The Dark Knight

tabuno

Am I reading you wrong or do you not know that The Joker has been a character/villain in popular comics for over 65 years?
His name comes from Bob Kane's inspiration of Conrad Veidt in "the Man Who Laughs" a film from 1928.

He was a tricky, jokey foe of Batman and Robin's, and those early comics with Jerry Robinson's artwork are just as amazing as any "pop art" piece Andy Warhol ever did.
The Joker has always been a clown, a "clown prince of crime", who incorporates practical jokes (gun with flags that pop out of the barrel that say "Bang!", that sort of thing) and creates wacky, disturbing scenarios for committing crimes. From the late 60's on he got much darker and sinister in the comics, committing more brutal and psychopathic deeds, and he was beautifully and artfully re-interpreted for the big screen for this movie.

Here you're right, there are no "jokes" except on the human race, who he accuses of being absorbed in their little worlds, accomplishing nothing but ignorance, making plans that they don't realize can be arbitrarily and suddenly disrupted or killed.
His point was kind of like "God has no expectations for outcomes so why should you?", now, granted, he's a psychopathic killer with zero remorse and takes joy in perversely upsetting the apple cart for anyone he feels like doing it to, including gangsters, who can't believe he would set a pile of money on fucking fire and not give a shit about it.
That's a whole other kind of disturbed individual, a very very dangerous and fearsome person.
And when you add tommy guns, rocket launchers, demolition of hospitals, killing whenever it suits his whims...purple wardrobe...white makeup caked all over his face with a sick scar, unwashed green hair...you get my point, man?
The Joker IS this movie.

And The Dark Knight is more of an homage to Kubrick than a direct attempt to make a "Kubrickian" movie.

Proof?

The bank heist.
The Killing (1956).
Masks.

There is a real similarity...am I the only one who noticed that glaringly obvious tribute?

I was taking The Joker name too literally. Johann's description of "practical jokes" as opposed to making literal jokes that have a punch line really helps. Thanks. If I watch this movie again, I will be able to appreciate the pranks much more adeptly thanks to Johann. On reflection, I experienced some of The Joker's antics but didn't really embrace them as the essential nature of the movie's primary character and was still waiting for the jokes and the ultimate punchline which never came in the form of a literal joke.

Whether or not THE DARK KNIGHT is a "Kubrickian" movie, my premise about a "Kubrickian" movie and its masterpiece classic status does not rely on the need for THE DARK KNIGHT to be based on Kubrick. Instead, Kubrick movies are only examples of the more basic, fundamental nature of masterpiece movies - that of consistency and the constant attention to perfection in every scene and every second of film. For a number of us, the physical fighting scenes are flaws that detract from this movie and as such take away from the greatness of this movie, possibly to the extent that it prohibits this movie from being a masterpiece. More appropriately, THE DARK KNIGHT might better be described as a quality movie with masterpiece elements, flourishes of brilliance and originality, and a prolonged segments of greatness throughout.

Part of the problem with this film is post-production. As with any big budget special effects-laden monstrosity as this project was, Nolan had his opportunity to fix things taken away when Mr. Ledger suffered his unfortunate demise so early in his life. I'm not certain what he may have fixed or tried to without Keith.

In previous releases, we understand the origins of characters because filmmakers have taken the time to explain them - Superman from Krypton, Batman's parents are shot in front of him, Spiderman is bitten by a spider and so on. The Tim Burton version of "Batman" explained the origin of Joker. He loved to play cards. An accident left his face stuck in a permanent grin and his skin dyed chalk white. In his sick twisted way, he adapted the moniker. However, "The Dark Knight" does not attempt to explain the origins of anyone. In fact, they eliminate Two Face before he can start a life of crime. How strange.

I'm not certain what kind of film Chris Nolan would have made if Ledger survived. I only know that one we have is brilliant in execution for the limitations placed on it. Ledgers performance deserved the Oscar, a first for this genre.

cinemabon

Mr. Nolan didn't have "his opportunity to fix things taken away" because Heath died.

Filming of his part was complete, even the whole pictures' principal photography was complete at the time of his death.
Your statement is wrong. Mr. Nolan wouldn't have tried to "fix"
anything or try to do anything else with Heath's role- not "Keith", by the way.
The Dark Knight is Ledger's final "full" movie role, an acting job that he completely dived into and completely finished before he tragically died.

