MovieChat Forums > The Dark Knight (2008) Discussion > Things I still don't understand about th...

Things I still don't understand about this film...

posted 8 years ago by nycbm
58 replies | jump to latest

Let me say that The Dark Knight is my favorite superhero film, so this isn't a bash thread. However, after watching several times, there are still some things I don't quite get.

Can anyone enlighten...

1. What is supposed to be happening to the banker when Joker pulls the pin?

2. Joker gets in a line with a bunch of school buses and no one notices?

3. Why does Joker switch addresses?

4. Joker says he's only burning his half, but he hasn't killed Batman yet so he doesn't have a good claim to the money?

5. Gordon says Harvey killed 5 people but we only see 3 die (Werz, Maroni, and Maroni's driver). Two of them are cops, but Ramirez only got punched so what's up?

5a. How did Gordon even know about Harvey's victims?

5b. Why couldn't Gordon have blamed Harvey's crimes on the Joker?

6. Batman and Maroni were both able to survive big falls, but we're supposed to assume the same one killed Harvey?

[–] justanicknamed 8 years ago

1. It was a smoke bomb. Don't exactly know why he needed to have a smoke bomb.

2. Yep, that was cr*p. The school buses HAVE to be his because there is no way the rest of the drivers wouldn't report that one of their buses just pulled out of bank covered in rubble. And, how many times did they circle the block waiting for him? He would have had to been astronomically lucky that with having to take cover from the bank manager shooting at him that he got the bus out at the EXACT time the other buses were passing by.

3. To mess with Batman.

4. Part of the stupidity of this movie. He's not supposed to be motivated by money, so why not burn it all?

5. Don't remember.

5a. Plot hole.

5b. Stupidity. His wife and son would have never said anything and he could have easily covered it up to say Dent had been dead for a while, thus explaining how Joker could be in custody and still be responsible for Dent's death. They said it was to protect what Dent had done, but that is stupid. Joker could have been blamed just as easily.

6. Not only did Batman survive a ludicrously high fall, but he had Rachel with him and she wasn't hurt either. You might say that his training and his suit cushioned the blow enough, but how about Rachel? And then, he doesn't even go back up to his penthouse to go after Joker again. He just leaves all of his guests, including Alfred, at the mercy of Joker.

Now, I'm sure some fanboy or Nolanite will come along and give some reason why all of your questions are silly or the such....

[–] Flaccid_Sssnake 8 years ago

Thanks for clarifying everything🤗

[–] yvonneshusband 8 years ago

2. Or his goons cold have stolen the buses, then synchronized the time they passed the bank with the rest of the Joker's timings for the robbery. Difficult in RL, but NOT impossible. Easy in a movie where the protagonist is supposed to be a tactical genius. As for one vehicle joining a convoy in traffic, that's relatively easy in RL, I've done it myself more than once.

5.a. Not a plot hole, a script continuity error, See also the 'they expect to find one of us in the wreckage' script SNAFU in 'Rises'.

5.b. First of all, watch 'The Man who shot Liberty Vallance'. Second, Gordon and Batman decide to protect Dent's reputation by blaming the deaths on someone who won't contradict them. If the Police Commissioner says Batman did it, who's going to convincingly call him a liar?

Slightly OT, it's always seemed to me that none of the rank and file cops in 'Rises' actually believed that Batman was to blame.

6. Dent broke his neck in the fall.

An opinion is not offensive just because you do not agree with it.

[–] justanicknamed 8 years ago

2 - If JINO plans for the bank manager to have a shotgun, then he’s and idiot for not taking him out. If he doesn’t plan for the bank manager to have a shotgun, then it is incredible luck that he didn’t get killed AND the buses were able to circle a major metropolitan block with perfect timing so that they could allow the getaway bus to merge.

Remember, we’re not talking a small car circling a ‘small-town-America’ block which is only a couple hundred feet long on each side. This was down-town Gotham and we saw that there were other vehicles around.

5a - Po-tay-toe, po-tah-toe

5b - Is anyone really going to believe Joker? There was a good chance he wasn't going to survive being taken into custody. I know if I were one of the cops who arrested him in the high-rise, JINO would have tripped and fallen out of the building.

6 - Get that, but, as I said, RACHEL was able to survive a higher fall with no injuries.

[–] yvonneshusband 8 years ago

You have correctly spotted that Nolan wanted it both ways. He wanted the audience to accept when he used 'movie reality' when bothersome stuff like physics, gravity or how computers and guns actually work got in the way of his 'genius', but to also accept his insistence that he'd made Batman realistic. If he had really 'grounded' his movies in reality, then he couldn't have done the bank heist the way he did. Then again, Batman's Bat-hang-glider cape would have kept him aloft for about three to five seconds!

Since I never considered the Nolan's knight trilogy to be anything other than a different approach to Batman, that stuff didn't bother me.

the buses were able to circle a major metropolitan block with perfect timing so that they could allow the getaway bus to merge.

Again, where does it show the buses circling the block?

we’re not talking a small car circling a ‘small-town-America’ block

we're not talking 'circling' at all; you are.

This was down-town Gotham and we saw that there were other vehicles around.

I repeat, I have done this myself, in cities, with trucks, more than once. It is easier when the vehicles have radio communications, but it's NOT impossible in RL, and it can certainly be done in movies.

An opinion is not offensive just because you do not agree with it.

[–] justanicknamed 8 years ago

Again, where does it show the buses circling the block?

JINO either had it planned where he had time allotted for the shoot-out with the bank manager, then sticking the smoke bomb in the bank manager's mouth, then the standoff with his thug, or he radioed for the bus to come crashing through the front of the building after he made sure the bank manager was no longer a threat - and we didn't see him signal the bus.

That meant that the bus had to crash through exactly at the moment when JINO was ready to load it up, otherwise the buses it merges into will be passed the bank and will have to circle the block.

And, if he did signal the bus, then the bus either had to be parked very close by so that it could get there in the next 15 seconds, or it was incredibly lucky that it was in position just 15 seconds away.

