Like the "Interesting" thread, this topic is for collecting articles that contain criticism for this film. No matter what's your opinion about it, they are an interesting read nonetheless. Even if you love the film (personally I do), it's always interesting to read (and argue against) the opposite side.
A blog entirely devoted to Dark Knight anti-hype with a touch of parody
http://thedarkknightsucks.com/
Two blog entries with a quite in-depth analysis, the first one about the film itself, the second on the hype
http://nathanfisher.blogspot.com/2008/07/dark-knight-is-worst-movie-of-year.html
http://sonnywilkins.wordpress.com/2008/07/27/cluttered-dark-knight-irony/
Quote from: silenig on Thu, 31 Jul 2008, 12:09
http://thedarkknightsucks.com/
They have some points but, again, I think they're missing the popcorn movie angle the movie is supposed to be appreciated/criticized in.
And this was hillarious.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w2yv8aT0UFc
http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/cinema/2008/07/21/080721crci_cinema_denby
I agree with a lot of what this guy has to say.
Quote from: thecolorsblend on Thu, 31 Jul 2008, 18:41
And this was hillarious.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w2yv8aT0UFc
hahaha... indeed this particular element of the film was unintentionally funny
Quote from: silenig on Thu, 31 Jul 2008, 23:43
Quote from: thecolorsblend on Thu, 31 Jul 2008, 18:41
And this was hillarious.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w2yv8aT0UFc
hahaha... indeed this particular element of the film was unintentionally funny
That was quite funny. It got old after they repeated the same gag over and over, though. I didn't have a problem with Bale's Bat voice in the film.
There were a couple of things I didn't like about TDK myself. That doesn't mean I hate the film. It's the best Batman movie I had ever seen, well, until the hype dies down at least.
Quote from: silenig on Thu, 31 Jul 2008, 23:43
Quote from: thecolorsblend on Thu, 31 Jul 2008, 18:41
And this was hillarious.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w2yv8aT0UFc
hahaha... indeed this particular element of the film was unintentionally funny
OMG! Hilarious
Personally I don't see any reason that a site should exist to bash the entire film. It has some good and some bad. A in depth look at the hype and the backslash it had for some people, like me for instance, I think is worth looking at, but people who tear a film down that somebody poured their soul into makes them no better than people who hail it like it's Jesus Christ.
^ I somewhat agree, except that certain films are clearly entitled to it. Superman Returns is a good example, I think. I've never seen a SR bashfest I didn't want to contribute to and help perpetuate. :)
You're right. One could argue the Shumacher....contributions be given the same treatment
The second article (cluttered irony) I give as a link argues that the INSANE hype contributed to this. It's not a bashing article, it's an evaluation of this film as a phenomenon, and not a critique of the film itself. Read it, it's interesting and not an attack on the film.
TDK is obviously a good movie, but the insane hype (not to mention the imdb voting that placed it above the Godfather) made it appear as if it's the movie to end all movies, and many of the younger fans happily contributed to this hype.
This backlash, including a site entirely devoted to bashing the film, is a reaction to it.
By illustrating this backlash, we don't add to it.
Think as non-Batman fans for a moment. Imagine a very good e.g. Wolverine film comes out, and everyone is hailing it as a masterpiece, a must see, the comic book movie of the century, #1 in IMDB, 95 % on RT etc.
"Enough with this guy already!!!", this is what many would say.
Read the second article if you haven't done so. :)
P.S. Yes, I thought the growling was funny, just like Keaton's inability to turn his head. So what? These things didn't damage the films!
I have to say, Christian Bale did go a little too far with his voice. In Batman Begins it wasn't so bad, but in TDK it's really deep at times and that's why that video on Youtube is so funny, because he really does sound like that in the film.
Quote from: Joker89 on Fri, 1 Aug 2008, 18:42
I have to say, Christian Bale did go a little too far with his voice. In Batman Begins it wasn't so bad, but in TDK it's really deep at times and that's why that video on Youtube is so funny, because he really does sound like that in the film.
I concur. Head movements are a minor infraction. The vocals, obviously, are a bigger part of the performance, and conttributes to my personal belief that Bale was the Weakest link in TDK.
I actually think that the whole Rachael Dawes character in TDK is the weakest link of the film. Nolan still tried to build a storyline with Rachael being the love interest of Bruce Wayne. Which we all know should have ended in Begins. Instead they replace Katie Holmes with another actress and ruin most of the film's plot because of some ridiculous love-triangle(as seen in Spider-Man).