You can be very certain of the kind of film Mr. Nolan made had Ledger survived- the one we got. You can't be certain of what other glories we could have had with future appearances of the Joker in the greatest series of films I've seen in my 34 years breathing. Seriously, I'm just in utter amazement that these new Batman films even exist, forget about how majestic and classic they are- they EXIST MAN. That's something to rejoice about.

Having attempted to spend so much effort on clarifying the term "Masterpiece" as "perfection" I came across an earlier discussion I had on Metacritic which doesn't really place much emphasis on perfection and thus some of Johann's commentary regarding THE DARK KNIGHT as a "Masterpiece" may have more merit than my own way of thinking about "Classic" movies that I responded to another person's belief that the DOCTOR and STARGATE ATLANTIS were classical dramas.

[Posted 04 March 2009]

"I wouldn't necessarily agree with your choices for classical dramas, particularly Stargate Atlantis which doesn't even have the "very long history" as might say the original movie itself Stargate (1994). I'm also somewhat confused by your selections which appear to be more appropriate for the television forum rather than the movie forum which could because of the difference of the medium have different defintions of "classic" episodes or series rather than a movie. As to what you mean by "large content," I'm not sure what the phrase means or "hollow." You've set out the beginnings of a defintion, but it seems to require further attention.

The American Film Institute considers the following criteria when considering what are the "greatest" movies:

- Critical recognition.
- Popularity over time.
- Historical significance.
- Cultural impact.
- Major award winner."


THE DARK KNIGHT has obtained a highly decent "critical recognition" by film critics, if not outstanding, superlative across the board rating as well as recognition (nominations) by numerous Award Societies and Programs if not winning that many of them ("Major award winner"). THE DARK KNIGHT was and remains highly popular both in terms of audience turn out and boxoffice receipts. THE DARK KNIGHT may have also had a historical significance with Heath Ledger's death as well as his performance and cultural impact in terms of this darker interpretation of the iconic figure of Batman and the darker emotional and ethical turmoil as well as the penetrating insight into the human nature of humankind (good vs. evil).

Overall, THE DARKMAN approaches a classic masterpiece, as to whether this movie solidly meets all these criteria remains in some doubt, but it seems to have established or met some of these benchmarks leaving the final determination of THE DARK KNIGHT's ulimate place in film history yet to be finally settled.

Heath Ledger gets the lion's share of praise for The Dark Knight (and he definitely deserves it) but too many people are trashing Bale's Batman and Bruce Wayne and I don't like it.

He's the best Batman who ever suited up.
That much is certain.
I thought Val Kilmer was excellent as Batman but was surrounded by neon nonsense and Michael Keaton was the best Batman up until 2005.
We won't even talk about George Clooney.

Bale's Batman is the closest we have to the actual graphic novel Batman, the SERIOUS Batman, who's a beast in a cape.
The way Bale plays him is the way I want my Bruce Wayne and caped crusader to be played.
He's got issues (which are depicted and explained in Batman Begins perfectly), he's got a social life, he's got interesting relationships with Rachel, Gordon, Alfred and Fox, there's some light hints of humour, he's a man with wounds yet a symbol with no limits, he's got dilemmas, moral, personal, professional- he's a pretty complex guy, and Bale is the man who really brings all of that to the surface. He is a fantastic actor, a really
watchable actor. He takes on fascinating roles and goes the Full Monster with it. You gotta admire a guy like that.
I laugh at the people who make fun of his voice as Batman.
The more I hear it, the more I know it's perfect.
All these years I've been reading Batman comics and in my mind's ear he sounds like Bale's Batman, a disguised, hoarse, gravelly voice. It's great. Batman's gotta sound gritty and Bale's Batman sounds fucking gritty, like he won't take shit from no one:
PRAY TO ME!!!!!!

However good an actor or a performance, part of the defining moments in a film is when the audience can relate and understand that actor. When, however, such as Batman portrayed by Christian Bale cannot be understood because of his gravelly voice, there's something wrong and quite detracting from the movie when an entire conversation in unintelligible and the audience loses out or either has to break from the movie and instead mentally, deliberately have to concentrate and focus on attempting to hear what Batman is saying, sometimes with limited success. The vital ability of any director and actor is being able to finely balance between the need to portray the graphic essence of the real "character" but at the same time be able to perform and deliver one's lines of dialogue that flow naturally and understandably on the screen. It is like in theater, a stage whisper, it must be both at the same time feel and be experienced as a whispter but also be understandable and the words must be heard.