So, it is one of those 1,000,000 things which had to go incredibly, amazingly right for JINO's plan to work.

In a movie which is just a movie, I can accept that. When the movie is (over)glorified as being the best ever because of the realism, it should be realistic.

[–] oblivionass 8 years ago

In a movie which is just a movie, I can accept that. When the movie is (over)glorified as being the best ever because of the realism, it should be realistic.

Nolan's Dark Knight trilogy is praised for being more realistic key word there more realistic than your average superhero film. It never was said that the film was totally realistic. In a Batman movie there is a level of fantasy which you have to accept no matter how real it is. Therefore nice try you just made up your own rules on what the film was not what it actually is.

[–] Harold_of_Whoa 8 years ago

Therefore nice try you just made up your own rules on what the film was not what it actually is.

Good luck getting haters to acknowledge that. The "supposed to be realistic but..." premise is a colossal straw man, built by the same people who knock it down over and over again.

[–] oblivionass 8 years ago

Yep exactly. Why don't we all be honest and get right down to why the haters are upset. A film they dislike got strong critical reception and is loved by fans therefore they are salty. Since they don't like it they will use any means necessary to discredit it. I dislike pulp fiction but I can realize and acknowledge it doesn't need my stamp of approval in order to be considered a great film. That is the entitled attitude they have. Basically it has to get by me before anyone else can consider it great. You have to love that attitude.

[–] justanicknamed 8 years ago

I noticed how after I b!tch-slapped you about the Stock Exchange you shut up about it.

This is not a straw-man argument here. That is, unless you have not read any of the posts by Hippotard or Spencetard. They go on and on about the realism in this (and the other Dull Knight movies) right up until the time where they say you have to suspend disbelief.

That doesn't work. You can't have a realistic movie be totally unbelievable.

Nolanites confuse a dark, morose toned move which doesn't have a lot of CGI with being realistic.

So, take away the "realism" point they try to make and just call it a comic book movie, and then it isn't an issue.

[–] yvonneshusband 8 years ago

That meant that the bus had to crash through exactly at the moment when JINO was ready to load it up, otherwise the buses it merges into will be passed the bank and will have to circle the block.

Or, the first bus was timed to arrive a set time before the convoy. Interestingly, the bus crashing through the wall of a bank is probably far less realistic than it arriving at the exact moment it needs to.

Basically, you feel that Nolan took far too much dramatic license for what was supposed to be a 'realistic' movie. Since I always considered the idea of a 'realistic superhero movie' to be a contradiction in terms, it doesn't really bother me. Nolan's portrayal of Batman as a clueless imbecile who couldn't find his own ass with both hands and a Bat-ass detector in 'Rises' is a different story, however.

I have a similar attitude to you to 'The Hurt Locker' for example.

An opinion is not offensive just because you do not agree with it.

[–] justanicknamed 8 years ago

Or, the first bus was timed to arrive a set time before the convoy. Interestingly, the bus crashing through the wall of a bank is probably far less realistic than it arriving at the exact moment it needs to.

I accepted that figuring that JINO had the bus modified so that it could withstand the crash.

But, between this scene and the scene in the jail where JINO's thug has the bomb in his belly.....no, those would take way too incredible coincidences to happen.

[–] yvonneshusband 8 years ago

the scene in the jail where JINO's thug has the bomb in his belly.....no, those would take way too incredible coincidences to happen.

So, one of Joker's mooks couldn't have triggered the bomb using another mobile phone from outside the police station if the bomb hadn't detonated by a specific time? Then the Joker's men would enter the bombed out prison, release the Joker and the film proceeds as it plays on screen.

An opinion is not offensive just because you do not agree with it.

[–] justanicknamed 8 years ago

The thug with the bomb would have not only have had to survive the attack, but gotten captured and taken to that SPECIFIC spot for the plan to work.

If he dies, escapes, is taken elsewhere or is even delayed then it fails.

[–] yvonneshusband 8 years ago

Joker and his mooks were arrested by Gordon's MCU, so I'm not following your reasoning that they'd be locked up elsewhere.

And the mook obviously allowed himself to be captured on Joker's orders, on the promise that Joker would make the pain in his guts go away.

We could go on doing this forever where TDK is concerned. 'Rises' is a different kettle of fish however. That crapfest requires true fanfiction to stitch the (actual) plotholes together.

An opinion is not offensive just because you do not agree with it.

[–] justanicknamed 8 years ago

Joker and his mooks were arrested by Gordon's MCU, so I'm not following your reasoning that they'd be locked up elsewhere.

There could have been too many in lock up already so they had to take him elsewhere. There could have been a delay so that he wasn't to the cell yet.

And the mook obviously allowed himself to be captured on Joker's orders, on the promise that Joker would make the pain in his guts go away.

So then that means that he absolutely, positively, 100% for sure didn't take part in any aspect of the attempt on Batman/Dent's life, and simply walked up and turned himself in. Otherwise, he runs the risk of getting killed and ruining the plan.

Sorry - not buying that.

We could go on doing this forever where TDK is concerned.

I agree. You like this film so you seem to want to defend it even when it shouldn't be. I agree it was better than The Dull Knight Rests, but it wasn't nearly as good as everyone thinks it is. At least not when you hold it to higher standards.

[–] freejazz38 8 years ago

If you're looking for the DUMBEST waste of human flesh on this board, Poster above, nicknamed douchebag, is it. The clown is a useless turd

[–] justanicknamed 8 years ago

And yet, you admire me so much you are stalking me everywhere! Sorry that I butthurt you so much. 

[–] yvonneshusband 8 years ago

There could have been too many in lock up already so they had to take him elsewhere. There could have been a delay so that he wasn't to the cell yet.

True, but we actually see the Joker take note of the fact that he's in the cell, allowing him to activate that particular contingency plan; a tactical genius would have other plans to use if that one couldn't proceed.

that means that he absolutely, positively, 100% for sure didn't take part in any aspect of the attempt on Batman/Dent's life

one of the cops says 'you're a cop killer' or some ,such, when he complains about the pain, so he was definitely involved. Again, 'bomb belly' is the key element of the escape plan that we actually see executed.

