So the ball's in your court McG. Let's see what you got.

It does sound like McG is stepping up, so will give him the benefit of the doubt. This could be awesome.

I really like this cast. I saw Anton Yelchin in "Alpha Dog" and that took away some of my concerns about him. He was great in it. I'm interested in what Sam Worthington will do with Bale. I'm looking forward to this.

But, just for the record, Sarah Connor's journey fits into the hero myth template EXACTLY. Both T1 and T2.

But the point is... those movies are within a huge scope of other themes and characters details, so it works organically.

I do hope they nail this. John Connor has been a hugely underdeveloped character to me and I'm ready to see him kick ass instead of brooding about becoming a hero he's not ready to be.

Seriously, though, they should just do away with PG-13 and lower the age limit to 15 on R movies. That's the age studios want anyway -- teenagers -- not some 6th grader who started a year late because of lupus.

So I'd like to see him step up. He certainly has a kinetic visual style, unlike, say, Ratner.

On the flip-side... what sequel or remake director HASN'T gushed about the original movie or game they are sequelizing, adapting, or reimagining. I mean, Singer worshipped Superman 1 above all else. Didn't quite hit the mark, though.

That kind of stuff smacks too much of Lucasian BobaFettism, that is, paying so much attention to the ephemera of the mythos that you forget to tell a smashing story.

I hope I'm wrong, needless to say.

The upside is T4 will have swirling ass.

Aside from that I'm looking forward to this. Just about anything is better than T3 and at the very least we'll get to see some nice robots and shit.

And not because I was only five years old at the time. Actually, I watched it a shitload of times on video.

Anyway, THE DARK KNIGHT has Nicky Katt and that's a problem, but no bigger than the "hasta la vista" shit and John Conner being annoying in general. High-fives and shit like that. The thumbs-up at the end, etc. The two films are totally comparable.

CELEBRATE THIS SUMMER, because soon we will be back to stupid, mindless, condescending Summer bullshit.

The less said about CA 2, the less said. But McG is clearly pushing himself here to take T4 'Empire Strikes Back' levels of goodness... Terminator 1 & 2 levels of goodnes... which is obviously impossible, crazy... but God bless the dude for at least wanting to aim that high.

Next year we are getting an already-intriguing looking Bale Terminator movie, a Watchmen movie that promises to largely deliver on requested copious amounts of chocolate covered pussy juice, and... Ava...fucking...tar. Then in 2011 Battle Fucking Angel! James Cameron, with not a speck of water around either picture!

We really don't deserve to have things this good right now. Yeah, we all know what happened the last time we allowed ourselves to get excited about anything... but at least lightning can never strike again with Phantom Menace levels of franchise-killing severity. Can it..?

I don't understand all this uncritical praise for TDK. Take Batman and the Joker out of it, and you would get bored of the story after ten minutes.

As per organized chaos... look at Osama Bin Laden. He is highly organized... asks his followers to kill themselves for him yet grows in popularity... and yet... what does he want, really? I would say even if the Middle East becomes a Muslim state, he would still be searching for something to rebel against, something to bring down... He is simply an agent of chaos, which makes him so scary to a "rational" warfare mentality. There is no compromise or negotiation b/c his demands are irrational.

I'd say TDK raises some relevant themes.

But the POINT is it is STILL FANTASY and it's about THE BROADER THEMES.

It isn't critic-proof... I agree about not liking Batman to take the fall in the end... but geez. Suspend the disbelief for a couple hours.

Yes, you guessed right: I'm describing 1989's Oscar-nominated Wallace and Gromit's Grand Day Out.

Wall-E is VERY polished and very cute, and benefits from the best technology and resources the modern world can offer. But I'll take A GRAND DAY OUT's low-tech craftsmanship and personal vision any day of the week over Pixar's designed-by-committee slickness.

First and foremost, Islamic terrorists such as Osama Bin Laden HAVE AN ETHOS AND PHILOSOPHY. They are carrying out their attacks in the name of God. They believe that THEY ARE THE GOOD GUYS. They see themselves as striking out at a GREAT EVIL. They believe their cause is not only justified but that it is JUST. They have other reasons besides religious ones, but rest assured, they think they are trying to defeat Evil. They see the West as THE GREAT SATAN - and we've also given them plenty of excuses to claim that.

This is not what the Joker is about at all. He doesn't care for Good or Evil, he is not striking out to avenge historic grievances. He's just causing mayhem because he enjoys it. Sure, in TDK he initially describes his reasons as being anarchistic. Later he seems to claim that his reasons are nihilistic. But, since he changes his story so often, you can't really believe any justification he gives. The most likely explanation is the one offered by Alfred: "Some men just like to watch the world burn. That is completely the opposite of Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda. They think they are SAVING the world.