They kill Rachael Dawes off by the middle of the movie. Does this add any value to the story? No. To tell you the truth, it doesn't. Why? It wasn't the same actress that played as the original Rachael Dawes. So it's basically Nolan telling the viewers that even though this is not Katie Holmes, it's still Bruce Wayne's childhood firend, Rachael Dawes. And we should erase Katie Holmes from our heads, when we think of Batman Begins. So of course how can we_the viewers feel any sympathy for someone who wasn't even in the first film(but technically was)?
Quote from: Gotham Knight on Fri, 1 Aug 2008, 20:31
I concur. Head movements are a minor infraction.
Actually I am really annoyed that they had Fox say "You want to be able to move your head" when talking about the new suit.
We are supposed to suspend our belief that Batman can't move his head (that issue arises from creating a movie costume that looks aesthetically pleasing) and accept that the costume provides Bruce with all his needs. Not being able to move his head is in the same arena as applying black make-up to his eyes - it's for movie effect only - although I am sure there will be a gadget for that in the next movie too!
I mean if this new series is supposed to be real-worldly, then why would Batman run around in a suit for over a year and not be able to move his head????
Quote from: raleagh on Fri, 1 Aug 2008, 22:02
Quote from: Gotham Knight on Fri, 1 Aug 2008, 20:31
I concur. Head movements are a minor infraction.
Actually I am really annoyed that they had Fox say "You want to be able to move your head" when talking about the new suit.
We are supposed to suspend our belief that Batman can't move his head (that issue arises from creating a movie costume that looks aesthetically pleasing) and accept that the costume provides Bruce with all his needs. Not being able to move his head is in the same arena as applying black make-up to his eyes - it's for movie effect only - although I am sure there will be a gadget for that in the next movie too!
I mean if this new series is supposed to be real-worldly, then why would Batman run around in a suit for over a year and not be able to move his head????
That's actually a very good point. It's part of illusion and..it got destroyed.
Quote from: raleagh on Fri, 1 Aug 2008, 22:02I mean if this new series is supposed to be real-worldly, then why would Batman run around in a suit for over a year and not be able to move his head????
Precisely. That's why I think of the Nolan franchise in general and TDK in particular to be "check your brain at the door" movies.
QuoteSo it's basically Nolan telling the viewers that even though this is not Katie Holmes, it's still Bruce Wayne's childhood firend, Rachael Dawes. And we should erase Katie Holmes from our heads
Funny part being Nolan wrote Rachel Dawes for Katie Holmes. Mabye he was so angry that she didn't return for the part that he killed her off.
Quote
Actually I am really annoyed that they had Fox say "You want to be able to move your head" when talking about the new suit.
That bit always annoyed me too. I don't know why but im also sure it was Nolan having a dig at the older movies because Batman couldn't move his head in those and the Nolan fan's always use it as a reason why Begins/TDK is better.
Quote
Precisely. That's why I think of the Nolan franchise in general and TDK in particular to be "check your brain at the door" movies.
You couldn't be more right. People play to much into this is better then a normal superhero movie because it's more realistic but there all the same. No matter how realistic they make it man dressing up like a bat to fight crime is fake same goes for a self mutilating clown or guy in an iron suit. There just movies that them as they are people need to stop being so serious...lol.
Quote from: silenig on Thu, 31 Jul 2008, 12:09
No matter what's your opinion about it, they are an interesting read nonetheless. Even if you love the film (personally I do), it's always interesting to read (and argue against) the opposite side.
Exactly. Just like my turn at Burton criticism in the other thread. I don't see the difference between this one and mine. Arguments, discussion, whatever you want to call it, are only beneficial to forums.
^ The difference being that the Nolan criticisms are reactions to the film as well as the hype behind it while your Burton criticisms are pretty flimsy and come only as a response to people imparting criticisms about Nolan's films (not even him personally) in this pro-Burton forum.
I'm struggling to see your justification here.
Quote from: thecolorsblend on Sat, 2 Aug 2008, 08:09
^ The difference being that the Nolan criticisms are reactions to the film as well as the hype behind it while your Burton criticisms are pretty flimsy and come only as a response to people imparting criticisms about Nolan's films (not even him personally) in this pro-Burton forum.
I'm struggling to see your justification here.
Struggle then. It doesn't matter how criticisms come about, all that matters is that they are here.
Most of the harsh critisicms on the Burton films one can read in forums are about what those films ARE NOT, not really about how these films fail in what they try to do.
Exactly. Some people can't accept them for what they are.
It seems Nolanites have a problem with Burton and Burtonites have a problem with Nolanites - which pretty much sums up who is the chicken and who is the egg.
Quote from: raleagh on Sat, 2 Aug 2008, 10:40
Exactly. Some people can't accept them for what they are.
It seems Nolanites have a problem with Burton and Burtonites have a problem with Nolanites - which pretty much sums up who is the chicken and who is the egg.