In Batman, it appears that his conversations are meant to be heard, not secret to the audience or to whoever he's talking to. Unfortuately for me and others, Batman's voice is a weakness in this movie that severely detracts from a truly completely satisfying experience. We can't understand what he's saying and even the criminal gets a better of it than the audience who ligitmately pays for the opportunity to watch the performance.

I have no idea what you're talking about.
I understood Batman everytime he spoke.
But then again, I'm a huge fan.
I pay attention when that Hero speaks, no matter how garbled and gravelly his voice is.

Johann. Your response and difficulty in understanding what I posted is somewhat like what some of us in the audience experience when Batman is attempting to communicate in his gravelly voice. Frustrating isn't it? Hopefully your experience with my post will give you some of the same emotions and feelings that some audience members feel. That's what I really am talking about, what you experienced when attempting the decipher my post.

Everything about The Dark Knight was/is crystal clear to me.
It's too bad you and many others had so much trouble with it.
I don't know what else to say.
The problems/flaws you point out do not register with me at all.
The film is what it is, and I admire the Holy Hell out of it.

In an earlier post you sounded like you might not ever see it again, so why are we still discussing it? Do the flaws that you see detract from your overall enjoyment of the movie?
Is it a thumbs up or a thumbs down from you on Dark Knight?

A great movie or masterpiece needs to have great popularity, but that great popularity is diminished when a significant number of people can't understand what Batman is saying. So just because a majority of the audience have clarity, a great movie or masterpiece needs to be able to reach out and touch most "everyone." Thus, the importance of this point is that your comment that this movie is a "masterpiece" is being questioned and doubted, in part, on this basis and other points regarding this movie.

When audience members have to "pay attention" as much as in this movie to understand what Batman is saying it creates a sort of narrow-focused vision that for some of us is unnatural in that it takes away from the whole screen experience. If in fact the director wanted us to focus so much of our attention into concentrating on what was being said than perhaps the director could do a close up of just Batman's mouth and the criminals ear so we wouldn't be so distracted by the rest of the shot. The physical requirement to have to pull one's self into and out of a movie, mentally straining ourselves just to understand what's going on can be wearing and tiring. Great acting and great directors, like with ice skating make it appear, provide the illusion of easiness or clarity when called for even though in reality a performance is very difficult. A great actor or director would have been able to portray a gravelly voice represented as in a graphic comic but still understandable without forcing the audience to spend more time, effort, and work trying to figure out what that character is saying. There was no call for it from the script or the circumstances for this Batman's literally difficult to understand voice. In some instances, it might have been better if Batman had attempted to be more careful in speaking his words, especially in the context of the movie's storyline and plot. I would think he would have wanted to or needed to be be easily clearly understood or does he really have a speech impediment? It would be stupid to me if a superhero couldn't be understood. Criminals would look at him puzzled and say "Huh? I don't know what the hell you're talking about." In the heat of the moment, one doesn't have the luxury of coming across unintelligible in such a superhero movie.

As for enjoying the movie, like I was saying earlier, like "being in love" it's so easy to overlook flaws because when one is in rapture, all the flaws seem to be frivolous. Your passion for this movie may have allowed you to see passed these "irrelevancies."

Nevertheless, your point about enjoying the movie is appropriate. Overall, after seeing this movie for a second time, I enjoyed it more and the depth of emotional conflict and resonance, the level of initial frustration at evil gaining the upper hand and the later redemption was powerful. The flaws in this movie while significant for me, weren't sufficient to detract from the powerful storyline feelings that this movie managed to engender within me. I appreciate your commitment to this movie because it prompted me to see the movie again which was worthwhile experience a second time.

I'm finding it difficult to understand how people are so worked up about Batman's voice.
There's only one thing that needs to be remembered on the point of his voice: it must be different (very different, hard to decipher easily). It must be different so that people can't link him to his alter-ego. That's the whole "raison d'etre" for his gravelly voice.
That's where it begins and ends on the voice.
And if memory serves Nolan has quite a few close-ups of his jaw/face that clearly show him speaking. I fail to see how or why you or others couldn't grasp his dialogue.

