Best Batman Film in The Dark Knight Trilogy

The Joker was more evil, but I think that has to do with how psychotic he is. Bane's never been a pure evil villan, he has a good side, just doesn't really show it.

Well considering Bane had a fucked up childhood, of course it's hard to see the good in him.

Oh and Yonny, love the Superman shirt.

Mecha wrote:

Well considering Bane had a fucked up childhood, of course it's hard to see the good in him.

Oh and Yonny, love the Superman shirt.

Yeah, imagine having to survive prison as a child. And thanks... oh and also :ohcrap:

I'd have liked to have seen more of a connection between The Joker and the overall arc involving the League of Shadows. The Dark Knight Rises continues some plot threads from Batman Begins, but I feel like The Dark Knight ends up standing out story-wise.

I think it would've been interesting if it was revealed that Joker, while not a member of the League, was a dangerous criminal housed by them and set loose in Gotham in order to destroy it. Not that Joker knew that he was secretly doing someone's bidding, but that he ended up in Gotham thanks to the League. Sneaking a new criminal into the city wouldn't be difficult given the chaos that ensued during the climax of Batman Begins, and since Joker's calling card appeared at the end of the film, it would stand to reason that he was active in the city as a result of the events of Batman Begins.

I don't think Ra's al Ghul would want anything to do with The Joker. And if he did, he would highly regret it. The Joker is just way too much. Not even League of Shadows can control him.

Mecha wrote:

I don't think Ra's al Ghul would want anything to do with The Joker. And if he did, he would highly regret it. The Joker is just way too much. Not even League of Shadows can control him.

That's the point. They're not controlling him. They just set him loose in the city and let him wreak havoc. But they'd ultimately be the ones who got him there.

I see what Jack is saying and I like it. I thought of that before too.

Spoiler:

Would really connect all three films in a way.

RamboOnRedBull wrote:

TDK ending without The Joker dying has nothing to do with Heath Ledger's death. He died AFTER shooting had wrapped up. Not in the middle of the process.

Plus, if Batman had killed The Joker, he would have violated his own moral and the Joker would have gotten what he wanted. He would've beaten Batman at his own game.

I know filming had already finished when Heath Ledger died but they couldn't exactly show his character dying around that time as it would be seen as disrespectful. If more proof was needed, Nolan even said the reason there was no mention of the Joker in the Dark Knight Rises was out of respect for Heath Ledger and his family so I seriously doubt he would show the guy's character dying onscreen for the same reasons.

Also don't give me that moral code bollocks, otherwise Batman wouldn't of killed Two-Face if that was the case.

Watch the film closely, the movie progressively makes it obvious that the Joker's chaos cannot be contained which culminated with his capture by Batman and Gotham Police and his subsequent escape. Or are we supposed to believe that when the Joker was strung up hanging over the edge of the building (where Batman was supposed to drop him to his death) that he wouldn't later escape like he did only 30 minutes earlier in the movie!?

Mecha wrote:

@Dam_Noir

Umm, no. Batman killing the Joker would be completely out of character. Besides, Joker was set to return in The Dark Knight Rises, but for obvious reasons he didn't.

So killing Two-Face wasn't out of character then... :fuckthat:

But wasn't that the whole point though? That at first Batman believed he could deal with the Joker like any other villian but the Joker's campaign of carnage eventually left him with no other option but to break his moral code to deal with him? Because we clearly saw that capturing the Joker did nothing to stop him, if anything it played into his favour.

Dam_Noir wrote:

RamboOnRedBull wrote:

TDK ending without The Joker dying has nothing to do with Heath Ledger's death. He died AFTER shooting had wrapped up. Not in the middle of the process.

Plus, if Batman had killed The Joker, he would have violated his own moral and the Joker would have gotten what he wanted. He would've beaten Batman at his own game.