Yes. Let me add that even though I have been going into a tirade against Burton, it can be said to be a defence mechanism against the Nolan criticism. I do accept the Burton films for what they are, but I'm in between a rock and a hard place sometimes. For that, I'm sorry. I will try and turn that off and focus on Burton.
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Sat, 2 Aug 2008, 12:34
Yes. Let me add that even though I have been going into a tirade against Burton, it can be said to be a defence mechanism against the Nolan criticism.
This happened to me a few years ago when I was searching for any news on a BB sequel and found BOF. I thought for sure the people there would be excited about BB but still respectful and appreciative of the Burton films. Instead I found a Burton bash fest. So even though I enjoyed BB, I became a "Burtonite" by default even when I didn't know what a "Burtonite" or "Nolanite" was. These days, with some of the unfair criticisms TDK has received from some Burtonites (not neccessarily from these boards), I find myself being pushed towards the center as I love both B89 and TDK (TDK slightly more at this juncture).
I suppose the moral of the story is trying not to fall into the trap of taking criticisms of one's beloved Batfilm too personally and try to appreciate elements in both Batfilm incarnations. Maybe the key to unification is to focus on things the two sides have in common, a disgust for the Shumacher debacles ;)
I was on the IMDB and man are them Nolanite fans annoying!!!!!
They really dont have a clue. I can only assume they are teenage brats. They dont know what they are talking about.
Example,
On one hand they dont like the way Burton changed who killed the Waynes and Joker died, but its ok for the character of Harvey Dent and Two Face to be 'metophorically' raped in TDK!!
Also apparently Jack Napier falling into the acid is a fault now......
Even though that is a fact how the Joker was created.
My god they make my blood boil. They claim to 'know it all' about batman, But their knowledge is '0'.
Its this type of behaviour that puts me off BB and TDK.
I dont know why I go to them forums, they are bitter people.
Quote from: Joker81 on Sat, 2 Aug 2008, 13:42
Also apparently Jack Napier falling into the acid is a fault now......
Even though that is a fact how the Joker was created.
They are ignorant then. This scene is faithful to the comic, they know little about the comic Batman. It seems they are being unfair to Burton for no apparent reason.
Quote from: Joker81 on Sat, 2 Aug 2008, 13:42
Its this type of behaviour that puts me off BB and TDK.
I hope not. They are good films. Don't be swayed by some stupid, ignorant trolls.
Thanks the dark knight. I know how passionate you are about TDK, thats great to hear you saying that.
And I was really starting to warm to TDK, but these guys annoy me!
I think Batman and TDK are really good Batman films, and we shouldnt compare or judge, but praise them. They are both different type of films. They are both a product of their time. We should appreciate we can go back and look at a different type of Batman film now near 20 years old.
It seems to me these guys on IMDB are just out the slam Batman and Returns. They cant talk about anything good about TDK. They just bash the Burton films. That sickens me. Shows you the size of their brians.
Being a true film and Batman fan I'm just happy as that 3 great actors have portrayed and put in great performances of the greatest villian ever created!
Quote
I was on the IMDB and man are them Nolanite fans annoying!!!!!
They really dont have a clue. I can only assume they are teenage brats. They dont know what they are talking about.
Example,
On one hand they dont like the way Burton changed who killed the Waynes and Joker died, but its ok for the character of Harvey Dent and Two Face to be 'metophorically' raped in TDK!!
Also apparently Jack Napier falling into the acid is a fault now......
Even though that is a fact how the Joker was created.
My god they make my blood boil. They claim to 'know it all' about batman, But their knowledge is '0'.
Its this type of behaviour that puts me off BB and TDK.
I dont know why I go to them forums, they are bitter people.
Eghhh i know 100% what you mean. I came from imdb(someone showed me this site on there) and since 05 there was always bashing from Nolan fans but it wasn't that bad at least you could talk about the film without someone ruining the fourm. But as the TDK came closer it got worse and worse each month with nothing but stupid topics and people insulting you over a movie for god sake and i just had enough and just gave up on the site and hated everything about Begins and anyone that liked it.
But then after i left i saw Begin on tv and figered i would watch it again and since i was no longer being insulted i LOVED it i still like think the Burton movies are better but it was great and i loved TDK so really i think you just have to stay away from the trolls and i swear you will find the Nolan movies better.
agreed. I don't understand why the "nolanites" are so defensive... I mean come on....we are all bat fans are we?? They seemed to be really ashamed of the past films... which I dunno why. Hell I myself love TDK to death but I appreciate alot of the 1989 Batman. Sure as hell it has flaws but so what?! that's the first attempt to create a serious batman back in the 80's and that film gave us hell of a ride!! I am not a fan of the next three films but certainly I just won't be too critical about them.