Just a couple of short points 'cause trying to change some-one's mind is pointless...

By 'nihilism' I was referring to the Joker's speech to Harvey in the hospital. No one can make me believe that Harvey's sudden conversion was convincing. It was totally out of step with how the character was established in the rest of the movie. Yes, and that includes the 'interrogation' scene.

Trying to put 'adult' ideas or themes into a movie does NOT make it a good movie. And my feeling is that philosophical lessons are not behind the Nolans' desire to make this movie.

To me this movie was made as a series of 'impressive' or 'cool' kick-ass events. And then they tried to tie it together loosely with flimsy motivations and logic. I don't buy that there is any serious attempt to comment on human nature here. I've already explained the completely stupid and unnecessary decision to make Batman 'take the blame'. That decision was made solely for the purpose of gaining the audience's sympathy for Batman - without any consideration for how illogical it was. They could easily have pinned it on the Joker.

Take Batman and the Joker out of it and REPLACE THEM with Special Agent X and Super-terrosist Y and you would have a mediocre clone of a Mission Impossible/ Die Hard/ Speed/ True Lies/ etc anti-terrorist action film. And just for you, VegasRon: in this HYPOTHETICAL (it means we're using our IMAGINATION) scenario you can assume that the NAMES of Gordon, Fox, Dent, Gotham city would by changed too.

The only thing I can be fucked to even semi-respond to the percieved suddenness of Dent's turning. His "turning" starts earlier, and is a culmination of the tragic events surrounding him. Eckhart did a great job protraying a man who is at the beginning supremely confident and totally loses everything by the end. I thought his final standoff was a bit talky, but his motivation wasn't contrived, IMO.

I don't know wtf you're ranting about in the last post, I just simply stated that neither Batman nor Gordon would frame someone for several murders, even if it IS the Joker. Had he died, maybe.

As I said, The Joker at first explains his actions through the philosophy of ANARCHISM. Later on he seems to subscribe to NIHILISM. I said that in my post.

BUT, given that he seems to change his story all the time (as well as the origins of his scars), I would say he's making it up as he goes along and doesn't particularly care. Probably the most accurate explanation is what Alfred says: "Some men just like to watch the world burn."

But even if his philosophy is anarchism or nihilism, neither of them compare to Bin Laden's Islamic extremism. They are not even remotely related.

As to TDK, I don't hate it: it's got some 'cool' moments - but I require my action movies to have a minimum of logical progression and a minimum of plausibility within the context of the worlds they create. I am saying 'MINIMUM'! I'm not expecting anything unreasonable! And to be fair, most good actioners manage to do this. TDK doesn't though. I can admire the craftsmanship that's gone into it - and enjoy the setpieces - but it's a forgettable movie. There's much better examples of this kind of movie out there.

I remember back when Tim Burton's Batman came out (1989 I think). Everyone was saying it was a huge EVENT. That it was iconic. That it depicted two archetypes locked in a symbolic struggle against the background of a corrupt and and decaying urban nightmare. That it completely revamped the comic-book genre. That Nicholson's joker was a groundbreaking, landmark performance, the definitive interpretation of the character.

Nowadays it's generally recognised for the laughable piece of crap that it is. People are embarrassed to admit that they ever praised Nicholson's Joker. And it's clear that Burton's whimsical, romantic sensibility was ill-suited to the Batman franchise.

But at the time it was the IN thing. It captured the 'zeitgeist.'

So I understand that people are going apeshit for TDK. It's been a very bad summer for blockbusters: Indy 4 was a crushing disappiontment - and here we have a comic book movie that tries to take itself seriously. And we're falling over it in relief. And for extra points it makes some vague, half-baked attempts to jump on the post-9/11 bandwagon. So yeah, it's FLAVOUR OF THE MONTH.

It'll be forgotten about by Christmas.

And you guys will be back here in a couple of years saying it's a pile of crap.

That's because T2 is sarah's story. Terminator was Reece's story, T3 was no-ones which is why it failed.

Hopefully Salvation will be John Connor's story.

TDK is justifiably a good film, while it may be riding the crest of it's own hype right now, that doesn't mean that it isn't worth at least some of it. Also I like how you wax lyrical about Batman capturing the zeitgeist of it's time and being loved, and then in the next breath say you didn't really like it. You're zeitgeist was soemwhere else I imagine.

by you.

They were not in the script. They were not in the movie.

Your explanations are pure conjecture on your part. But that's all they are. If ithey're not in the movie it's because they weren't put it in - and no amount of explaining by you, me or anyone CAN put them in.

I could just as easily say that Batman took the blame because it's part of a masterplan he has which will be revealed in the next movie. Or because he is actually planning to commit suicide so it doesn't matter. Or that the Devil made him do it. Or that he heard voices from Outer Space through his sonar device that told him to do it.