I know filming had already finished when Heath Ledger died but they couldn't exactly show his character dying around that time as it would be seen as disrespectful. If more proof was needed, Nolan even said the reason there was no mention of the Joker in the Dark Knight Rises was out of respect for Heath Ledger and his family so I seriously doubt he would show the guy's character dying onscreen for the same reasons.

Also don't give me that moral code bollocks, otherwise Batman wouldn't of killed Two-Face if that was the case.

Watch the film closely, the movie progressively makes it obvious that the Joker's chaos cannot be contained which culminated with his capture by Batman and Gotham Police and his subsequent escape. Or are we supposed to believe that when the Joker was strung up hanging over the edge of the building (where Batman was supposed to drop him to his death) that he wouldn't later escape like he did only 30 minutes earlier in the movie!?

Mecha wrote:

@Dam_Noir

Umm, no. Batman killing the Joker would be completely out of character. Besides, Joker was set to return in The Dark Knight Rises, but for obvious reasons he didn't.

So killing Two-Face wasn't out of character then... :fuckthat:

I wouldn't really say Batman Tried to kill Harvey Dent on purpose, as much as he just tried to stop him. But I do see your point, though.

Plus, there's also a moment where The Joker is hanging from the building, and then Batman responds with:

What were you trying to prove? That deep down everyone's as ugly as you? This city just showed you it's full of good...etc.

If Batman had killed the Joker right then and there, he would've just made his entire speech and moral completey pointless.

Batman killing two face was out of character, but Christian bale had no choice otherwise the kid may have died. Comic batman however would not be a retard and just throw a batarang to save the kid without killing two face, as he is much more well trained and actually intelligent.

RamboOnRedBull wrote:

Dam_Noir wrote:

RamboOnRedBull wrote:

TDK ending without The Joker dying has nothing to do with Heath Ledger's death. He died AFTER shooting had wrapped up. Not in the middle of the process.

Plus, if Batman had killed The Joker, he would have violated his own moral and the Joker would have gotten what he wanted. He would've beaten Batman at his own game.

I know filming had already finished when Heath Ledger died but they couldn't exactly show his character dying around that time as it would be seen as disrespectful. If more proof was needed, Nolan even said the reason there was no mention of the Joker in the Dark Knight Rises was out of respect for Heath Ledger and his family so I seriously doubt he would show the guy's character dying onscreen for the same reasons.

Also don't give me that moral code bollocks, otherwise Batman wouldn't of killed Two-Face if that was the case.

Watch the film closely, the movie progressively makes it obvious that the Joker's chaos cannot be contained which culminated with his capture by Batman and Gotham Police and his subsequent escape. Or are we supposed to believe that when the Joker was strung up hanging over the edge of the building (where Batman was supposed to drop him to his death) that he wouldn't later escape like he did only 30 minutes earlier in the movie!?

Mecha wrote:

@Dam_Noir

Umm, no. Batman killing the Joker would be completely out of character. Besides, Joker was set to return in The Dark Knight Rises, but for obvious reasons he didn't.

So killing Two-Face wasn't out of character then... :fuckthat:

I wouldn't really say Batman Tried to kill Harvey Dent on purpose, as much as he just tried to stop him. But I do see your point, though.

Plus, there's also a moment where The Joker is hanging from the building, and then Batman responds with:

What were you trying to prove? That deep down everyone's as ugly as you? This city just showed you it's full of good...etc.

If Batman had killed the Joker right then and there, he would've just made his entire speech and moral completey pointless.

But when Batman said "the city is full of people ready to believe in good" didn't the Joker respond by mentioning what had happened to Harvey Dent? Which clearly shows that even the man who was seen as the definition of good could become evil?

At the end of the Joker's speech he even mentions that "madness is like gravity, all it takes is a little push" yet the push never came...

tahmidk wrote:

Batman killing two face was out of character, but Christian bale had no choice otherwise the kid may have died. Comic batman however would not be a retard and just throw a batarang to save the kid without killing two face, as he is much more well trained and actually intelligent.

Personally I feel the Batman rule book simply doesn't apply as much to the movies as it does in the comics.