It's a mystery that's for sure. I think because people still like the older movies and in the mind of Nolan fans thats a sin, stupid i know but they just think that Begins and The Dark Knight are the greatest movies in the world(eg Putting TDK at on imdb and giving The Godfather a 1 out of 10 so it can't takes it's place ::)) and nothing is better and because Batman was soo good and is still loved they just can't stand it and try to rip it about to try to convince to world that there moives are best its just pathetic.
I love the Nolan films and have never said anything mean to anyone just because they like them but i can say the i have seen every Batman movie and IMHO Batman and Batman Returns are the best and if you don't like that TS.
Quote from: Sandman on Mon, 4 Aug 2008, 08:28It's a mystery that's for sure. I think because people still like the older movies and in the mind of Nolan fans thats a sin, stupid i know but they just think that Begins and The Dark Knight are the greatest movies in the world
What irks me is that the Nolanites (I love that label!) seem to think a preference for the Burton canon is based purely on nostalgia, as though a more reasoned and balanced approach would inevitably draw one to the Nolan ouvre. I've flip-flopped on the Burton films more than any six people I know personally and I see the Burtonverse as a more natural and pure depiction of the comics world than anything Nolan ever dreamed up on his best day. Most elements from the comics could be adapted directly into Burton's world.
Nolan, on the other hand, seems to have psychological problems accepting the fact that he's directing films inspired by comic books. You can't copy and paste from the comics into his world, everything has to be massaged and reinvented in order to fit. And some of his audience can't seem to get enough of it. I'll never understand the attitude or, for that matter, how someone can say with a straight face that Nolan is truer to the comics but then again there are a lot of things I don't get.
The French, for instance.
QuoteI love the Nolan films
I love pissing on them when I think they deserve it.
Quote from: thecolorsblend on Mon, 4 Aug 2008, 12:46
The French, for instance.
What's wrong with the French? (apart from making sup-par comic book movies like Iznogood, Lucky Luke and Asterix at the Olympics)
I think one thing the Nolan films have going for them is the fact that
they can be "sold" more easily to a wider audience, they are more mainstream. . My english isn't good enought to explain exactly what I want to say, but the Nolan films have this "image" of the "cool realistic action movie" as opposed to the dark funhouse style of Tim's work. Even some people I know who hated the Burton films loved BB because it didn't have people in wild costumes and a fantastic looking city, it was more like a straight action movie with pointy ears.
I was only partly joking about the French.
As for the Nolan franchise's mass appeal, I don't question that. I'm sure Burton's films are a comparatively harder pill to swallow... but to blame/credit this strictly on those filmmakers visual styles is to overlook the other vast differences in their respective approaches to the material. There's no way to say this next part without bashing Nolan so reader beware.
Nolan's films leave nothing to the imagination. Every last detail is bluntly and repeatedly hammered home through dense and heavy expository dialogue that only deaf, retarded monkey wouldn't understand what will happen if the train manages to reach Wayne Tower. Burton's films don't go too far out of their way to beat the duality between Joker and Batman to death or provide a solid answer about whether, or not Selina genuinely had cat powers or if all her injuries could be explained away by luck and coincidence. There are subtleties and ambiguities inherent to the Burton films that I think are utterly foreign to Nolan's world. He's making more or less generic action films starring Batman. Burton was recreating Batman's world in live action. Two very different approaches.
That stuff being said, B89 outgrossed BB. You don't even have to adjust for inflation, the raw numbers do the job nicely. The same may or may not hold true for TDK, I'm too lazy to crunch the inflation numbers. Worst case, they're probably about neck and neck. To state (or imply) that Burton's films held no mass appeal is a gross overstatement in my opinion.
Quote from: thecolorsblend on Mon, 4 Aug 2008, 13:49
He's making more or less generic action films starring Batman.
I have to disagree. His Batman series is the only action films he has made, but I really don't think he knows how to shoot an action film. Perhaps he should do what Burton did and have someone of the calibre of Peter McDonald to look after the action scenes in future.
Having watched TDK 3 times now (third time a couple of hours ago), there are only 2 things that would make me go back for more - Ledger and the Bat-pod/truck scene (but that is too short). The fighting is poorly lit, staged, choreographed and filmed - I think it has gone down hill from BB.
Quote from: raleagh on Mon, 4 Aug 2008, 16:27
Quote from: thecolorsblend on Mon, 4 Aug 2008, 13:49
He's making more or less generic action films starring Batman.
I have to disagree. His Batman series is the only action films he has made, but I really don't think he knows how to shoot an action film. Perhaps he should do what Burton did and have someone of the calibre of Peter McDonald to look after the action scenes in future.
Having watched TDK 3 times now (third time a couple of hours ago), there are only 2 things that would make me go back for more - Ledger and the Bat-pod/truck scene (but that is too short). The fighting is poorly lit, staged, choreographed and filmed - I think it has gone down hill from BB.
