Comments on: TMB’s The Dark Knight DVD Commentary

By: Darek-T

Darek-T — Sat, 20 Dec 2008 08:03:07 +0000

I’m pretty sure Maroney dies in the car crash because he wasn’t wearing a seatbelt. I think it would be nice if ever once in a while throughout the movie you woudl stick one of the mics near the TV for a little bit like every time no one at all is talking.

By: Hiland

Hiland — Sun, 14 Dec 2008 03:58:43 +0000

Um, when I downloaded this it only downloaded 20 seconds of it…?

By: Kristopher Tapley

Kristopher Tapley — Sun, 14 Dec 2008 02:22:08 +0000

Uh, yeah, he would have seen “monster” Batman because he was being held by the friggin’ throat. And later, the cops took him into custody. No access to whatever antidote he might have.

You are STRETCHING, my friend. These arguments, going round in circles, they don’t compute. Let…it…go.

By: Harry

Harry — Sat, 13 Dec 2008 23:41:30 +0000

John, no offense to you, but when you talk about the implausibility of Batman bending the shotgun, it gets on my nerves! Batman does NOT bend the barrel of the shotgun with his bare hand! He uses the pneumatic mangling device. The device is a high pressurized cutting device. He uses this same device to cut through the van. It does NOT bend the shotgun, it CUTS it, giving the illusion that the BATMAN is strong enough to bend it. There is an artilce on this device in one of the previous Entertainment Weekly magazines.

By: Darren J Seeley

Darren J Seeley — Sat, 13 Dec 2008 21:32:09 +0000

If that were the case, Kristopher, that would have been a point in Batman Begins. Crane would have not seen “monster” Bat-Man (although he did have some frame of mind to control his own fears over his own hallucination)

By: Kristopher Tapley

Kristopher Tapley — Sat, 13 Dec 2008 21:02:16 +0000

Surely you understand that Scarecrow would have an antidote to his own poison, Darren.

By: Matt aka gigan300

Matt aka gigan300 — Sat, 13 Dec 2008 18:49:57 +0000

you know john nolan could have purposley have eckhart release false information on two-face’s fate knowingly completely we would believe it, and i remember michael bay doing this exact same concept concerning transformers 2 except nolan just isnt informing us on what hes planning.

By: Darren J Seeley

Darren J Seeley — Sat, 13 Dec 2008 13:49:35 +0000

That’s even worse, Kristopher- because if it was a few months, Scarecrow would still be a bit more nuts than he was- and that still doesn’t hide the fact that Scarecrow was (thought to be) the last Arkham escapee from Begins.

Where do I get “years”? I stand corrected. Looking through cast & crew interviews, the timeline between films is roughly six months.

In doing some quick work on finding that answer- my heart sank a little when I found out another. How did Alfred and Bruce Wayne and Fox set all of ‘Batman’s shit up’? It’s explained in the novelization of Gotham Knights, and I’ll apply it here since it makes sense:

The damage caused by the riots/Ghul’s plan had left various buildings damaged. This included the Wayne Tower and the building that has Wayne’s penthouse apartment. Hence during “repairs”, modifications were done. This -and the six month timeline- would also explain why Wayne Manor wasn’t entirely rebuilt yet. The city rebuilding (or remodification) came first.

So why does it bug me a tad? Because those answers are given in/connected to the animated tie-in spinoff prequel. If that’s considered canon, then Batman has already faced Killer Croc and Deadshot, as well came close to re-capturing Scarecrow :(

By: Kristina

Kristina — Sat, 13 Dec 2008 09:22:16 +0000

Thank God SOMEBODY did a commentary for this movie:)

Kris’s mike was either not hooked up or he wasn’t close enough to it near the end of the movie because I could barely hear him at times. Other than that, it was fun, especially your running joke about Alfred having to set all of Batman’s shit up.

By: Kristopher Tapley

Kristopher Tapley — Sat, 13 Dec 2008 09:19:11 +0000

COuldn’t disagree more? There is nothing — NOTHING subtle about the dialogue I’m talking about. Unless you have some other definition of subtle.

Also, The Dark Knight is not “a few years” after the event. A few months at best, but hardly a few years. I’d say it’s maybe a month later.

By: AB

AB — Sat, 13 Dec 2008 06:28:27 +0000

great commentary you guys :) 2 thumbs up listening to this commentary is the and watching the movie make the experiance a lot better. hey john when is the next movie commentary going to be and what movie will it be?

By: Darren J Seeley

Darren J Seeley — Sat, 13 Dec 2008 04:55:44 +0000

Aside from a few static glitches I found… the static glitches and occasional faded out voices to be more entertaining. No, I’m joking.
It was a bit more painful than that. I actually turned it off just before the ferry sequence, and simply watched the rest of the film (again).

But there was at least one surprise for me. It’s when John said the (faked) Gordon death caught him by surprise and he actually thought that Nolan & co. took a bold leap and killed off Gordon. I know myself and a few other folks was sold for a good ten minutes on the idea (about the time they let the audience off the hook) but it was the first time I heard John actually say that too.

But, dare I say, Kristopher Tapley kept good on his promise “You and I are going to go into the night with a bottle on this film” but this was still a letdown. I lost count over how many times you and SoulVid rambled on and on without commenting on the scene. When you started talking about Aaron Eckhart, you couldn’t recall his name…and then there was that insane, ludicrious comment about the actor who in the film, suggesting he ‘is intimidated’ by Bale and Ledger or something along those lines, and I said aloud, simply, what the hell? A double what the hell to Tapley when he said some of the dialog was nearly ‘on the nose’ (I could not disagree more) I will give props to John that the late Ledger was hit and miss- although I thought he was fine in The Brothers Grimm myself.

As you know I had agreed on the “waste” of The Scarecow. There’s something else, however, that escaped me the first time I saw Dark Knight, and now, after seeing it again, I equally was disappointed that John, Kristopher nor Soul commented on it. I’ll give the edge to John because Scarecrow wasn’t needed, but here’s the thing, and John or Kristopher chime in on this thought of mine if you please:

At the end of Begins, Crane, having had a bad reaction to his own drug, became more insane and (despite being zapped) a bit more threatening (aside from the Kid’s POV) it seemed to me that he is operating under a “normal, average” street thug-dealer. Yet it took *this* long for Batman to catch him a few years after the events from the first film.

Are there any other LOS guys hanging around Gotham? It never was addressed in the film.

Again, I’m sorry int’l friends.
I was disappointed in this commentary overall.