Dam_Noir wrote:

tahmidk wrote:

Batman killing two face was out of character, but Christian bale had no choice otherwise the kid may have died. Comic batman however would not be a retard and just throw a batarang to save the kid without killing two face, as he is much more well trained and actually intelligent.

Personally I feel the Batman rule book simply doesn't apply as much to the movies as it does in the comics.

Batman has cracked and tried to kill the joker several times in the comics, once when he thought joker killed hush, but Gordon stopped him. Another time when Bitch Todd died bats tried to kill joker, but superman stopped him, however batman eventually crashed joker and let him to die in a helicopter explosion. Comics are much better, because they ARE batman.

@Dam_Noir

Still out of character. Batman would NEVER do that. If you think he should then you're missing the whole point of the Batman lore. No matter how much tragedy The Joker brings to Batman's life or how many people he murders, Batman will never kill him. Even in the comics I think Batman has gotten a lot of shit for not killing The Joker. Yeah, I know, Batman kills Two-Face and not The Joker. But Batman and The Joker have a long history together where they create this hero and villain relationship between the two. Which the film was obviously trying to do the same.

Also no, The Joker wasn't suppose to die in the film. He was set to appear in The Dark Knight Rises. So even if Heath Ledger didn't die, the ending for The Dark Knight wouldn't be much different.

Mecha wrote:

@Dam_Noir

Still out of character. Batman would NEVER do that. If you think he should then you're missing the whole point of the Batman lore. No matter how much tragedy The Joker brings to Batman's life or how many people he murders, Batman will never kill him. Even in the comics I think Batman has gotten a lot of shit for not killing The Joker. Yeah, I know, Batman kills Two-Face and not The Joker. But Batman and The Joker have a long history together where they create this hero and villain relationship between the two. Which the film was obviously trying to do the same.

Also no, The Joker wasn't suppose to die in the film. He was set to appear in The Dark Knight Rises. So even if Heath Ledger didn't die, the ending for The Dark Knight wouldn't be much different.

The comics and the films don't follow the same rules, but let's take a closer look at this.

Batman and the Joker have a long history in the comics because Batman was responsible for his creation (dropping him in a vat of chemical waste), however this link is absent from TDK. However Batman does have responsibility for the creation of Two-Face in TDK but clearly this does little to deter him from killing the guy.

Also you say Batman would NEVER do that? Clearly you have never seen the original Batman movie and that film did actually portray the creation of the Joker as we know in the comics so never say never.

How do you know the Joker was meant to appear in The Dark Knight Rises when below is a link describing the great lengths Warner Bros. and David Goyer had to go to get Nolan to come back for the second and then third installments. Each film was made without worrying about what came next. And after The Dark Night, Nolan was 'finshed' with Batman.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/quora/did-christopher-nolan-ori_b_1685043.html?

Who is to say the Joker wasn't planned to appear in The Dark Knight Rises as some sort of flashback? To serve as a reminder to what Batman did and the guilt he would inevitably feel?

@Dam_Noir

lol no. The Joker has no official origin in the comics. The whole Joker falling into chemical waste was just one of the stories taken from the graphic novels, which become Joker's most popular origin. But again, it's not really canon. Besides, Batman and Joker already had a long history together way before that story. So basically, The Dark Knight was actually being more faithful by not explaining Joker's origin.

As for movies don't have to follow the same rules as comics, then why even call him Batman at all if you expect to break his moral code so easily? Might as well just change his name and wear a different suit. I mean after all, movies don't have to be faithful to the comics am I right?

Also it's true that Nolan took it one film at a time. But that doesn't mean he didn't left it open in case he returned for the third film. Besides, David Goyer is the writer, so I'm sure he has a say on this as well. So while Nolan wasn't sure, David Goyer was already planning ahead. Another reason is, Batman would never kill the Joker. Period.