Agreed. I loved the Batpod scene in general. Ledger rreally grew on me and I loved the Joker.
I guess one of my cripes that I haven't mentioned before is the lack of a definitive Batman v Joker climax or an action scene that wows me. It was mostly just hacking through thugs, getting mauled by a dog and rolling around with Joker. The interogation scene was nice, but only because of Ledger. Bale has forever cornered himself by making his performance so shallow and direct. He has no wiggle room to give anything besides loud and angry.
Quote from: thecolorsblend on Mon, 4 Aug 2008, 13:49
I was only partly joking about the French.
I know :)
Quote from: thecolorsblend on Mon, 4 Aug 2008, 13:49
As for the Nolan franchise's mass appeal, I don't question that. I'm sure Burton's films are a comparatively harder pill to swallow...
That's exactly what I am saying. Maybe Nolan's films are better suited as a Batman "mothership". They are better suited to a mainstream audience.
Quote from: thecolorsblend on Mon, 4 Aug 2008, 13:49
but to blame/credit this strictly on those filmmakers visual styles is to overlook the other vast differences in their respective approaches to the material.
But the general audience never digs below the surface and they automatically accept more easily something based on its style, its visuals and its plot mechanics. As for the majority of the comic book fans, they want to see a version of the modern comics on screen (like the B:TAS). Some comic fans' obsession with the inclusion of Robin in the third (seventh?) film shows exactly that.
Quote from: thecolorsblend on Mon, 4 Aug 2008, 13:49
Nolan's films leave nothing to the imagination. Every last detail is bluntly and repeatedly hammered home through dense and heavy expository dialogue that only deaf, retarded monkey wouldn't understand what will happen if the train manages to reach Wayne Tower.
But this kind of stuff is sold and digested more easily. I know it first hand from friends/acquitances (spelling?) of mine that hated Burton's "weird" movies and never even tried to scratch the surface, but enjoyed BB and even said it's almost better than X-men 2.
I'm not saying that something is better because it's more mainstream (far from it, and if you knew me you'd understand), what I say is that bat-movies influence the public perception of Batman, and a dark Batman with a "realistic" tone is more easily accepted than a piece of gothica.
Quote from: thecolorsblend on Mon, 4 Aug 2008, 13:49
Burton's films don't go too far out of their way to beat the duality between Joker and Batman to death or provide a solid answer about whether, or not Selina genuinely had cat powers or if all her injuries could be explained away by luck and coincidence. There are subtleties and ambiguities inherent to the Burton films that I think are utterly foreign to Nolan's world. He's making more or less generic action films starring Batman. Burton was recreating Batman's world in live action. Two very different approaches.
Correct, and we sail on the same boat here, what I insist is that Nolan's take is what can be sold to the public more easily, as well as be digested from the comic book fans. The vast majority doesn't share Burton's sensibilities, far from it actually, and doesn't scratch the surface. They simply see something "weird".
Quote from: thecolorsblend on Mon, 4 Aug 2008, 13:49
That stuff being said, B89 outgrossed BB. You don't even have to adjust for inflation, the raw numbers do the job nicely. The same may or may not hold true for TDK, I'm too lazy to crunch the inflation numbers. Worst case, they're probably about neck and neck. To state (or imply) that Burton's films held no mass appeal is a gross overstatement in my opinion.
B89 was a big movie, nobody argues that. The right time and place, the right promotion. But it's still a wonder a movie like that gained that much of a public appeal and maybe Nicholson was the biggest factor. I never question their quality as films, only their potential as films that can be digested by, what Americans call, the average joe. And the average joe brings money and makes or breaks a franchise, not us.
I know I play devil's advocate here, I love Burton's two films and if you ask me, I'd like to see a gothic Gotham and a Joker with a perma-white face. But you can't ignore what is in demand, what sells, what is accepted etc. While it's easy to be fooled by the surface and consider them more serious (they are as serious as a good comic book film can be), they simply LOOK more serious and have an intensity that the first films lacked.
QuoteHe's making more or less generic action films starring Batman
Yes i found it alot more James Bond then Batman.
Quote from: thecolorsblend link=topic=314.msg3932#msg3932
I love the Nolan films/quote]
I love pissing on them when I think they deserve it.
What a lovely thing for a Batman fan to do on his character's films. I like Nolan's films more, but I don't flat out hate Burton's films.
I'm a huge Burton/Batman fan (hey, I'm here, aren't I?) and I've posted restrospectives on BR on BOf, and have commented elsewhere.
