that Harvey is dead as well. I'm just saying it's still an option to bring him back, based on how the eventual final product played out, regardless of the script. Does the script specifically say "Harvey Dent is dead," "Two-Face is dead," or simply "he is dead." The wording may actually be a clue. How, exactly, is it written? I'm buying the script on Tuesday when it hits bookstores, and when I see the film again sometime this week, I'll pay closer attention to his supposed breathing, etc. But just for the record, I personally think he's dead.

rebelionel - Your scenario is definitely a plausible option. I do think Batman will ultimately be called back, so to speak, by Gotham when whatever new menace is threatening (and thus accepted again), but I don't know how much Harvey Dent would or could contribute to that threat. We'll see...


Also, to clarify, I DO obviously believe that the world of Batman, along with this franchise, will continue on to a fourth film without Nolan. It's a no-brainer. I'm just afraid the quality will suffer slightly after the third one. It would take a minor miracle to continue this franchise with the same care and precision Nolan has so far.

[This message has been edited by TCTTS (edited 7/20/2008 6:37p).]

quote:

---

It would take a minor miracle to continue this franchise with the same care and precision Nolan has so far.

---

as long as i don't hear 'ice to see you', i can most likely deal with it

The Joker was a static character whose only interest was in getting others to betray their morals. Harvey Dent was his perfect victim. Dent began as a hard nosed idealistic District Attorney who believed in making his own luck. However after a series of unfortunate events, he abandoned his ideals and acted upon the notion that "the only justice in this world is that of random chance" (i.e. there is no justice). The Joker was betrayed by his belief that all people are corruptable when both boats refused to push the detonator.

Both the Joker and Two Face were absolutely fantastic villians. I believe Eckhart would get more credit had he not been out shone by Ledger's performance of a lifetime. However, the character examination of both of them was completed in The Dark Knight. Any reprisal of the roles, other than a cameo, would detract from what was done in The Dark Knight. I seriously doubt that Nolan would feature either of them again.

I like the concept of a plot twist from the revelation of Two Face's killing spree. However, it doesn't require resurrecting Dent for this revelation to take place. A witness, like Detective Ramirez, could accidentally let the secret out and unleash pandemonium.

quote:

---

I like the concept of a plot twist from the revelation of Two Face's killing spree. However, it doesn't require resurrecting Dent for this revelation to take place. A witness, like Detective Ramirez, could accidentally let the secret out and unleash pandemonium.

---

very true

Very well said. I agree 100%.

I know the girl, Monique, who played Detective Ramirez. At the production company I used to work for, we did a short, super low budget film which she starred in. I spent six straight 15-hour days with her on set. She's also a friend of our producer, so she would stop by the office every once in a while as well. Super nice girl and very down to earth.

Now that I think about it, it's weird to say that TWO main characters from TDK have ridden shotgun in my car (one being Monique). Over a year ago I coordinated a Cole Haan photo shoot in Malibu with Aaron Eckhart (their spokes model). We were shooting at a house on the beach with hardly any parking, so most everyone had to park in a lot a mile or so down the highway. I had the opportunity to drive Eckhart to and from the lot a couple times during the day and spend some time with him. He really was one of the nicest celebrities I've ever met, super cool and easy to talk to. Just a few weeks later he was cast as Harvey Dent.

im going to be sad if that was all we got from two face. i mean...damn. im left wanting more from him than anything. what, we got a half hour?

quote:

---

However, one way to possibly make the Riddler work would be to portray an aspect of the third film as murder mystery/thriller. Think Seven or Zodiac, where we DON’T KNOW who the killer is throughout a majority of the film. Imagine, for the third film, implementing a similar aspect, having the Riddler as a serial killer of sorts, leaving a trail of riddles at each murder scene, in the news papers, etc. You could save his true identity for the climax, building on the idea that he’s more of a notion or force to be reckoned with, rather than a living, breathing villain (until film’s end). Almost like Keyser Soze. This aspect would also definitely put Batman’s detective skills to the test, no doubt. Of course, you’d have to have a more formidable villain as well who Batman could see and touch (who would also meet the criteria I’ve already mention), but I think this aspect could be right at home the world Nolan has created.

---

This is kind of weird. My wife and I were discussing the movie last night and this is exactly the same conclusion that we came up with, even using Seven as an example. Hell, we went so far as to suggest Kevin Spacey play the role.

quote:

---

In a similar way, but not quite to the same degree, I don't think Nolan and company knew exactly where they wanted to take the JOKER either for the third film… if they want(ed) to take him anywhere at all. If they chose to use him, fine, he can break out of custody/Arkham.

---

We also came up with the idea that the Joker could play a Hannibal Lector type role in the third film, consulting with one of the lead characters in their attempts to catch the Riddler.

If this is the end of the trilogy and they had no set plans for the Joker, then this is probably not going to happen. I was under the impression they already knew where they were going in the next film and that is why they left the Joker alive.

I agree about Harvey Dent, similarly, the mob boss's "death" is ambiguous.