An opinion is not offensive just because you do not agree with it.

[–] justanicknamed 8 years ago

a tactical genius would have other plans to use if that one couldn't proceed.

one of the cops says 'you're a cop killer' or some ,such, when he complains about the pain, so he was definitely involved. Again, 'bomb belly' is the key element of the escape plan that we actually see executed.

Which then goes completely against the whole thing of Joker being crazy, making things up as he goes, etc, meaning he was JINO.

[–] Rey_Kahuka 8 years ago

1. A smoke bomb. The Joker's plan is never what it seems, they're establishing that early.

2. Yeah, kind of silly when you think about it for too long. There's nothing to say the police weren't called immediately, and we don't know how long he actually stayed in the convoy. But as it's edited, it seems ludicrous.

3. Again, the Joker never tips his hand. He likes to mess with people and he was curious as to what Batman would do.

4. Honestly, who was going to question Joker at that point? Honestly he didn't even need to say that, I don't know what anyone would have done one way or the other.

5. Dent had a guard stationed at his room. If the guard is found dead, they're going to assume it was Dent. Nobody saw the Joker talk to Dent.

5a. Things happen off screen in films all the time. It didn't seem that farfetched to me that the police commissioner would have been made aware that police officers and a major crime lord had been found dead. (Even in Gotham, shootings and car crashes surely become police matters relatively quickly.)

5b. This is where it gets tricky. The narrative of TDK suggests Batman needs to take the burden on himself to make the criminal element fear him again. At one point Maroni tells Batman people don't fear him anymore because he doesn't kill people while the Joker does. Bruce also comments on 'understanding what he has to become' to defeat someone like the Joker. Hell, one of the famous lines of the film is, "You either die a hero or live long enough to see yourself become the villain." So Batman takes the blame for those crimes in order to put fear back into the hearts of the gangsters he's fighting...

And then the garbage sequel came along and retconned the entire ending of TDK, so who knows? In the final speech, Gordon says, "We'll hunt him, because he can take it," which again suggests that Batman is going to continue fighting crime, only now he's seen as a menace and has enemies on all sides. The music builds to a crescendo as Gordon calls Batman their Dark Knight; And then TDKR inexplicably tells us Batman retired immediately and became a recluse, so who the hell knows?

Nothing, nothing about the end of the film suggests his imminent retirement. Not one person walked out of the theater saying, "Wow, what a powerful ending. I can't believe Batman is just going to retire now." But TDKR apologists continue to float over to this board occasionally to tell us how obvious it always was. Four years between films, I was here the entire time and never saw one post putting this theory forth, but suddenly it was all quite clear...but I digress.

6. Batman used his glider cloak to slow their rate of descent, and his armor took the brunt of the fall. Maroni's fall wasn't as high up, and he landed on his feet. Harvey clearly didn't. (The bigger question about Batman's fall is why he didn't immediately go back up to get Joker. Poor editing in that scene.)

Anyway I hope this was more helpful than that nut who does nothing but bitch about this film all day, every day. TDK is far from perfect, but I hope I've shed some light on a few things for you.

The future is in the hands of a man who has none.(As in no future, as opposed to no hands.)

[–] soulsk8ter225 8 years ago

Nothing, nothing about the end of the film suggests his imminent retirement. Not one person walked out of the theater saying, "Wow, what a powerful ending. I can't believe Batman is just going to retire now." But TDKR apologists continue to float over to this board occasionally to tell us how obvious it always was. Four years between films, I was here the entire time and never saw one post putting this theory forth, but suddenly it was all quite clear...but I digress.

I wish posts in 2008 still existed, because this is exactly what I was saying. It would be perfect as well because Bruce could still be Bruce, since nobody knew he was Batman.

Of course, there were two other stipulations to this that I couldn't know or assume:

1) Bruce would become a recluse (which didn't happen until after he announced his renewable energy project had failed).

2) If there was to be another sequel, then of course he would somehow have to return as Batman... and I only assumed it would be in a Hancock sort of way ("We need The Batman!"). Outside of that, I didn't know how it was he was going to return.

** Rest in peace, Timothy Volkert (1988 - 2003) **

[–] Rey_Kahuka 8 years ago

It would be perfect as well because Bruce could still be Bruce, since nobody knew he was Batman.

What does this even mean? Bruce could still be Bruce? It makes no sense for Bruce to give up being Batman; the whole point of Batman was to be a beacon of hope to turn the city around. By the end of TDK, Batman was a criminal and the city was in a darker place than ever.

And again, Gordon's speech specifically mentioned hunting Batman because he knew Batman had the resolve to persevere through any hardship. After all, he did devote years of his life to this cause. Instead, he quit immediately and went into hiding. What an inspirational character.

Your angle had all the logic of those "The third act was a dream," theories that exist for basically every film these days. And yet, the rewritten script of a lousy film by Nolan clearly under studio duress proved your crank theory to be correct. Hell, Nolan even admitted he never planned on doing a third movie in the franchise. I wish he hadn't, but he's certainly not the first person to not hit the trifecta in a CBM franchise.

The future is in the hands of a man who has none.(As in no future, as opposed to no hands.)

[–] soulsk8ter225 8 years ago

Throughout TDK, Batman was on watch, though still somewhat loose to be able to work with the police (or at least with Gordon, hence him appearing at the mob bank, capturing Lau, investigating two crime scenes in Dent/Harvey's and Rachel's murders, interrogating The Joker, and being first on scene to apprehend The Joker during the ferry scene).

He was still allowed to come and go as he pleased, though. Once TDK ended, he was being painted as a murderer of police officers, and a council member, and a mob boss (no loss to many, but he still deserves trial of course). He could not appear as Batman again without an entire police force riding on his tail to detain him. Remember the post-SE scene in TDKR? And that was eight years later, no less.