None of that makes it so.

'Cause it ain't in the movie.

I mean the reasons you give are pretty plausible. But they're your ideas. Not Nolan's. You say that Joker was caught? I say pin the murders on one of his henchmen. The Joker clearly has dozens. Say they did it on his orders. Say it was a henchman who wasn't identified (he was wearing a clown mask) and got away. End of story.

I can come up with any imaginary refutation to your imaginary justifications. It doesn't matter.

'Cause none of it is in the movie.

It's called a plot hole. A piece of silly logic that the film-makers hope you won't notice because you're letting the 'coolness' of the scene wash over you.

But if you're going to start explaining this particular plot hole, you might as well explain the many others in the movie. How much time have you got? Good luck!

Why don;t you try going to see the movie again and try paying more attention.

also excuse me for earlier, I misread a comment by Shadow Warrior as yours.

I also get irritated when people can't deal with someone who neither LOVES nor HATES a movie - which is where I stand on TDK. I get mightily puzzled by people who are unable to aknowledge obvious faults and plot holes in a movie. At least say, 'yeah I know it's silly, I know it makes no sense - but I can get over it because it's BATMAN and I love that character! I can forgive the film-makers a little fuzzy logic because the character's so COOL."

That's a stance I can respect because it's honest. But I would also expect you to admit in that case, that without Batman in it, you would have little or no interest in the movie.

I enjoyed TDK. It's craftsmanship is highly professional. Everyone involved seems to be trying to do a serious job - and more power to them. But I don't see anything in this movie that will stand the test of time. In other words, I don't see it as the second coming.

I see TDK as THE LATEST THING, the NEWEST thing. So it's natural that people are excited at the moment. I don't think they will be in a year's time.

Example: Ledger's Joker. I've heard the most exaggerated, ridiculous claims about his performance. Oscar-worthy etc etc. Well, that's just hype. His performance is good. It's professional, it works. He did what he was asked and fit in with Nolan's vision. But if you want to grade the good performances in this movie, then I'm going to have to hand it to Gary Oldman's Commissioner Gordan - a study in retraint and dignity. Or Eckhart's Dent (pre-bizarre conversion to evil) - convincingly dedicated and driven as the DA. These roles are much more difficult to play than the Joker. They're more subtle, more nuanced.

But the villian is always the most fun character. And the Joker is an iconic villian. Personaly I think he's easy to play and any professional actor could do a decent job. People are lauding Ledger, but I think his recent death has a lot to do with it. I think the attractiveness of the character has a lot to do with it. I think our positive reaction to this performance has as much to do with the re-imaging of Alan Moore and Frank Miller as it does with Ledger's portrayal.

But in the long run, will he stand up against the great screen villians of the past? Will he be in the same bracket as:

Volonté's El Indio? Reed's Bill Sykes? Helpmann's Child Catcher? Seymour Hoffman's Davian? Guiness' Fagin? James earl Jones' Darth Vader? Bogart's Dobbs? Welles Harry Lime? Brando's Kurtz? Kinski in anything?

Personally, I don't think so. It'll be interesting to see what happens when some one else plays the Joker. What happens if that actor's performance is more subtle, more nuanced, more charismatic, scarier, funnier than Ledger's? That will get confusing for a lot of people!

What if Ledger hadn't taken the part in the first place? Would the movie have crashed and burned without him? No. They would have got some one else just as good (or better?) and THAT is the performance everyone would be nominating for an oscar today.

His name is still lame and he chats some serious Bullshit ALL the time like he's constantly trying to sell himslef but T3 wasn't exactly amazing, just enjoyable although my mate thinks it's the best one!?

Anyway No inflating T-titties or lady shades or pet robot or bad 80s hair just plenty future warstuff and it might just work!

You mention Alfred's story about the Burmese 'warlord'. Now this story TO ME is an CLASSIC example of the faulty logic and lack of consistency in the movie.

"Some men just like to watch the world burn," says Alfred. And then by way of example he tells the story of the Burmese 'warlord'. But the Burmese warlord WASN'T INTERESTED IN BURNING ANYTHING! He wasn't interested in destroying anything! From what Alfred told us, he liked STEALING JEWELS FOR FUN! Criminal behaviour certainly, but hardly world-shattering! Hardly terrorism! And a million miles away from what the Joker was doing!

And it was ALFRED's regiment WHO BURNED THE FOREST - NOT THE WARLORD. I repeat, it was Alfred and his men who were happy to watch the world burn! And why? Because they could not suffer a single man to be making a mockery of them.

So what on earth is the point of the story? It's actually Alfred and his regiment who come across as the 'greater evil'. And the story itself has no relation to what is happening to the Joker. Do you see my problem with it?

Because, the film-makers are not intending for us to LISTEN to what's being said or to THINK about it. It's supposed to sound COOL and we're supposed to let it wash over us.