Having said that, I honestly do believe TDK had the best script to date. It's not a knock against Burton (Batman is one of my favorite films--up there with Murnau's Faust, Casablanca, Metropolis, Black Orpheus, etc.), or anything that came before. In fact, I feel Nolan truly built on what already existed. I don't think TDK would have happened if not for Batman 89. Burton truly redefined the super hero genre as we know it.
The Schumacher showed us what not to do.
I'm not going to defend BB. It does not hold up to repeat viewings at all, as so much of it is expository, and there is very little to explore there.
TDK is just a full out suspense film, in the tradition of Hitchcock or the Bourne pictures--it just keeps bringing me back.
I have some minor quibbles (mostly to do with atmosphere and Bale's terrible decision to turn Batman into Tom Waits with a sore throat), but I truly feel TDK will hold up as well as the Burton pictures (well, to my eyes).
Just because there's fantasy involved doesn't mean that every bit of fantasy is viable, though. Nolan's whole goal was to make Batman feel real, even though it's all fantasy. You throw the more overtly fantastic characters in there, you ruin that.
Nolan always wanted a costume for Crane, he just wanted a reason for Crane to have the costume, and therefore asked screenwriter David Goyer, "Why does he need the mask?" Hence the explanation behind the mask within the story (and the character's richer for it).
And as a longtime Batman fan, I thought Scarecrow was done 100% right. Nothing about him was really "watered-down," since the essence of the character was entirely intact. And I'd even argue his minimalistic costume is far more effective than his garb in the comics.
I think Nolan did a pretty good job of it on Begins. It was clearly fantasy, but the world felt real, and the characters were made to feel real as possible. In Nolan's own words, what he wanted to do was to echo films that "created entire worlds that you believed in, and they had a very tactile, realistic, concrete sense of place and texture and, though they were all dealing with fantastic, outrageous material, they were all extreme exaggerations with idealistic heroes, but they had a recognizable taste and smell?we believe in the reality of what we see for two hours. We're never let off the hook, we're on that rollercoaster and we're not looking at a cartoon."
The Dark Knight is not "high art" (whatever that means). But it deals with some rich thematic content in the process of providing entertainment.
In moving to live action, a creator can push to imagine the cinematic equivalent of what's on the page, rather than recreating it exactly. After all, the whole goal of adaptation isn't just the recreate, but to successfully transfer from one medium to the other.
As Christopher Nolan said, "To me, that's what comic books are?it sparks your imagination with words, pictures, colors, light and shape. Just as when you adapt a novel, you do not consider the superficial form of the novel, you push to imagine the cinematic equivalent. Why should comic books be any different?"
I think it's good that we have some adult blockbuster entertainment. I think Batman is now at the place where he should be.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jcjGVh2cRXk
i laughed my ass off at this
http://www.youtube.com/v/8sYBqhOEdRQ&NR=1
"That's a Sharpie, that permanent!"
TDK is as suspensful as a Hitchcock film? WTF? Get real! Nolan wouldnt lace his boots!
The twists in this film you could see coming a mile off. No suspense at all.
Quote from: Joker81 on Wed, 20 Aug 2008, 19:24
The twists in this film you could see coming a mile off. No suspense at all.
Well, I liked it, whether or not I saw it coming or not.
I think it's about execution as much as anything. There was a sense of tension, even though I already knew intellectually that Nolan wasn't seriously going to blow up a ferry full of innocent bystanders or convicts. Nevertheless, it carries with it a sense of drama and urgency.
I saw the film again. Needless to say, I'm likeing it less and less. I'm caught in that situation where you think if you keep going back, suddenly everything will be different. I didn't even stay the whole time.
I tried desperately to just drop all my issues and look at this just as a popcorn movie, but even then I couldn't. It's far too dry, dull, and self important.
I think as it is - a cinematic experience - it excels.
But once that initial wow factor is over, there is little to retain the attention.
It probably has the most engaging story so far in the series, but in the words of Lucious Fox, "At what cost?!".
I am hoping the DVD release will give me something new to appreciate (actually Heaths behind the scenes stuff) as I found the fight scenes didn't hold up well on the big screen and may look better on a small screen.
Quote from: thecolorsblend on Thu, 21 Aug 2008, 18:28
I think it's about execution as much as anything. There was a sense of tension, even though I already knew intellectually that Nolan wasn't seriously going to blow up a ferry full of innocent bystanders or convicts. Nevertheless, it carries with it a sense of drama and urgency.
Yes, exactly. Well said. I knew it wasn't going to happen, but after what I had seen previously in the film, I was beginning to have my doubts.
Quote from: Gotham Knight on Thu, 21 Aug 2008, 22:48I tried desperately to just drop all my issues and look at this just as a popcorn movie, but even then I couldn't. It's far too dry, dull, and self important.