He could be Bruce because people didn't know that he was Batman, but he couldn't be Batman because he was pursued more than ever. He wasn't just a vigilante anymore in Gotham's eyes.

** Rest in peace, Timothy Volkert (1988 - 2003) **

[–] Rey_Kahuka 8 years ago

What exactly are you explaining here? Yes, he was seen as a criminal after the events at the end of TDK. Why couldn't Bruce still be Bruce?

The future is in the hands of a man who has none.(As in no future, as opposed to no hands.)

[–] soulsk8ter225 8 years ago

He could. That was exactly my point. Tell me one time when I said he couldn't be Bruce. Direct quote please.

And let me go back to something else you said. Batman does not exactly have the resolve. Alfred suggested that he "endure," but even Bruce knew his own limitations, and this was back before any murders that he was wanted for. At the end of TDK, he says: "I'm whatever Gotham needs me to be." To Bruce, Gotham needed Batman to be pinned as Harvey's murderer to save the city of organized crime by painting Harvey as a hero and white knight, as opposed to letting them all loose again.

Gordon understood this as well, and for eight years this worked until Bane began his revolution. But the plan was always for Batman to go away as a result of this. Gotham didn't need Batman if terrorists and crime lords weren't reigning over the city. Or was that eight year peace just a "dream" too?

The couple of years after TDK came out, as a result of Heath Ledger's death and no immediate story readying itself thereafter, I had spoken out loud about the hypothetical situation where TDK was the closure to Nolan's franchise, and that it would have ended beautifully. Batman did his small stretch of work, Gotham would be at rest, and the symbol would stand as an item of fear for those who dared to cross a certain line again. "Even if they hate you for it," said Alfred. Bruce doesn't need Batman to be liked; he needs Batman to stop Gotham from being torn to pieces. The way he went about it is a big reason why I loved the ending to The Dark Knight.

And furthermore, as I've said all along, it's not like Bruce had to run away because nobody knew he was Batman, save two survived allies and Coleman Reese. He did what he needed to do until Pavel came out with his article and set Bruce into hiding as well... not something any of us could have foreseen because we weren't given that kind of information... but Bruce was going to live out the rest of his days knowing that he salvaged the city, albeit on a lie, and could continue being the CEO of Wayne Enterprises.

** Rest in peace, Timothy Volkert (1988 - 2003) **

[–] Rey_Kahuka 8 years ago

You said he could still be Bruce. Of course he could, what's the point of that comment? I'll ask a third time. Why couldn't Bruce still be Bruce?

That was exactly my point.

What was your point?

The future is in the hands of a man who has none.(As in no future, as opposed to no hands.)

[–] soulsk8ter225 8 years ago

Ah. Well, go ahead and read my edited comment above, because I added some things.

The point I was trying to make is you made it seem like Batman "retiring" is an impossible thing to assume based on the end of TDK, when it all but made perfect sense (again, read my edited post). That is exactly how I played it out in my head, as well. Though if people couldn't see this happening, I assume it's because they assume that Bruce was going to ride off into the sunset and never return to Gotham.

I don't know how anybody saw the ending another way, as if Bruce was going to continue fighting crime as Batman. The entire point of the ending of TDK was that he won't be Batman as long as Gotham didn't need Batman there, which if they vindicate Dent then they wouldn't.

** Rest in peace, Timothy Volkert (1988 - 2003) **

[–] Rey_Kahuka 8 years ago

you made it seem like Batman "retiring" is an impossible thing to assume based on the end of TDK, when it all but made perfect sense

No it didn't. There was never any reason to assume Bruce would simply quit. He had not accomplished his goals, a task he devoted years of his life training for. There was nothing to suggest something as silly and contrived as the Dent Act would clean up organized crime like a magic wand.

Though if people couldn't see this happening, I assume it's because they assume that Bruce was going to ride off into the sunset and never return to Gotham.

Why would anyone assume that? Why would anyone who had seen either movie think Bruce would just leave Gotham because the going got tough?

I don't know how anybody saw the ending another way, as if Bruce was going to continue fighting crime as Batman. The entire point of the ending of TDK was that he won't be Batman as long as Gotham didn't need Batman there, which if they vindicate Dent then they wouldn't.

Ah, so you're one of the nuts I was talking about in my initial post. Sure you thought this back in 2008. The line, "So we'll hunt him, because he can take it," absolutely suggests Batman is going to continue fighting crime in Gotham. There is simply no other sensible way to interpret that line without the revisionist history provided by TDKR's garbage script.

You said Gordon even realized it which is total nonsense. Gordon says, "He's a silent guardian, a watchful protector, A dark knight." Not past tense, mind you. He is those things currently. How does that suggest retirement in any way?

The future is in the hands of a man who has none.(As in no future, as opposed to no hands.)

[–] soulsk8ter225 8 years ago

Yeah, definitely not a nut. Apparently, my misinterpretation of the truth was correct. I'm not saying these things in hindsight; I've been saying it since about 2:30 AM from the premiere showing of the film when the credits were rolling and I was sitting next to my friend Amanda. She hadn't seen BB, and I was rolling back to talking about a few things that BB connected with (Gordon thanking him, what kind of made him choose to be Batman, etc.).

I won't be apologetic for being correct, that's all I'm going to say. I honestly didn't think it could be interpreted any other way, but apparently you are the first to call me out on actually interpreting it that way. Very strange.

I mentioned how I thought the ending was like that, and I think that's all I can say about it. I even remember when the next sequel was announced, that I envisioned the first scene to match the end of TDK where he does his disappearing act, but it would eventually have to shift to "some time later," however long that was. I never imagined it would be eight years, but hey... I still saw it as nothing else other than Bruce was going to hang up the cape and cowl because he served his purpose as Batman.