It's very true, my passion and love for what this film is and what it represents pushes me past "flaws". When the whole thing just gives me an all-encompassing gratitude for it even existing, I tend to be very lenient on flaws like the ones you and others have pointed out. As I said, I see the big picture on this one, and that trumps any and all flaws.

If the flaws were that bad or the movie was weakened considerably by them, I'd be first in line to take pot shots.
But they don't, and I forgive very easily when I know what went into making it and what the end result was.
The Dark Knight is a Masterpiece.
For all times.

I understand about the need to distinguish voices between Batman and Bruce Wayne, but there's distinctions and then there are over-the-top distinctions, quite unnecessary to the movie. Another point for anybody who has watched this movie many, many times...if audience members perhaps had the interest in watching this movie multiple number of times and also wanted to "study" Batman's dialogue and decipher it over time, it's likely that many people would come to understand Batman's conversation. The question comes down to how many times does one need to watch the movie for understanding to occur? Why can't understanding occur during the first viewing? Most people only get to experience reality once.

What was your level of interest in the film before you set foot in the theatre?
How conscious and alert were you to what was going on?

I almost didn't blink while watching this juggernaut and I don't blink much when I watch it subsequent times either.
It's a mythology that I've followed since I was a wee lad, so my peepers are pretty perked up for Batman.

Only one viewing is definitely not enough to appreciate all that's happening in this movie. Twice is not enough tabuno.
I've seen it over ten times and it still rewards me.
I'll see it ten more times and ten after that and it will still thrill me.
Cuz it's BATMAN! and Batman is the SHIT!
And the JOKER is the SHIT!

Biff!
Bam!
Socko!

Good point. The very first scene, the bank heist turned me on and off. While it was dramatic and all suspense, action, thrills and twists, the two earlier points I've mentioned also started me down a I don't like this first impression experience and fascinatingly I became more attentive to this movie, but at the same time very critical, looking for problems in the movie.

The bank heist turned sour of me when unbelievably the bank official came out with a shotgun - NO WAY, I thought. This was a bunch of bull and manipulative just to improve ratings no matter how ridiculous and then the getaway school bus just manages to time its escape to somehow line up with the caravan of school buses, I lost any semblance of suspension of fantasy fun for me.

Johann has made a point that while I didn't start out with a gripe about this movie and an open mind, it turned pretty quickly within five or ten minutes into the movie. Ironically though I was very attentive and focused on the movie and attempted to carefully listen to the dialogue and Batman's gravelly voice was beyond me most of the time.

Fair enough.

The bank heist is pure spectacle, no argument there.
It was shot and edited in a totally excitement-inducing way, with a heightened urgency, with dramatic flourishes, like the shotgun-cocking manager and bus crashing into the bank.
It was all done to hold your interest.
And it holds mine, I'll tell you that.
I love how it opens, with safe-cracking, zip-lining, mask-wearing criminal activity, culminating with our villain making his escape after announcing what doesn't kill you makes you stranger...

It's a movie, a popcorn one, no doubt.
But it's gourmet to me, brotha.
Gourmet Orville Reddenbacher goodness..

Except for the two problems I had, the bank heist really did grab me and it was thrilling. I just wish I could have enjoyed it more, but it began to feel a little over-the-top with everybody killing everybody else, but I could almost accept it but darn bank official and school bus pushed me over the edge into doubt. The plot outline and twist in the very first few minutes of the bank heist was I'll admit brilliant though.

tabuno, have you tried to imagine yourself in the director's chair for a movie like this?

Can you imagine being the arbiter for all of those decisions?
And praying to the cinema Gods and Batman Gods that you are doing it justice?
When you try to imagine it's YOUR picture, you start to appreciate what Christopher Nolan and crews have accomplished.

Bryan Singer wrote that the torch for Superman is immensely heavy, and that to try to hold it up is a mighty responsibility.
Think of the responsibility of bringing these kinds of myths to the big screen! You're crucified before you even shoot a foot of film!
Today directors like Zack Snyder and Chris Nolan deserve honorary sainthoods to me, because they have vision. They have what it takes to try to do cinematic justice to Holy projects, with near-impossible-to-please fans.

I often think of Bryan Singer being called up by Peter Jackson when he was in the middle of making King Kong and asking Bryan to shoot a sequence while he takes a break from the exhausting shoot. Think on that level my man!
Imagine that Peter Jackson called you up and said "Hey, man, can you take over my movie for a while?"