Because scriptwriting is like making a jigsaw or a patchwork quilt - you work on different parts at different times and stitch them all together. The danger is that these discrepencies automatically crop up as a result. And IF YOU DON'T RE-READ your work you won't spot them.

This is clearly a case where they wrote both halves of Alfred's speech at different times -and didn't spot that they'd actually created an illogical piece of writing that cancels itself out.

Again, we are NOT supposed to question the script or think about it. You're supposed to let it wash over you. If you stop to think, than you will just fall into these endless little logic loops. Also the reason why you shouldn't try to rationalize something that the film-makers haven't explicitly explained. Your rationalisation will inevitably raise more questions than it answers.

But you know, McG - don't entirely throw out your old style! I enjoyed the hell out of the CHARLIE'S ANGELS movies - once you understand they are basically live-action cartoons, anything goes and they are a hundred kinds of fun. Without the CHARLIE'S ANGELS movies going first, I doubt we'd have had a CRANK or SHOOT 'EM UP - which would have been a damn shame. They're kids movies made ofr adults, pure daft fun, and I'd love to see an ANGELS III, round off a trilogy there.

Oh, and about the name... you may have been called it since birth, but it comes off like you're a middle-aged ex-frat boy who still calls all his mates "dude" and talks about boning chicks half his age etc. It's your prerogative, but maybe a namechange would help you get that credibility you so obviously want. But hey - fuck us fanboys, we're basically whinging bitches, and if you aren't called McG I can't tell you to McFuck Off, and where's the fun in that?

Keep the faith, McDude, and make a fucknig good movie. All is forgiven - even that McFucking name - if you do that. Good luck, and bitch-slap Bale if he gets out of line. I hear he likes that shit ;D

I don't see why a mainstream movie needs to be longer than an hour and a half. It is extremely difficult to keep a story going beyond that length. Many movies can't even sustain an hour and a half. A movie needs to have an excellent reason to be two hours. There are VERY few movies that can sustain more than that. And a three-hour movie? Only Lawrence Of Arabia springs to mind.

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAA!!!!!!! !!

Oh, that is some FUNNY shit. Seriously, some fucking funny shit. Because I dropped a massive bog otter this morning, and you know, it was more entertaining than the entire prequel saga! With, like, better dialogue AND a coherent narrative. No trade sanctions bollocks, no taxation blah blah, no fucking awful Skywhinging, just a very streamlined turd that was waaaaaay more fun to sit through than those fucking excuses for entertainment were.

Man, you are a funny guy. Like you fuckin' amuse me.

this is called character arch McG, and its suppost to happen every time there is a "STORY" in a "Drama". This is what scares me, he talks like a high school drama teacher who's still doing a little learning of his own.

If not then there's no point talking to you, you're just like one of those angry militant anti-smokers who says that no-one enjoys cigarettes, it's just their addiction telling them they do.

That being said, I can't really hold anything against McG for trying something "new". I think we've all wanted to see more of the world that John Connor fights for in the future. So, maybe McG & Co. have come up with something that will make the concept worth checking out again. (He definitely seems to have more geek-momentum behind him than I would have thought.) I just wish he had a better cinematic record before trying to something as ambitious as a new TERMINATOR trilogy.

He may or may not say privately that people have lower expectations of a script for a comic book movie than for other movies, that the main thing is that the action scenes are exciting and that a logical plot takes second place to other considerations (Stunts, special effects, gadgets,costumes, explosions etc).

As to people interpreting inconsistencies differently: well, I interpret it one way, you interpret it another... a well-written script manages to ensure that plot developments, motivations, character development are clear and consistent to EVERYONE. It's part of the script-writing job: to tie up all loose ends and make sure that your story is watertight. Alfred's story is only ONE example - and a small one at that! I find Harvey Dent's sudden conversion to Two-Face to be one of the most rushed and implausible character developments I've ever seen. They might as well have turned Morgan Freeman into a bad guy - it wouldn't have been any less convincing.

But I do blame the script for getting muddled and mixing its metaphors. Because then they added something else that sounded very cool but unfortunately backfired on their intentions: when Alfred says (in a later scene) that he and his men burned down the forest. You see, a writer makes links and connections between scenes and uses repeated phrases (or motifs if you prefer) to achieve different effects. Here is a case where they wrote the start and end of the story at two different times and failed to link the two properly. Instead, they've unfortunately linked Alfred with the word 'burning' and in the story it's Alfred and his regiment who 'burn the world'. Are they being super-clever, with a tricksy, double-twist of irony? Er, no: that's clearly not the genre they're writing in - or the tenor of the script. It's just an unfortunate mistake. They didn't have time to fix it: and anyway, the script is 'good enough' for a studio big-budget comic book movie. People will ignore this inconsistency along with all the others because TDK ROCKS! So yeah, I get it.