Anyway, as I'm bowing out of this conversation (because I frankly have nothing else to add, unless you can bring in something new for me to talk about regarding it), I'd like for others to chime in on how they initially interpreted that ending. No, I'm not pretending to be very wise to see this future. I even told you what things I didn't know going into the film (and I went without seeing any synopsis on TDKR before release, so there's that as well). I just think there are more people like me than there are like you, but I may be mistaken on that.

** Rest in peace, Timothy Volkert (1988 - 2003) **

[–] Rey_Kahuka 8 years ago

I won't be apologetic for being correct, that's all I'm going to say. I honestly didn't think it could be interpreted any other way, but apparently you are the first to call me out on actually interpreting it that way. Very strange.

Every TDKR apologist has the same story. Strange that this was never a topic of conversation on this board until TDKR came out. Check that, it became a topic when it was revealed that TDKR would begin years later with Bruce in retirement. People were complaining about that revelation on this board because it made no sense when you put it together with the end of TDK.

You never did answer my question because you can't. You said it was obvious even to Gordon. If so, why did Gordon say Batman was Gotham's guardian and protector? Why did he say they'd hunt Batman "because he can take it," if he knew Batman was going to retire immediately.

You can invent all the anecdotes you want, it doesn't change the fact that Bruce retiring was never a commonly debated topic of conversation on this board from 2008 to 2012.

apparently you are the first to call me out on actually interpreting it that way.

Apparently? Either I am or I'm not. Or are you just going to invent a story about the past, as you did with your thoughts on TDK? You certainly aren't the first to insist you interpreted the ending of TDK in a way that goes against all reason.

But yeah, congratulations on inventing a backstory where your opinion is congruent with shoddy writing. "I totally saw this nonsense coming a mile away. Brilliant stuff, this."

The future is in the hands of a man who has none.(As in no future, as opposed to no hands.)

[–] soulsk8ter225 8 years ago

Oi, I'm not going to do this over and over again. Clearly you don't know me and clearly you never saw my posts at the release of TDK. Not that I went around saying, "Guess what I think, guess what I think, guess what I think!" No. I thought it was common knowledge that the route that they ended up going was the route many thought it would be.

I already said I'm not coming in here trying to toot my horn on seeing the future of the series, I honestly couldn't care less about that. This is an Internet forum, with disappearing threads from the archives no less... there is nothing to gain here. I commented because I was confused on your post when you said that nobody could have seen it coming, when to me it was only very obvious what was coming, and I assumed everyone else thought the same.

Again, I have zero to gain about *beep* making up a story from my TDK past. I can't provide proof because IMDb can't maintain the cost of keeping old threads and posts up, but this is not an unobvious thing.

I'm not like others on these boards, if you think I just belong to "one of them." I suggest you think twice before calling people out.

Good day to you, sir.

** Rest in peace, Timothy Volkert (1988 - 2003) **

[–] soulsk8ter225 8 years ago

Okay, I'll do this much:

I post on another board called Operation Sports. There, they actually spend money to keep old threads active forever. I'm going to search for any posts I've made on the subject matter. I'll link you to the points in the threads to prove I'm not making them up, but you have to be registered to the forum in order to even see the thread.

And if you actually sign up to see it, I caution you are very careful about calling certain people certain things there, because you'll get banned pretty much immediately. That includes calling me a TDKR apologist. You clearly do not know who I am or what I have said at times.

Anyway, here's post #1 for me on the subject matter.

Image: http://imageshack.com/a/img923/9526/JKciuj.png
Direct post: http://www.operationsports.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2038517130&postcount=1453

I never said anything like "Bruce can be Bruce" in this post, but although I'll be looking around for one when I did say that I did mention this:

Honestly, there weren't really any loose ends left to tie up at the end of this movie. Batman fled, a manhunt was ordered on him as Gordon crushed the light fixture, Fox resigned, Rachel has died, the Joker is in jail, and Gotham is safe as long as they believe it was The Dark Knight that committed those murders and not The White Night and that there is still hope that people, on the inside, are good (think back about what the entire boat scene was about, especially the prisoner's action). And with the very powerful ending words by Gordon, I think that the Nolan's executed these two movies perfectly where it doesn't require another movie.

Sounds quite like something I'm talking about right now, no?

Possibly more to come.

** Rest in peace, Timothy Volkert (1988 - 2003) **

[–] Rey_Kahuka 8 years ago

And with the very powerful ending words by Gordon

Why did Gordon say Batman was Gotham's guardian and protector? Why did he say they'd hunt Batman "because he can take it," if he knew Batman was going to retire immediately? None of this makes any sense.

As an aside, it's wild that someone out there misinterpreted the ending of the film, only to have the filmmakers desperately go that exact route when coerced by the studio to make a sequel they had no interest in. But then again, Dennis the Menace debuted in the same year and the same month in the US and the UK, and are completely unrelated publications. The world is indeed a strange place.

The future is in the hands of a man who has none.(As in no future, as opposed to no hands.)

[–] soulsk8ter225 8 years ago

I don't know man, I'm not sure what else to say. I've misinterpreted things before and been wrong, and this could have been one of those cases. Hell, if TDKR came out and I watch the film and it's just like TDK all over again where Batman is working with cops and roping up bad guys, I would have left the theater, jumped on IMDb, and made a thread titled: "Did they forget about the ending to TDK?" I just saw it differently. I don't see the interpretation as wild at all.

Like check out my post I was referring to from that other site, I mentioned that Fox had resigned. I said that because that's what I thought he was doing. It took me some time to realize (or somebody to tell me) that Fox typing in his name destroyed the machine, therefore he wouldn't resign because the machine wasn't at W.E. anymore. So, I screwed one up. It happens. I would own up to it.

If it makes you feel any better, I also thought when Alfred burned that letter that it would never surface, ever again. It shocked me in TDKR when he used the letter/truth against Bruce to not try and be Batman again as a death wish. Hell, I even thought that Jim Parsons was a good alternative to Will Ferrell for Elf. Even if you don't agree, guess what they did several years later:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0319343/board/nest/223917786

Let me tell you a stupid one that people came up with: the sequel after TDK featuring Two-Face as the villain. I sat there saying: (a) Dent is dead; (b) what, is he going to flee Gordon and the police right there at the crime scene? Ridiculous, I say.