Mecha wrote:

@Dam_Noir

lol no. The Joker has no official origin in the comics. The whole Joker falling into chemical waste was just one of the stories taken from the graphic novels, which become Joker's most popular origin. But again, it's not really canon. Besides, Batman and Joker already had a long history together way before that story. So basically, The Dark Knight was actually being more faithful by not explaining Joker's origin.

As for movies don't have to follow the same rules as comics, then why even call him Batman at all if you expect to break his moral code so easily? Might as well just change his name and wear a different suit. I mean after all, movies don't have to be faithful to the comics am I right?

Also it's true that Nolan took it one film at a time. But that doesn't mean he didn't left it open in case he returned for the third film. Besides, David Goyer is the writer, so I'm sure he has a say on this as well. So while Nolan wasn't sure, David Goyer was already planning ahead. Another reason is, Batman would never kill the Joker. Period.

Quote :

The official DC Comics publication, Who's Who in the DC Universe credits as the most widely supported account, is featured in The Killing Joke. It depicts him as originally being an engineer at a chemical plant who quits his job to become a stand-up comedian, only to fail miserably. Desperate to support his pregnant wife Jeannie, he agrees to help two criminals break into the plant where he was formerly employed to get to the card company next door. In this version of the story, the Red Hood persona is given to the inside man of every job (thus it is never the same man twice); this makes the man appear to be the ringleader, allowing the two criminals to escape. During the planning, police contact him and inform him that his wife and unborn child have died in a household accident.

Stricken with grief, he attempts to back out of the plan, but the criminals strong-arm him into keeping his promise. As soon as they enter the plant, however, they are immediately caught by security and a shoot-out ensues, in which the two criminals are killed. As the engineer tries to escape, he is confronted by Batman, who is investigating the disturbance. Terrified, the engineer leaps over a rail and plummets into a pound lock of chemicals. When he surfaces in the nearby reservoir, he removes the hood and sees his reflection: bleached chalk-white skin, ruby-red lips, and bright green hair. These events, coupled with his other misfortunes that day, drive the engineer completely insane, resulting in the birth of the Joker. This origin is supported in Batman: The Man Who Laughs when Batman performs chemical tests on the Red Hood he recovered from the chemical plant during his first investigation into the Joker. Joker's Red Hood identity is further confirmed in Batman #450 when Joker finds an old Red Hood costume he kept and puts it on to help his recovery after the events of A Death in the Family.

The origins of the Joker may not have been touched on until later publications but to try and claim it's non-canon is laughable.

Mecha wrote:

As for movies don't have to follow the same rules as comics, then why even call him Batman at all if you expect to break his moral code so easily? Might as well just change his name and wear a different suit. I mean after all, movies don't have to be faithful to the comics am I right?

In that case how do you explain what happened to the Joker in the 1989 version of Batman then? Also if Batman killed the Joker in TDK it could never be passed off as "so easily", the Joker was naturally pushing Batman to this watershed moment throughout the entire movie.

You straight up said the Joker was meant to be in the Dark Knight Rises whereas now you are merely trying to pass off you're own speculation. Afterall the flashback scenario I proposed is feasible seen as Ra's al Ghul appears in The Dark Knight Rises even though he's dead.

Actually in the new 52 Alan Moore's joker origin is now canon, only the part about wearing a red hood and falling into the vat of chemicals, the whole dead pregnant wife thing is still up for debates. And just because some of the first Burton film was based on the comics doesnt mean that batman would just Willy nilly start killing criminals. At batmans core, he's trying to prevent anyone from going through what he went through, death of loved ones. This led him to be completely fucking crazy and against death, except in a few instances, but he would never kill two face or joker, because he doesnt bring emotions into it(well, he tries).

@Dam_Noir

How is it laughable? Just because its Joker's most popular and familiar story does not mean that's his official origin. The Joker's real origins will never be truly revealed. The whole Joker falling into a chemical waste thing, started in one of the graphic novels. Not in the actual main canon of the comics. Even in the comics Joker doesn't remember his origins very well.