I'll rent the movie on DVD when it comes out: I'll ignore the plot and won't let it bother me. I'll enjoy the little quips the Joker and Alfred make etc. I'll be vaguely entertained by the OK action scenes. I'll enjoy Maggie G's sparky performance - in fact I'll enjoy most of the performances. And I will stop the movie after about an hour and a half and skip directly to the credits. And that'll be my Dark Knight experience.

So I won't have to sit through that boring, visually dull, time-wasting, what's-the-point? sonar sub-plot (as ALexandra du Pont said, it's like the studio insisted that Nolan put in more gadgets). I won't have to watch as Harvey Dent inexplicably turns into a boring, monologue-ing villian. I won't have to watch the painfully clichéd 'drop the gun, Harvey' denouement. And praise be! I won't have to listen to that terribly contrived, nonsensical, cringe-inducing speech of Gordon to his son where we learn that "the city needs what it deserves but we don't deserve what we need even though we need it but don't deserve but still need it and you always need what you don't deserve so in the end we get what we deserve but it isn't what we need." Oldman gives one of the best performances of his life in this movie but even HE couldn't make those lines fly.

And then I'll forget about it.

They haven't yet made a movie that is of the same quality in my opinion.

By comparison, I have to say that the movies that attempt the frame-by-frame translation, Sin City and 300, ended up being interesting visually but very boring as movies. Which brings me to WATCHMEN. Every time I hear Snyder boast that he has recreated the comic frame-by-frame, I fear for that movie. I seriously think it's going to end up not really working as a film experience. As Alan Moore, said, the comic was designed specifically to do things that movies cannot do. What does anone think?

But in any case, see the movie before you start commenting on it. And when you do, here's another conundrum for you to rationalize:

There's scene where the Joker gatecrashes a party in order to find Harvey Dent. I don't want to spoil it for you but let's just say that Batman arrives, makes a mess of things and has to leave in a hurry. Here's the conundrum:

Can you explain how the script then resolves this set-up in Batman's absence. If you can do that, I will happily concede that you are a genius and will personally campaign for your nobel prize. And I will also ask you to rationalize a long list of inconsistencies in the movie. I will then personally publish and distribute a booklet called "Captain Katanga's Essential Guide to The Dark Knight: all plot holes explained!". This will be handed out to everyone who purchases a ticket to the movie. This is a Great Work we will accomplish together. It's all ahead of us. BUT first you must see the movie.

By God, people really love this TDK thing, don't they? I might go catch it this week. If I can be arsed... ;D

Asking how the joker escaped from the high rise is like asking how he smuggled all those explosives into all those buildings without being noticed. It's so ridiculously unimportant that any explanation would be a waste of time. If you can't make even subtle suspensions of disbelief then I gotta assume that watching a movie about a man (who is OBVIOUSLY Bruce Wayne) dresses as a bat and beats the shit out of like 20 guys at once must drive you a little nuts. How the Joker gets out of the high rise isn't a "plot hole" as it has nothing to do with the plot. It's not "rationalizing" to assume that a character who effectively amounts to a supervillain has an escape plan, since he does just that about 500 other times in the film.

Last, but certainly not least, is saying the Joker is EASY to play. It's exactly the opposite. To give something so inherently over the top the amount of gravitas and tangible fright that Ledger gave it is absolutely brilliant. Nicholson, while I love him and still enjoy his Joker, is very surface level by comparison. Clearly a guy who was sane until he was dropped into a vat of chemicals and then went wacky. Ledger's Joker is clearly a lifetime of bad experiences and insanity piled up to create a monster. With Ledger you can see the gears turning while having no idea what he's thinking. He's every bit as scary and calculating as No Country for Old Men's Anton Chigurh (another brilliant performance) without being a blatant personified archetype. For all the ridiculous impossible shit that happens in Batmans world (and doing it any other way would be irresponsible) Ledger somehow brings that character completely down to the ground with that performance. his walk, the constant voice inflections, the physical ticks, the way he paces his stories, his matter of factness about every little success that works out for him (I.e. pencil trick) all work out to a brilliantly well rounded character. Alluring and horrifying all at ounce. Clearly the makings of a villain for our time. Maybe even besting Hannible Lecter, who is all calculated steely eyed purposeful creepiness compared to Ledger's vulnerable and weirdly invulnerable Joker.

But as to your explanation of the Joker and the party....

It's just YOUR explanation. It's NOT in the movie. If it's not in the movie, then it's NOT explained. And YOU as the viewer shouldn;t be FORCED to explain things the film-makers have left out.

I mean, I could make up any explanation I like: the Joker killed everyone and left; he asked the guests to get on with the party while he himself mingled, met a nice girl and later took her home.