As far as Gordon saying what he said at the end, I saw it more as the fact that the symbol will stand for something greater than conventional heroics: it stands for as Gotham needs to paint it, and at that point it's a source of evil that can disappear at the drop of a hat just by hanging up the suit. Bruce had already pined for a day that Gotham no longer needed Batman. This was evident earlier in the film. He doesn't need someone to be Batman, he needs Batman to resemble something.

I don't know how I can keep saying that I'm not making up the fact these were my initial thoughts on the film, dating back well before a sequel was ever announced. I showed you one post already, and I'll continue to search and see if there are other ones floating around. If there are, hopefully I can put these "lies" to rest. As to why somebody would come up with something so asinine? I don't know... personally I believed that's how most people saw the ending to the film.

Then again, I see the ending of TDKR to be like "John Blake is the new Batman." What did others see? Others saw John Blake going to be a hero named Robin. I didn't see that at all; I saw that he acted Robin-like in the film and that was his legal name, but I assumed he was going to take the Batman mantle.

Oh well. I might be an idiot. But I am not a liar.

** Rest in peace, Timothy Volkert (1988 - 2003) **

[–] soulsk8ter225 8 years ago

I FOUND ONE!

Image: http://imageshack.com/a/img921/7315/SevZrE.png
Direct link: http://www.operationsports.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2038985594&postcount=30 (must be registered to site)

Check the time stamp, back in 2008 (well before any TDKR news). I even mentioned Hancock as I did here. I guess old habits die very, very hard.

So, now unless you think I have an inside scoop on what Nolan is doing with his films, please change the "you are lying" attitude at the very least to "you and Nolan share equal idiocy for coming up with the same idea," because then I can at the very least stop being called a liar.

Now, the guy after my first post said exactly what you were saying (still working as Batman despite Gotham's wishes), and although I clearly don't remember that post given that it's eight years old now, my retort still remained the same. Wait until you're wanted back, then come for a big redemption.

** Rest in peace, Timothy Volkert (1988 - 2003) **

[–] soulsk8ter225 8 years ago

Another two:

http://imageshack.com/a/img921/6151/KAo4zc.png
http://imageshack.com/a/img924/7804/8oTWXF.png

Different topic, but here's right after Tom Hardy was cast (yet his role was still unknown):

http://imageshack.com/a/img924/1374/5h5FUr.png

The point is that I can be correct about some things and incorrect about some things. Hell, look at the guy's post below mine and how on-point he was. The fact of the matter is that I'm not going to sit here and brag about them, I'm just going to sit here and be truthful. I will also not take somebody calling me out on something that they know nothing about.

Why did I think of something so ridiculous at the time? Although I don't see it as ridiculous, I can't say that I know for sure. But I sure as hell said it at the time. I cannot fabricate time stamps, nor did I edit them later (if I edited them now, the direct link would show 2016 time stamp edits).

** Rest in peace, Timothy Volkert (1988 - 2003) **

[–] Rey_Kahuka 8 years ago

All this effort to dig up ancient posts and you still haven't answered my question. Why did Gordon say Batman was Gotham's guardian and protector? Why did he say they'd hunt Batman "because he can take it," if he knew Batman was going to retire immediately?

Yes, you've proven that you misinterpreted the ending of TDKR, we knew that already. I could have watched The Highlander and said, "I bet they're aliens, and his homeworld will send assassins after him in the sequel!" It would have made zero sense given the narrative of the original-- yet that's exactly what happened in the sequel. You weren't right about anything. You misinterpreted it, and that misinterpretation coincidentally came to pass when they retconned the ending of TDK to fit the flawed narrative of TDKR. It made no sense then, and it makes no sense now. It happens all too frequently in sequels.

But that's neither here nor there, since I've already acknowledged that you held this theory previous to TDKR's release. Now can you answer my question? Can you tell me how they're hunting Batman, "because he can take it," if Gordon expects Batman to immediately retire? Can you explain how Batman is a 'guardian' and a 'protector' if he's disappearing from the scene entirely? I'm just trying t understand how you would draw such a nonsensical conclusion.

Surely this would have been a common topic on this board for those four years between films, if this was the intended interpretation of the film.

I'm also still trying to figure out the "Bruce could still be Bruce" comment, but I guess you've given up on that one.

The future is in the hands of a man who has none.(As in no future, as opposed to no hands.)

[–] soulsk8ter225 8 years ago

See, I feel like I already answered those questions, especially "Bruce could still be Bruce." See if you can read back on that one. Even look at the posts I brought up, they all say the same thing.

I just mentioned the Gordon one as well, but it's said more in code than anything else. Bruce will still be around if things went sour again, but if things didn't he'd be where he was at. I just assumed he would be a "silent guardian" and "watchful protector," being Bruce Wayne and watching Gotham from close up, and when something happened he'd act on it, as Batman or otherwise. He doesn't need to be Superman and show his colors to an entire audience.

** Rest in peace, Timothy Volkert (1988 - 2003) **

[–] Rey_Kahuka 8 years ago

"Bruce could still be Bruce."

There is no explanation, it's an idiotic comment. Bruce could still be Bruce. The sky could still be blue. People could still breathe oxygen. What an observation. There was never anything to imply he couldn't still be Bruce, why bring it up?

I just mentioned the Gordon one as well, but it's said more in code than anything else. Bruce will still be around if things went sour again, but if things didn't he'd be where he was at. I just assumed he would be a "silent guardian" and "watchful protector," being Bruce Wayne and watching Gotham from close up, and when something happened he'd act on it, as Batman or otherwise.

Now you're mixing your observations with Gordon's. Gordon doesn't know Batman is Bruce Wayne, why would he assume Batman could intervene as anyone other than Batman? Most importantly, it doesn't explain the line about hunting Batman "because he can take it." There's literally no hunt to endure if he's simply hanging up his cape and quitting. And you keep insisting that Gordon knows Batman is retiring. That line makes absolutely no sense if he knows Batman is retiring immediately.