It staggers the mind.

As for Peter Jackson's KING KONG, I've had long and harsh discussions regarding that movie.

I don't have the experience with the historical background of Batman in comics books so I can't really view Batman movies in the context of the original source material. By basis of reviewing most movies (if a few exceptions) are from a stand-alone perspective without connection to their historical underpinnings. I can't appreciate the transference good or bad of some of these characters from the written/pictured page to the big screen. By basis for evaluating Batman for example is growing up watching television and Adam West which I assume would be quite horrifying for most comic book readers.

As for understanding the complexities of movie adaptations I've read two rather lengthy film biographies, one for BLADERUNNER and one for BBC version of PRIDE AND PREJUDICE. I've been introduced elements that go to the development of a theatrical film.

You two are really slugging it out on this film. That's good.

However, I just need to clarify something I mentioned on an earlier post. Ledger died in January of 2008. "The Dark Knight" was not released until July. It was definitely in post production at the time of his death (retakes, dubbing, and so on). Nolan had until May to make changes. Ledger's death changed that. It forced his hand to use what footage he had on hand. I continue to assert that had he been around, who knows what changes Nolan could have made to "The Dark Knight."

Terry Gilliam is also stuck with Ledger's performance "as is" in the forthcoming film, "The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus" with Johnny Depp, Jude Law, Colin Farrel, Christopher Plummer and Tom Waits. In this instance, Heath had only completed half of his role. Gilliam (Brazil, Twelve Monkeys, etc) must either deliver a finished product or shut his very expensive production down. He had to completely change his film or reshoot all of Ledger's scenes, a director's nightmare scenario. The film has a scheduled September release date. Good luck, Terry!

The footage he had on hand was enough.
Nothing to change.
It was just a matter of selecting what takes he would use.
And it seems as if he had a lot, because I've seen other scenes and alternate images from this movie.

If Nolan's hand was forced, it was only to decide exactly which takes he would use to cement Ledger's final film performance.
Other than that, he had everything he needed from Ledger.
The big lament here is that there will be no more footage of the Joker to use for future films.
Or are there some surprises in the vault?

His name was HEATH, cinemabon.
Not "health".

If Heath Ledger had been alive, as director I would have had several test screenings to see if the audience had any problems with understanding Batman's speech and if so consider reshooting or at least dubbing his lines so that the audience might have a better, if not absolutely clear understanding of what he said. Or on the otherhand, reshoot or dub this speech so it was more obvious that the audience wasn't really supposed to understand what was being said and just let the action speak for itself.

Another reason the Joker is so kick-ass in this Batman production is that Nolan allowed Heath to shoot some of his own scenes- the hand-held footage of the Joker interrogating the Batman imposter was done by Heath himself. He came up with that footage. His idea! His art!

Did you know that he was on track to become a director himself?
Terry Gilliam said that Heath was going to be a better director than he was. Now that's some serious tip of the hat!

Kubrick's influence over this film (to repeat) is in the controlled uncertainty, the consciousness of each scene, the "criminal" (as a fascinating film character- they never take life for what it is), some damn impressive camerawork that the Grand Master himself would agree was very fine indeed, and of course the Killing is all over the opening bank heist.

Not to mention the protagonist being in an intolerable situation, Ledger taking inspiration from A Clockwork Orange, etc.

I feel confident that Kubrick himself would find a
admire in The Dark Knight and Chris Nolan's craft.
Kubrick loved movies about situations, not necessarily about people. He didn't have much faith in people.
Dark Knight has plenty of situations for a viewer to ruminate on. Why does Batman do what he does in this film?
Why does he have the responses to the Joker's crimes that he does?

What seems to set this movie apart from other like movies was its intensity and multiple focus on emotional conflicts between good and evil and between the lesser of two evils. There was not clear right or wrong, there was a lot of gray, like real life. In addition to the action for action's sake there was a building, underlying riveting internal debate of having to make decisions where something bad was liikely to happen, evil was taking over, Batman suffers mightily and like a martyr, he suffers (perhaps needlessly) his public image, like an honorable Japanese warrior. This is what was most impressive despite the flaws in this movie when I watched it a second time.

Yes, it's hard to ignore the weight of situations in this film.
Some heavy shit is going down, and you better know what you're dealing with and act apropriately...