It's no Burton Batman film, I'll give you that. But, hey, at least you tried instead of just dismissing it out of hand, right? There's something to be said for that.
Still, some things don't hold up as well after repeat viewings. I've seen it a total of four times now but I watched a few minutes before taking in
Clone Wars the other night. The Batman/Maroni scene just doesn't hold up as well if you really pick at it. The camera angle for Batman makes his cowl look wonky, Bale's Batman voice is as lousy in that scene as any other, I just can't buy that Maroni would say things like that to Batman (esp not after he has at least a fractured ankle) and I'm wondering how Batman got Maroni out of that club. Did they just walk out the door together or something?
Anyway. I think it's good as a popcorn flick but what do I know?
I have seen The Dark Knight 3 times since its release in theatres. Yes, its overly hyped. But I still believe it's one of the best films I have seen in years. The first time I saw it, I was blown away by the suspenseful moments (the assassination of Gotham's Judge, the Commissioner, the Rachael skyscraper fall, the Ferry Boat scene, etc.) as well as Heath Ledger's performance as The Joker. The second time I saw it, I didn't enjoy it as much. But strangely, the third time I saw it I enjoyed it as much as the first viewing. This mainly was because I viewed it in IMAX. But overall, I still believe it's a cinematic masterpiece no matter what anyone else thinks. This is coming from a REAL Tim Burton fan. And The Dark Knight is a wonderful variation of the the original 1989, Batman film.
This might sound strange, but after TDK I am thankful the Joker died in Batman. As it gave us closure in Burton's Batman vision. Something we wont have with Nolans Films.
We wouldn't really have it with the Nolan films even if Ledger hadn't passed away though. I doubt he would've been recycled as the principle villain in another film since audiences have already seen a Batman vs. Joker story in Nolan's universe. What new thing could anybody bring to the table?
Quote from: Joker89 on Fri, 1 Aug 2008, 21:52
I actually think that the whole Rachael Dawes character in TDK is the weakest link of the film. Nolan still tried to build a storyline with Rachael being the love interest of Bruce Wayne. Which we all know should have ended in Begins. Instead they replace Katie Holmes with another actress and ruin most of the film's plot because of some ridiculous love-triangle(as seen in Spider-Man).
They kill Rachael Dawes off by the middle of the movie. Does this add any value to the story? No. To tell you the truth, it doesn't. Why? It wasn't the same actress that played as the original Rachael Dawes. So it's basically Nolan telling the viewers that even though this is not Katie Holmes, it's still Bruce Wayne's childhood firend, Rachael Dawes. And we should erase Katie Holmes from our heads, when we think of Batman Begins. So of course how can we_the viewers feel any sympathy for someone who wasn't even in the first film(but technically was)?
This made me LOL!
Thank you for the compliment! I stand by that statement.
Apparently 'the dark knight fanboy' group has grown to concerning levels.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0pJboY5bPCo
LOL
Y'know, when the video started with the Fanboy Chronicles title and the guy wearing a turkey hat I thought he was going to praise The Dark Knight and drool all over Nolan.
But in reality he spoke words of wisdom in a very decent manner. Good work.
Not my words but agree with the sentiment entirely. Also, while the message I'm quoting is for TDK, It's more how I feel toward BB as I haven't seen TDK (and probably never will as why would I go see a sequel to a movie I couldn't stand?)
QuoteI think a few posters here have, in my opinion, really nailed the main flaw of the Nolan films, in that while they try desperately to cling to some sort of "real" or "credible" context for the characters, ultimately fail at creating any meaningful philosophical statement.
the dark knight, in particular, fails in its treatment of terrorism. for some reason, most people think that by removing any logical motivation behind the joker's mayhem, the dark knight is a more "mature" film (when compared to batman 89). but reality doesn't work that way, and as much as we want to paint terrorists as evil, impenetrable abstractions, they're not like that in real life. what kind of message does this film give us- that we can never understand the motivations behind terrorism? that's intellectual laziness.
the dark knight is plagued with all sorts of trite, pseudo-intellectual exercises. a lot of the blame must be placed on the nolan brothers, and the screenplay is simply not that good. the climax with the two ships seemed like it was taken out of some 100-level philosophy course. the major rule of film- show, not tell- is violated constantly. every character spews out bad philosophy as to make sure that we "get" what's going on. the themes and subtext of a film are not supposed to be expressed through dialogue. it really just bothers me that so many of us are calling this film "brainy" and "realistic" and "mature," because it shows how stupid and lazy audiences are becoming.
there's nothing realistic about the dark knight. the joker doesn't fall into a vat of acid, so that's supposed to be realistic? saying such rubbish as "i'm an agent of chaos" is mature? that line doesn't even make any sense.