Don't worry, nobody else has been able to answer this question, either.

The future is in the hands of a man who has none.(As in no future, as opposed to no hands.)

[–] soulsk8ter225 8 years ago

Mother f...

I BROUGHT UP BRUCE COULD STILL BE BRUCE BECAUSE OF THE INSINUATION THAT HE COULD STILL BE LIVING AMONG GOTHAM CITIZENS WITHOUT ANYBODY KNOWING WHO HE IS!

Obviously I misread your initial statement, but bro, some people forget about that fact sometimes. Look at those posts again. Look at the guy who said exactly: "I forgot that people don't know who Batman is." Or whatever the hell he said. I make the point because it's a necessary one, because he doesn't need to wear the cape and cowl to still serve his duty as The Dark Knight.

I can't say why I thought what I thought better than that, but it doesn't change that I thought it. Sorry that I don't have a better answer for you, I really am.

This is a waste of my time to talk about this anymore. Next time just don't call somebody a liar when you don't even have a glimmer of the truth. Asshat.

** Rest in peace, Timothy Volkert (1988 - 2003) **

[–] Rey_Kahuka 8 years ago

I BROUGHT UP BRUCE COULD STILL BE BRUCE BECAUSE OF THE INSINUATION THAT HE COULD STILL BE LIVING AMONG GOTHAM CITIZENS WITHOUT ANYBODY KNOWING WHO HE IS!

It's a dumb comment. No sh!t Bruce could still be Bruce.

but it doesn't change that I thought it

I've acknowledged that. It's terrible writing regardless, that's been my point from the beginning. You've gone out of your way to prove you had the same awful idea that the screenwriter did without ever explaining how any of it makes any sense (which is what I've been asking all along).

Next time just don't call somebody a liar when you don't even have a glimmer of the truth.

Next time answer the fúcking question. You still can't so you don't even try. "We'll hunt him, because he can take it," Gordon continues in a post credit sequence, "And by that I mean he's going to retire and go into seclusion immediately. They don't come any tougher or more determined than this guy."

Asshat.

Hey, I'm not the guy replying to a single post three times and still failing to answer a simple question.

The future is in the hands of a man who has none.(As in no future, as opposed to no hands.)

[–] soulsk8ter225 8 years ago

Somewhere in my posts, I led myself to believe I have written the answers to your questions. If you cannot find them, then sadly they will never be answered. I do not have any more time the rest of the night to conjure up a different spin of my words. All I know is you began by saying there wasn't a single soul alive who could have "predicted" another sequel would go the route the way that it did, and I only chimed in to say that I did. I wasn't wrong about that.

The only hope is that somebody else can come in here, state the same thing, and then answer your questions. Until that point, we will be here at a standstill.

** Rest in peace, Timothy Volkert (1988 - 2003) **

[–] Rey_Kahuka 8 years ago

All I know is you began by saying there wasn't a single soul alive who could have "predicted" another sequel would go the route the way that it did, and I only chimed in to say that I did.

Congratulations on calling me on my hyperbole. You're right, there was one guy out there who completely misinterpreted the ending of the film, and by chance, the TDKR retcon took the story in the same direction.

I wasn't wrong about that.

You've been making this about you from the beginning. It's terrible writing whether it was you or the screenwriter who came up with it. You haven't answered my question and you know it, that's why you keep dodging it.

There's no way to reconcile the line, "We'll hunt him because he can take it," with the idea that Batman is immediately going into retirement. It does not make sense. You know it, so you keep dancing around it. You're more than willing to make several posts about how this will be your final post, but answering this question that you insist you already have is somehow wasting your time? How convenient.

The only hope is that somebody else can come in here, state the same thing, and then answer your questions

As I said, nobody has ever answered that question, going on four years now. They all say it was obvious, yet nobody can explain that line.

The future is in the hands of a man who has none.(As in no future, as opposed to no hands.)

[–] soulsk8ter225 8 years ago

You haven't answered my question and you know it, that's why you keep dodging it.

You're putting words in my mouth again.

I interpret Gordon's line as something different than you do, and I already offered my interpretation. You keep stating what your interpretation was, and I keep stating mine. We will never agree on the matter. You think "Because he can take it" can only mean that he will continue to go out every night wearing a cape, and I saw it as his way of taking the heat for being painted as "the villain" instead of "the hero," nothing more.

** Rest in peace, Timothy Volkert (1988 - 2003) **

[–] Rey_Kahuka 8 years ago

Again, you conveniently left out the first half of the line. So it's a metaphor that makes no sense in your world. "We'll hunt him, because he can take it," translates to, "He'll accept being called the bad guy, even though he isn't." There's no hunt, there's no struggle, there's no nothing. The line makes no sense at all in this context. But that's what we're forced to do to try to make sense of TDKR, invent bullsh!t in an attempt to achieve any kind of coherent narrative between films.

The future is in the hands of a man who has none.(As in no future, as opposed to no hands.)

[–] soulsk8ter225 8 years ago

It wasn't a matter of convenience for anything other than my little fingers typing.

Gordon is answering his son's question: "Why is he running, Dad?"

"Because we have to chase him..."

"But he didn't do anything wrong."

"Because he's not the hero that blah blah blah... so we'll hunt him. Because he can take it."

He's answering Jimmy's question about why he's running at that moment. Jimmy didn't ask, "Dad, why will he be running at a later date?"

** Rest in peace, Timothy Volkert (1988 - 2003) **

[–] Rey_Kahuka 8 years ago

He's answering Jimmy's question about why he's running at that moment. Jimmy didn't ask, "Dad, why will he be running at a later date?"

Wow. If you had any legitimacy to your argument, it just flew out the window. He was answering Jimmy. The voiceover wasn't meant for the audience, we're supposed to take it at face value as an offhand comment to his son. Yet moments ago you were insisting that it was all metaphor. What a crock of sh!t. What a fraudulent bozo you've turned out to be.