Also Tim Burton's Batman wasn't all that faithful either. Besides, Batman killing The Joker seemed more accidental than actual murder since all he was trying to do is not let The Joker escape.

As for The Joker appearing in The Dark Knight Rises, he was meant to be in it. It would of had The Joker going on trial in the film. And who knows? Maybe they were planning to add Harley Quinn as well. I would post a link to prove it, but its so old and the internet is flooded with Heath Ledger's death, that it's a bit difficult to find. You just have to take my word for it.

Mecha wrote:

@Dam_Noir

How is it laughable? Just because its Joker's most popular and familiar story does not mean that's his official origin. The Joker's real origins will never be truly revealed. The whole Joker falling into a chemical waste thing, started in one of the graphic novels. Not in the actual main canon of the comics. Even in the comics Joker doesn't remember his origins very well.

Also Tim Burton's Batman wasn't all that faithful either. Besides, Batman killing The Joker seemed more accidental than actual murder since all he was trying to do is not let The Joker escape.

As for The Joker appearing in The Dark Knight Rises, he was meant to be in it. It would of had The Joker going on trial in the film. And who knows? Maybe they were planning to add Harley Quinn as well. I would post a link to prove it, but its so old and the internest is flooded with Heath Ledgers death, that it's a bit difficult to find. You just have to take my word for it.

It's canon in new 52 that.joker wore a red hood and tried to rob ace chemicals and fell in the vat of chemicals.

@tahmidk

Wait, I thought you said that was debatable? Also isn't the new 52 in its own universe?

Mecha wrote:

@Dam_Noir

How is it laughable? Just because its Joker's most popular and familiar story does not mean that's his official origin. The Joker's real origins will never be truly revealed. The whole Joker falling into a chemical waste thing, started in one of the graphic novels. Not in the actual main canon of the comics. Even in the comics Joker doesn't remember his origins very well.

Also Tim Burton's Batman wasn't all that faithful either. Besides, Batman killing The Joker seemed more accidental than actual murder since all he was trying to do is not let The Joker escape.

As for The Joker appearing in The Dark Knight Rises, he was meant to be in it. It would of had The Joker going on trial in the film. And who knows? Maybe they were planning to add Harley Quinn as well. I would post a link to prove it, but its so old and the internet is flooded with Heath Ledger's death, that it's a bit difficult to find. You just have to take my word for it.

As tahmidk said, the Joker falling into the chemical vat is canon it's the story regards his wife that is debatable.

In Tim Burton's Batman he did throw the Joker off the roof with the intention of killing him but the Joker grabbed a ledge below pulled Batman and that girl off the roof and then tried to escape.

Sorry Mecha but I don't believe you, as that would mean Nolan intentionally created his own brilliant interpretation of the Joker to serve as nothing more than a means to create Two-Face, whereas the Joker's legacy in The Dark Knight would of been far greater if had managed to force Batman into the position to go against his moral code to finally put an end to the Joker's reign of terror.

@Dam_Noir

But it wasn't canon in the original continuity though. The New 52 didn't came out until way after The Dark Knight, so The Joker falling into a chemical vat has nothing to do between him and Batman. Even Alan Moore himself didn't like how his origin of The Joker became somewhat canon. If he knew DC was going to make it canon, he would have wrote it differently. Whether the chemical vat origin is canon or not, its still not the official origin. Because you're always going to have various writers have different interpretations of Joker's origin. Which is exactly what Chris Nolan did.

As I already said about Tim Burton's Batman, its not all that faithful to the comics anyway. Batman trying to kill the Joker is debatable, because Batman did the same thing in The Dark Knight by throwing Joker off on top of the building, yet Batman still saved The Joker.

Also lol, no. If Batman went against his moral code then The Joker would have won. If Batman killed Joker in the comics than The Joker wouldn't be as popular as he is today. You don't really get the relationship between Batman and Joker, the two basically can't live without each other. They even state this in The Dark Knight as well, so there is no reason to even believe Batman was going to kill The Joker just because you think he should have.