...

. . .

Oh. A grave misreading, and I have made an ass of myself.

I am sorry Meister! I didn't mean to be an ass!

That's what I get for posting when I first wake up...

Yeah, well, that whole debacle could have been avoided if Batman had told Dent that he went to the place Joker said Rachel was, but Joker lied to him. Though Dent was batshit by that point, so it might not have mattered. Not that I'm criticizing it, because I thought that arc was handled beautifully.

Well, if you remember what Batman said when Gordon asked who he was going for:

"Who are you going after?"

"Rachel!"

Unsurprisingly, the Joker is a manipulative liar.

I liked it, and I liked it a lot better than Batman Begins. No dicking around with origin was just fantastic.

Did get a tad Xanatos Pileup-y at certain points, but from my limited understanding of comics it was basically a movie that pitted "Guy who always has some crazy plan for everything" v. "The same guy in a bat suit" so I suppose it's understandable.

I liked that the Joker wasn't some byproduct of crazy extenuating circumstances...hell, I just never really cared for Burton/Nicholson Joker interpretation and this Nolan/Ledger version was alright in my book. Just the right amount of barely stable edginess I think. I dunno about all this posthumous Oscar talk, but then again I haven't heard of any really great movies to look forward to, so he might pick it up in a dry season.

The beginning did feel a little weird to me, and I think Nique might be on to something with the "Multiple beginning stacked on top of one another" theory, but looking back on it I can't really pinpoint which thread to cut short as they all did set up some part of the overall story. I think it might be because the early fight scenes were kind of clunky, but that was setup-ish too so I guess it wasn't too bad all things considered.

EDIT: Has there been any talk about who the next villains might be for the upcoming(?) movies? I only ask because my dad left the theater just knowing that the Riddler would show up in the third one, and I tried to explain why the more-realistic bent of the current movies would prohibit the character, but then I remembered that I know fuck all about comics that aren't the first four issues of Speedball so maybe someone out there wrote a badass/realistic version of a guy who basically tattles as a crime?

They haven't actually confirmed a third one. I mean, it's gonna happen, but we'll have to go through the whole Nolan won't commit to making it, so Bale and Oldman refuse to commit thing again. But I predict Riddler and Catwoman.

I think they'll find it a little hard to make a third because at the end of the second, they basically said "We'll be fighting Joker for a long, long time." That might be a little difficult to arrange.

Though you never know, the whole Heath Ledger thing may just have been a massive publicity stunt... eheh... heh...

Regardless, we've kinda run out of Batman villains, I believe. The next step? Justice League. Go.

JL almost wasn't gonna happen. Both Christian Bale and Branden Routh said they wouldn't do it, and DC said they would make one without them and recast Batman and Superman, which would be blasphemy.

I'm not excited about this like I am Avengers. With Avengers, you've got the same creative team behind the movies, so they feel the same. I love both the new Superman and Batman movies, but they're worlds apart.

I disagree, because they are only 'worlds apart' insomuch as the characters are worlds apart. I think Superman's "tone" is, yes, a little overbearing to the more realistic approach of Batman, but when you consider the more outrageous elements of Batman and the more human parts of Superman, I think they meet in a crucial way.

Can you provide a source for this? if it's true, this makes me sad for two reasons; 1) Routh was by no means phenominal in Superman Returns, but he also showed potential and I would hate to miss a chance to see an even better Superman performance by him if JLA was going to be the next DC movie instead of a Superman sequel. 2) An interaction between those characters by their respective modern actors would be outstanding, especially with a good director behind it (please be Nolan please be Nolan).

I think the next movie will have the Penguin. I want it.

For the record about the Dent/Rachel thing - All of the scene where Bats and Gordon are going after Rachel and Dent were trying to impress the fact that Batman was going after Rachel, but since Joker knew this he switched the locations he told Batman, which is why he saved Dent and Rachel died, thus sending Dent on the spiral into insanity since he knew Bats and Dent both loved Rachel. Thus, he could count on Bats going for Rachel, and Dent being horribly traumatized because of it.

In short, Joker is a brilliant bastard.

There's been no talk of any sequel as of yet, but I think he's right saying that Riddler would be perfect right now.

They've done Dent, Scarecrow, Joker (who obviously can't come back unless recast), Ra's Al Ghul, and Falconey. These Batman movies are leaning more towards the realistic and I think it'd be hard for any audience to swallow a villain like Clayface.

Riddler, probably. Poison Ivy, maybe, but she could go either way since she could just as easily be 'immune' to organic poison and be able to just hide pills in her mouth or something.

I think if it felt clunky it was necessary to have it all at once since they had lots to go over later on.

And the only reason they put in the bookkeeper was to say, "Hey, you know, people on the inside of Wayne Enterprises actually are noticing occasionally, and here's what happens." Something the audience is no doubt wondering at some point.