You know what this is? This is you making things up as you go along. This is you changing your argument when you talk yourself into a corner.

He's answering Jimmy's question about why he's running at that moment.

Then why is Gordon talking in a future tense? "We'll hunt him," as opposed to, "We're hunting him."

Just like TDKR, you can't keep with your own established narrative for very long, can you?

The future is in the hands of a man who has none.(As in no future, as opposed to no hands.)

[–] soulsk8ter225 8 years ago

*beep* you, man. I bowed out long ago because you are relentless and tiresome. I'm trying to find a way to answer your question. My take on the end of the film was exactly as it was, whether it's stupid or not, as evidenced way back in 2008. You can call it the worst assumption ever, but the fact of the matter (and yes, it is fact as I actually showed to you) is that that was and is what I believed about the TDK ending. I wouldn't have deemed it as powerful as it was otherwise.

If I'm wrong, then so is Nolan. Sorry, it seems he is the only one who can answer your question now, and even you will call him out on B.S.

I'm leaving because I can't satisfy your needs. Hopefully somebody else can. I've never done this before, but consider yourself ignored.

** Rest in peace, Timothy Volkert (1988 - 2003) **

[–] Rey_Kahuka 8 years ago

Remember when you said this?

I just mentioned the Gordon one as well, but it's said more in code than anything else.

So Gordon was speaking to his son in code? This is the dumbest sh!t I've ever seen on this board. What the actual F-ck.

I bowed out long ago because you are relentless and tiresome.

To be fair, you've quit several times already, and you double replied to one post and triple replied to another.

If I'm wrong, then so is Nolan.

He is, but he's only wrong because the studio pressured him into making a third film, and they settled on a weak script. Your dumb ass misinterpreted the end of TDK from the get go.

I've never done this before, but consider yourself ignored.

As opposed to not replying to my post? I've never understood why people use the ignore feature in this fashion.

Thanks for proving yourself to be yet another TDKR apologist who will say anything, no matter how nonsensical it may be, to defend that garbage flick. It's a shame you couldn't continue, I'd love to see how many more times I could force you to change your argument.

As it is I'll have to settle for a double and triple word score, and one of the wilder trips I've had on this board in a while. Gordon was talking to his son. Using coded metaphors. About the present, in the future tense. I certainly couldn't make this stuff up, I'm glad I have people like you to do it for me.

The future is in the hands of a man who has none.(As in no future, as opposed to no hands.)

[–] justanicknamed 8 years ago

And now you know why I put him on ignore as well. I got tired of being stalked with his stupidity.

[–] Rey_Kahuka 8 years ago

Tell me more about Clint Eastwood's four Oscars for acting. Clowns hate being proven wrong, so they put people who call them on their bullsh!t on ignore.

It's a shame you have me on ignore, you really need to see this.

http://boardreader.com/site/IMDB_The_Dark_Knight_2008_59808.html

You were the top author on this board last week! The top author on a message board for a film you hate. Way to spend your time, big guy. Stalking, lol.

The future is in the hands of a man who has none.(As in no future, as opposed to no hands.)

[–] ee_dixon 8 years ago

Nolan even admitted he never planned on doing a third movie in the franchise.

That's completely false, Nolan said that he would only do a third movie if he had the perfect story to tell.

[–] Rey_Kahuka 8 years ago

No. Nolan said he never planned on doing a third film.

The future is in the hands of a man who has none.(As in no future, as opposed to no hands.)

[–] mh-newressistance 8 years ago

No. Nolan said he never planned on doing a third film.

He said he never was thinking about creating a trilogy while he was working on Batman Begins. His only goal was to make Batman Begins. He never cared for what will come next, he was only focused on that movie. That's kinda his entire approach when it comes to all his films - they're self-contained, one-off stories.

[–] justanicknamed 8 years ago

So why did he do this movie then? 

[–] forumulaa 8 years ago

5, 5b. I believe I have an answer. The five dead were Werz, Maroni, and Maroni's driver, guard outside Dent's room and Dent himself.

If they pinned it on Joker, why was Dent killed? Joker was obviously not present in the last scene, he was captured before that. So why did Batman(or Gordon) kill Dent? Unless they told the truth, which they wouldn't(protect Dent's image), the only way was to cast the blame on Batman.

[–] varunthedragon-931-766034 8 years ago

1. It was a gag. It seems like the Joker was detonating a grenade in the Bank Manager's mouth but it was only a dud. He obviously needed someone alive to inform the authorities(legal or otehrwise) of his audacity.

2. Imagine rush hour on a busy day. Nobody notices immediately and even if they do, they wouldn't be able to comprehend enough to sound an alarm. It will certainly come up LATER in the investigation.

3. It could be for a number of reasons. The simplest reason is to mess with Batman. He knows about his feelings for Rachel and relishes the opportunity of rubbing it in his face. The fact that Dent survived is an added bonus

4. At this point, the mob bosses would've forgotten about the original meeting(just try to remember everything you discussed without a convenient minutes. Hard, isn't it?). Besides that, this is a sign that the Joker's taking over. So the original agreement doesn't matter.

5. The problem is Gordon does not know everything and Ramirez is unlikely to survive. So there is a chance that he erroneously counted her as one of the victims. One more possibility is Maroni's guard. Or it could also be that the second cop was the one the Joker killed who was assigned on guard duty. Nobody would know the Joker was personally at the site of Gotham General.

5a It's likely that Dent briefed him when when he called.

5b. For obvious reasons. They knew where the Joker was at the time. He has a rock-solid alibi. Gordon also had a perimeter set up without mentioning that it was Dent. So its impossible to blame it on the Joker. People who dared to look into it deeply like Blake in the next movie found some things amiss and Bane's explanation connected the dots.

6. Depends on the manner of your fall. Maroni fell feet first. Harvey fell head first. A head injury has a greater chance of resulting in death than a broken or splintered leg.