[This message has been edited by bendover (edited 7/20/2008 9:25p).]

Nice.

[This message has been edited by TCTTS (edited 7/20/2008 9:28p).]

quote:

---

However, the character examination of both of them was completed in The Dark Knight.

---

I've got to disagree. He was two-face for less than a day or so which is hardly enough time for his madness to really mature. Real psycho are years in the making, and I can't see how two-face was explored in any satisfying fashion. I looked at TDK's use of him as a teaser. But we'll see...

Try not to think of it in terms of how much Two-Face himself was explored/analyzed. Rather, try to think of it in terms of how BATMAN was explored/analyzed through Two-Face. In that sense, Two-Face served his purpose. Batman came to grips with what he has to become now. That's only reason the Harvey Dent/Two-Face character ultimately existed. Batman/Bruce Wayne is the main character here (obviously) and EVERYTHING revolves around him. Every other main character is a different lens not only for us to view Batman, but for Batman to view himself.

[This message has been edited by TCTTS (edited 7/20/2008 9:37p).]

Ra's Al Ghul is not dead.

That is all. Carry on.

I agree with TCTTS. You can't look at this like other comic movies, where certain villians need to have a certain amount of face time. The comics are just the base material. Nolan is more interested in exploring ideas than in satisfying fanboys. The Batman universe is just an interesting vehicle for him to explore these ideas in.

quote:

---

Nolan is more interested in exploring ideas than in satisfying fanboys

---

I agree with this. And it makes it so satsifying to see a film that is as intellectually layered as these two have been.

BTW, just to throw an idea out there, since we are talking about themes and villians and characters.

If the third is really Bale's last one, then maybe we see a passing of the guard to a "Robin" type character. The theme could be one of sacrifice (Bruce Wayne and the current incarnation of batman dies) and/or faith (trusting Robin to carry on the fight in his absence).

This would also resolve the currently fickle situation with the public and the police thinking Batman is public enemy number one. If somebody else takes over the vigilante mantle, then Bruce Wayne can either die in peace, or retire with a loved one to some unknown island and live out a peaceful life.

I don't think that storyline would fit very well with the tone of the first two movies, but it would help the franchise if there is going to be a transition. Actually, I think this storyline would suck the more I think about it, but I'm just brainstorming here. Everyone has already posted my other ideas.

I don't know how you can say that he has 'served his purpose', thats about as firm a statement as my hypothetical view of how the 3rd will play out. Like I said, we'll see.

That being said, I really want to see a bit more of the truly disturbed soul of bruce wayne in the 3rd. Batman Begins did a good job of showing that he really does have a screw loose, and how he was represented in TDK was vanilla compared to that. What clearly got to Batman the most was his very sane and normal affections for Rachel. If there was a weak point to TDK, that was it. Bale got overshadowed by just about everyone, imho. Show me the crazy, please. Especially if it goes by TCTTS's vision of the 3rd as a man-vs-himself.

[This message has been edited by rebelionel (edited 7/20/2008 9:53p).]

I agree that Bale was overshadowed by Ledger and Eckhart, but damn, who wouldn't be?

FYI, to "THE VILLAINS" section in my original post, I updated with an additional paragraph about the Riddler, a new section on Catwoman, and a new section on Talia al Ghul. Thanks for the insight, everyone...

quote:

---

I agree that Bale was overshadowed by Ledger and Eckhart, but damn, who wouldn't be?

---

well if their entire purpose was to be a lens to view batman through, it should follow that he should have the dominant performance. If you stick to that, I don't think that's an issue with Bale, but with the script. But I don't stick to that, and heres why:

It's not about face-time for the villains, its about actualizing their complete nature. If the Joker had just pulled off the bank heist and was busted right then by Batman...what would that have been like? Completely undeveloped and unsatisfying. The Joker came into the movie ready to play from the get-go, and Two-Face is a work-in-progress IMHO.

I agree the third will be the battle of man vs himself. With Rachel gone Batman will have no reason to go back to Bruce, and will slowlly struggle into the role of full time batman.

some of you have come to the conclusion that dent is considered dead, but twoface is still alive.

so if he is still alive and runs around and kills more people, dont you think someone will recognize him. thus recognition leads to broken hope, which leads to the collapse of gotham and evil defeats good. i don't think superhero movies are supposed to end like that. i'm pretty sure that dent/twoface is dead.

gctx well this is all conjecture for the hell of it so anything is possible and all opinions, at this point, are valid.

its just for S&G baby

quote:

---

It's not about face-time for the villains, its about actualizing their complete nature.

---

But his complete nature was realized. You are thinking of him as Two-Face, but the actual character was Harvey Dent. In fact, I don't think anyone ever even actually calls him Two Face, he just asks Gordon what they used to call him and Gordon replies. Harvey Dent's purpose in the film was to serve as a foil to Batman. That purpose was fulfilled and the complete nature of that character was realized. Harvey Dent was corrupted, Batman/Bruce Wayne was not, at least not in the way the Joker wanted him to be.