Doesn't matter: it's ALL conjecture. It's all bullshit. Because it wasn't explained in the movie.

TDK is a geek movie. Therefore it can do no wrong.

Therefore it benefits from a certain indulgence denied to other movies. People who post on this site are going to give it a pass no matter what.

Because it ROCKS. It's got Batman. It's got gadgets! It's got a smokin' car! And a bike! Heath ledger blows his nose and it's GENIUS! No one else could have pulled that off!

Because people let their own personality and critical facilities become subsumed into the latest cultural craze.

People apply different standards to their particular 'geek' movie than they would normally. But if this were any other movie, they would not be so forgiving.

Did it never occur to you that you should not be put in the position of HAVING to defend your preferred movie? That you shouldn't HAVE to rationalize the inconsistencies and plot holes? With any half-decent movie you DON'T have to do this. Because good movies normally have a logical script with a clear progression.

And please don't lecture me about 'suspension of disbelief' That's just making weak excuses for poor writing. Of course there is an expectation of suspension of disbelief. THIS IS A MOVIE! Did you know that when you watch a movie, you're actually watching actors? That there's a camera involved and it's not real life? That the actor playing Superman can't REALLY fly?

Oh please.

But there is an expectation of the film-makers that they remain consistent and logical within the world they've created. Particularly so in this case where Nolan & Co have publicaly stated that they are going out of their way to make their Batman movies 'realistic'. Fine, then STICK TO YOUR GUNS. Don't tell us it's a 'real' world and then have people falling hundreds of feet witout a scratch! You're just having it both ways and taking us for a bunch of fools.

However, I guarantee that in a year's time a lot of the TDK cheerleaders will feel embarrassed for having so uncritically embraced the movie.

No, but you have explained how the story went completely over, under, and through your head. Because this much is clear: you're overthinking the moral and message of the tale. For someone who is so hellbent on every little detail and plothole in TDK, it's bizarre that you would become so fixated on that particular scene...and then completely misunderstand it.

Many in this Talkback have already provided you with a plethora of well versed responses to your Alfred Burma story theory. And I have to say, it's a little pathetic to see you resort to obstinacy and the classic "I'm not sure you've seen the movie" defense (when someone clearly has) when faced with concrete points that refute your poorly conceived interpretation. For someone who is also claiming to have liked the movie, this seems (or at least should be) beneath you.

Quote: "Jason Roberts"

I believe you meant Eric Roberts.

But it's NOT in the movie.

Maybe it should have been. Perhaps if the Nolans had hired you as script consultant, you might have pointed that out. And then when Batman explains to Gordon WHY he has to take the fall, the Nolans would have added the lines:

"The criminals don't fear me any more. And they MUST be made to FEAR the Batman. I killed those people."

But they didn't. They specifically did NOT give Batman ANY reason except for some vague sacrifice to protect Dent's reputation and give Gotham some hope.

NOTHING TO DO WITH CRIMINALS NOT BEING INTIMIDATED. That is YOUR rationalisation. It is a common rationalisation amingst people who want to defend TDK at all costs.

BUT IT'S NOT IN THE MOVIE.

Too bad for you: I like the good parts. I point out the stupid parts. I point out where the movie fails even by the standards it sets out. I do not give the movie a free pass just because I like the Batman character and because I personally think the movie is very well made.

A tough one for you to get your mind around, huh? It's called a balanced opinion.

For some reason everyone is getting upset because of the faults I've pointed out.

Nobody's giving me a hard time over the things I like about it.

Funny isn't it? Try this:

Aaron Eckarrt (spelling okay for you, Gaius? Ha!) gives a brilliant performance up to the point where he is injured. After that he's pretty mediocre. But that's not his fault: it's the fault of the writing. No actor could make it fly.

Ouch! How on earth will you guys deal with that mixed opinion?

Will people turn on me like a pack of dogs for saying that Eckhart's performance was brilliant? Or will they get mad because I said it was mediocre? Which will it be? Which will it be? It's too much! You're all going to have to flip a coin!

They don't specifically mention that it in the scene where Batman decides to take the fall - YOU'VE made it up - but it's a very good reason for Harvey not to take the fall. I'm right with you.

But there's just a little problem.

Why Batman?

Why not say it's one of the Joker's henchmen?

.Why not say they're random unrelated killings.

Why not say they died in the general panic and lawlessnesss that reigned during the Joker scare?

Why does it need to be Batman? No matter what reason YOU come up with, if it's not in the script, then it's not in the movie.

Second of all, your tone is a riot. Maybe the condescending attitude that's oozing from your posts is what makes people take a more aggressive stance in discussing and/or refuting your OPINIONS on the movie. And if they're not giving you a hard time about the things you liked in TDK, it's probably because they liked them, too. I don't want to assume but it's a pretty logical conclusion. (Unlike your interpretation of the Alfred story.)