I actually talked to a guy who went to see Dark Knight twice in theatres and he said he fell asleep both times because he felt overwhelmed by the intensity of the movie.
Is that wacked out or what?
He was so overwhelmed he just closed his eyes and slept?!?!
What a waste of good ticket money!

This is one of the best video edits I've ever seen in my life.
It was done by a fan (SinnerMan of youtube) and he even uses the better clips of "Hit me!!" and "knife toss" that weren't in the feature film.

This is set to Massive Attack's "Angel" and it just kicks ass and takes fucking NAMES. Love it.
He made a "trailer" here that should be accepted by even the filmmakers. It's poetic, powerful, and a real tribute to the whole production. It just destroys, just like the film itself.

Thanks SinnerMan.
You did Heath and the whole Dark Knight production team really proud.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=-gdxsxA43-g

I've owned the limited edition steelbook DVD release of The Dark Knight for quite some time now, watching it over and over, and I'd like to point out some things.

The film is still a Masterpiece to me, but there are some things that bug me. (my opinions will be all over the place here- different parts of the movie)

1. the scene in the courtroom with Harvey Dent punching the dude on the witness stand- LAME. Everytime I see that scene I think of how ludicrous it is. First, how in the hell was that guy not shaken down before he entered the courtroom? He's a major crime syndicate man yet he's able to smuggle in a carbon-fibre Chinese-made gun? Does Mr. Nolan think that no one will take the time to wonder if that's possible? Or that Dent could punch him out and snappily tell the "fall guy" Sal that he should "buy American"? Only in the movies...
That scene had no point other than to introduce us to Dent's grandfather's lucky coin...and a high-falootin' public official like a District Attorney would NEVER be late for such a serious matter as Sal's day in court. I can think of better ways to show that Dent is a "White Knight" who nails bad guys.

2. When Batman goes head-on with the Joker in the huge truck while on the Batpod, "threading" the cables to upend the trailer reminded me of the AT-AT in The Empire Strikes Back that gets "threaded" and pulled down by a speeder piloted by Luke Skywalker. Anybody else notice that?

3. Events in this movie push the limits of credibility. How are copycat Batmans able to be taken seriously as the real thing by criminals? The copycats have no access to how Batman operates- they NEVER see him at work! They only hear about his exploits, or see him in the shadows, if they're lucky..
I mean, they get it wrong that he uses guns, but come on, how can they even remotely believe that they are doing the work of Batman? That they are actually taking on criminals and stand a chance? Especially in a crime-ridden city like Gotham? Wearing hockey pads? Don't they realize that they can DIE by impersonating Batman? I mean, the one tubby guy who says "What makes you different from us?"- is he retarded or what? What do you think is gonna happen if you pretend to be Batman? That's right- you might end up on a noose!

This film is extremely intelligent. But it really pushes it with credibility.
The Joker is "insane", with "issues", yet he's smart enough to "savour the little emotions" of those who are in their final moments because of him? And he's smart enough to orchestrate everything that he's able to pull off?

The most telling scene of the Joker's M.O. is when he says
"No I'm not"- referring to his mental state as being insane.
He is WAAAAAY ahead of everybody in Gotham- maybe too conveniently. When Gordon figures out that "he WANTED me to lock him in the ICU!!" That just seems too convenient.
You mean to tell me that the Joker is so sophisticated with his plans of anarchy that he can target all of these public officials in such streamlined ways? That he can orchestrate assassinations and plots from jail, where he can't communicate with anyone?
It was all done in advance? WOW. Planting the cell phone on the fat guy? Rigging the charges for Dent and Rachel? The boats loaded with explosives? Judge Cerillo's assassination? The man with the whiskey glass? What's-his-face who has to be dead in an hour or he blows up a hospital? Wow.
Not to mention his murder of Gamble, "coming back from the dead"- the Joker's got SERIOUS BALLS, MAN!
FEAR and ANARCHY indeed...

By the way, at Bruce's fundraiser for Harvey that the Joker crashes, the Joker is only there for what, two minutes and Batman appears to save the day? When did he have time to change into the Batsuit?!?! The Joker was there LITERALLY 2 minutes before Batman's on the scene? Was it a set-up?
I still don't know and I've seen the movie over and over.
Superman can wear his costume under his clothes and be ready in mere seconds. But Batman? It takes time to put on that armour!

But anyway, I still love the Holy Hell out of it...