Quote: "Ouch! How on earth will you guys deal with that mixed opinion? Will people turn on me like a pack of dogs for saying that Eckhart's performance was brilliant? Or will they get mad because I said it was mediocre? Which will it be? Which will it be? It's too much! You're all going to have to flip a coin!"

That excerpt from your post is what someone would call a classic Troll maneuver. It serves no other purpose than to bolster your opinion that Eckhart's performance downshifts in the third act while seeking to prevent this OPINION from being critiqued. Sorry, bud. But AICN Talkback doesn't work that way. (Especially when you say things like, "No actor could make it fly.". This makes you look silly and needlessly spiteful since a lot of other people thought his performance soared well alongside everyone else's.)

Katanga: that's all you can expect from me 'cause I recognise a simple shit-stirrer when I see one - as opposed to people who genuinely want to discuss. (Hint: they tend to refer to what I said, rather than deliberately misunderstand me). But I'm serious about that offer of the plot-hole booklet. Just say the word and I'll set the wheels in motion. But see the movie first.

I didn't lose you and you know it. Try again. Harder.

A slow hand-clap for Quint for the tone of this piece.

When a young George Lucas made "Star Wars" in 1976, he did not find himself lined up in front of a firing squad of nosey, interfering 'journalists' during the filmmaking process.

When Kubrick made "2001" he did not take time out to nervously defend his film to prying writers, nor did hehave to make promises that the monolith would be the right type of shinyness, or that Hal's red 'eye' would be the correct shade of red.

Nor did Kubrick have to crumple his own dignity and excuse himself to film audiences because of the origin of his own surname.

It fucking sickens me to read the shit on this website, to see day after day, readers who post on these forums who believe they could do something better than many of the filmmakers out there who have busted a gut for 20 years to get to be in the position they are in today. And it sickens me to see smartass 'journalists' like you, Quint, trying to have some sort of guiding influence over what a filmmaker and his team of artists are doing, when you know that the only reason these filmmakers even agree to talk to you is because of the damage you could do to their opening weekend with a few tiny taps on your laptop keyboard while you sip your latte and eat your second pastry of the morning.

The only creative control people like you and the regular haters will ever have over movies like these, is the control wielded by a bully in a playground. But we all know that while everyone else graduates beyond school and moves on with their lives, the bullies usually end up fixing dishwashers for minimum wage.

What difference do you think you make in the world of entertainment, in the longer term? I can tell you now, it's not much. I've read very positive reviews on here of films that I've later gone on to discover were piles of boring shite. And likewise, I've read scathing reviews of movies I've later gone on to love. So why do I read this website? I read it to get inside info, early news, interesting tidbits behind the scenes etc, maybe the odd interview. But I don't give a fuck about your opinions, or Harry's opinions, or any of the other writers, albeit that one or two of them are funny writers. I also don't give a fuck about a hundred fanboys dissing the fuck out of a news item about a film they haven't even seen yet. I understand that sites like this are full of dickheads, miserable overweight manboys who are still living with their parents at the age of 35, still convinced that one day their script is going to be picked up for a million dollars. Meanwhile the day-job and the right-hand exercise keeps them busy.

Stop trying to sway the AICN readership into whatever tide is currently fashionable in the fanboy fraternity. You're not respecting the intelligence of your readership.

How Gordon arranged to fake his very public death, and apparently keeping his own MCU, Dent, and the Bats from finding out about it.

What happened immediately after Bats saved Rachel considering that Joker and his very armed goons were still a couple dozen stories up in Bruce's penthouse with a bunch of rich socialites as potential hostages.

And why it had to specifically be Batman to take the fall for Dent's crimes when surely there were a couple of much better alternative responses that would have saved all three parties some grief.

Still thought it was a very good movie and I obviously enjoyed it immensely, but these little flaws only became more annoying and apparent with each successive viewing.

However, either Shadow Warrior or Katanga, made an excellent point, which has swayed my thinking somewhat. Batman did it to restore his fearsome reputation. This was not stated at all by the Nolans, and perhaps it is more inference (some would say wishful thinking) on the part of fans, but I like that explanation far better than the Harvey Dent one. I think the Nolans simply out-thought themselves, and ignored a plot point that was in their own movie. A flaw, to be sure. But, as Quint says, there simply is no movie that everyone will ever agree on, and all have a flaw somewhere.

I mean, Gordon's 'death' occurred in a way that was exactly specific to one set of circumstances, with him diving right in front of a bullet just as the Joker's gunmen revealed themselves and opened fire, which really made the idea that Gordon could have premeditated it all seem really implausible.

Not to mention the fact that it all happened in broad daylight, with loads of civilians, cops, and paramedics on the scene who would have been all over Gordon's 'body' as soon as he fell and would have needed access to it later on.

And I also like Metallica. I guess this is where we high-five.

not true.

and bale yelled at his possibly drunk mother after she badmouthed bale's wife and asked for money, yelling = assualt in england apparently.

I will take a large fucking bet that this law stands in most of the ex-colonies as well.

Bale's mother comes off as a nasty-assed welsh money grubbing crack whore and I don't believe this story for a second. There's more holes in it than TDK- which (for those that don't know) is about a billionaire that chooses to dress in a batsuit.

1)Even thinking that a stupid moniker like that is appropriate for a serious film-maker is a terrible lack of judgement,

2)Now established, not changing it because of some imaginary "rep" shows huge arroganace coupled with paranoia- seriously, who goes to see a film because it's directed by McG?

3)his constant whinging about it suggests that he wants to change it but has been told not to, which makes him a studio stooge.

And HJ- you are so far wrong on Alfred's Burma speech for many reasons. But this is one that hasn't been pointed out to you: You would be correct if you inverted the order, but Alfred tells the story, then Bruce asks "How did you catch him" and is then told that they burnt the forest down. Therefore, the interpretation is that some bastards just do things for destructions sake and to catch them you have to take extreme measures. I don't understand your nitpicking of this, it was pretty clear to me.

Unless my alcohol fogged mind is making me confused about it.

You are a vile, pretentious little bastard with all the charm of an axe wound, and your depressingly relentless tendency to over analyse everything really sucks the fun out of life.

Tell me again how good AvP:R was again, asshole, and how you weren't stoked to see it, but were dragged kicking and screaming by your friends. Which we know is a lie because you don't have friends and can easily find evidence of your excitement.

You're a spineless tool.

I know you're bad at following posts but you only put this up a minute ago.

Now, wanker, do they spell Moron with 3 M's in Oporto?

Although, judging by that last comeback, I may be too late as you obviously do not posess anything remotely resembling a pair of testicles.

Now fetch my dry cleaning, Bitch.

I have to say I think I prejudged too harshly. Sure its just words and sure he's probably been coached well as to how to properly conduct an interview like this, but even those of you who flat out hate him for breathing, you HAVE to respect where he seems to be coming from.

A director who doesn't have a screening room: that's kinda cool. I like honest, real people and in Hollywood, you dont seem to find many of those.

He talks the talk, he may not walk the walk - but if you do the math, he's halfway there.

And yeah, his nickname is a childhood vestige to which he is entirely entitled. At least its better than some of the others? You want to talk pretentious nicknames? Try Bruno or Sly on for size. Gives things a new perspective.

also, Im ashamed that he reads this site. That means he's probably sitting back right now saying to himself, "what kind of idiots run this site, and are too lazy to clear out their forums of idiots like sal eglad?"

want to know why this site is in the toilet? Because we let everyone take a public shit in it.

We know you too well, M-O-M. It's like a sore tooth with you = you can't stop touching it.

THE POWER OF BAY COMPELS YOU!

THE POWER OF BAY COMPELS YOU!

THE POWER OF BAY COMPELS YOU!

Of course, he will tell you that he doesn't actually need to see it in order to vomit hate upon it. And it surely won't stop him from what I guarantee will be a deluge of Bay-hate-style posts as we inch closer to the film's premier.

It's going to be hysterical.

JENSEN ACKLES = FLASH GORDON

PATRICK STEWART = MING THE MERCILESS

VANESSA FERLITO = PRINCESS AURA

MEGAN FOX = DALE ARDEN

BRIAN BLESSED = PRINCE VULTAN OF THE HAWKMEN

JUDE LAW = PRINCE BARIN

SAM ROCKWELL = DR HANS ZARKOV

RUFUS SEWELL = KLYTUS

CLAUDIA BLACK = GENERAL KALA

DIRECTOR = JOEL SCHUMACHER (seriously!)

And back on topic, McG - don't fuck this up. You'll have Jarv and I to answer to if you do - for starters...

Colour me very surprised that McG could pull off a small-scale human drama. I'll give him a free pass based on this interview and the craftsmanship he showed on WE ARE MARSHALL - a great little movie, well worth watching.

Now fuck off and do CHARLIE'S ANGELS 3 next - where the original, fraying-around-their-ageing-ed ges Angels trio have to train 3 hot new chicks - Megan Fox, Amber Heard and back-to-red-hair Lindsay Lohan. Guest-starring Charlize Theron as The Handler and Gillian Anderson as The Cleaner. Now get Bill Murray back and presto - Spud wins! The greatest Angel movie EVER. Give Vanessa Ferlito a villainess role where she gets to wrestle Megan Fox in the rain, on a muddy field.

Need to go now. Ahem.

No Arnie = T4 IS DEAD TO ME.