and while much of the blame should be placed on the nolan brothers, we shouldn't forget that batman is, no matter how you slice it, a comic book character. i'm not saying that it's impossible to create a legitimately smart, deep work of art based around a guy in a rubber suit, but i wouldn't want to try it. there's only so much you can do with these characters, because they were never meant to be placed in such a serious, "mature" context. why do people care so much about maturity in a comic book film? if you want a mature film about psychosis, watch man bites dog. there's no need to clutter up comic book escapist entertainment with realism.
the burton films weren't exactly "mature" either, but they never tried to be. burton knew exactly the limits of the characters, and to his credit, still created something that had enough subtext to make an interesting film. he never went overboard, and with the exception of a couple of lines here and there, never really goes into the outright pandering that nolan does. burton doesn't leave it to the dialogue to explain every nuance that he's trying to put in the film. there's room for subtext to breathe. in addition, the film is stylish and fun. while nolan has absolutely no idea how to shoot an action sequence, burton utilized different editing patterns and camera angles to cinematically reproduce a comic book. the film is a vibrant celebration of comic book oddities. danny elfman's score is fantastic, and that itself created all sorts of different psychological nuances within the characters. hans zimmer's score, specifically the joker's "theme," is really just a monotonous, predictable attempt at illustrating the character. there's none of the psychological complexity found in elfman's score. and most importantly, elfman's score is just plain fun. while it might not be high art, it at least knows what it is, and doesn't bore us by trying to be "mature." it's just a swashbuckling romp, and elfman knows it.
it doesn't seem like the makers of the dark knight had much fun while creating the film- which is fine, but there's nothing really smart or mature about it either. what we're left with is a bland, pseudo-intellectual, ugly film that unfortunately has seeped into the culture. it's devoid of anything worth digesting. it's not fun, and it's not smart. it just "is." indeed, the emperor is not wearing any clothes.
I think I spoiled Begins probably (seeing as how I read the leaked script), but I was still excited to see a new darker batman movie, and I liked the movie up until he actually put on the suit and then I couldn't see what the hell was going on when he was fighting and then I see him pull Falcone out of the roof and I got excited again and he says "the line" and then follows it up with "nice coat" and I just groaned. Then at the end he tells Ras "I don't have to kill you but I don't have to save you either" which I'm sorry your still killing someone if you have the ability and can save them and you don't...and it wouldn't bother me that much that he did that if Nolanites would admit that that is the same thing as Batman killing in Batman89, but of course they won't.
TDK has not held up to repeated viewings with me and I think part of it is that Nolan tries to make it so real that I then pick apart everything that is not real, such as Gordon faking his own death. I really don't think that in the real world a lieutenant could get away with faking his own death seeing as how that is highly illegal. There is also of course as Raleagh has pointed out the whole deal with him saying he wants to move his head, I mean seriously Nolan was really trying to please the fanboys with that comment, but in my opinion it made him look foolish as he and Goyer stated many times before Begins came out that they had finally made a suit where Batman could finally move his head and made fun of the other movies b/c he couldn't.
Quote from: reedj927 on Wed, 21 Jan 2009, 05:41TDK has not held up to repeated viewings with me and I think part of it is that Nolan tries to make it so real that I then pick apart everything that is not real, such as Gordon faking his own death. I really don't think that in the real world a lieutenant could get away with faking his own death seeing as how that is highly illegal. There is also of course as Raleagh has pointed out the whole deal with him saying he wants to move his head, I mean seriously Nolan was really trying to please the fanboys with that comment, but in my opinion it made him look foolish as he and Goyer stated many times before Begins came out that they had finally made a suit where Batman could finally move his head and made fun of the other movies b/c he couldn't.
It's for all the reasons you mention that I say TDK's only good in the vocabulary of big, stupid popcorn summer cinema. Batman killing Two Face (he did it, we
know he did it, let's not BS) and the myriad plotholes and incoherences are just too much. Watch it with an eye on just enjoying the ride and it gets better, imho.
Thats a great write-up there Henchman 21, very intellegent and I agree 100%.
thecoloursblend, I also agree with you. I am a fan of The Dark Knight, but, it is when people say it is the greatest film ever made, and its very smart and more mature and realistic than other Batman films, thats when the truth has to be told, and the backlash begins.
The people that say these things need to be put in their place. And just because Ledger wins an oscar (which he will) doesnt make it a better film, or best 'superhero/comic' movie!
Interesting about the terrorist thing, implying 'terrorsits' just kill for the sake of it. Maybe it just shows how america (and the Nolans) percieve terrorism as a randomness and indiscriminant act. Whereas the reality is a man does not blow himself up or pick up an AK47 for no reason, and because we dont understand them we label them as terrorsists. There is always a logical explaination why a man would do that. It goes to show that people do not understand or want to understand the repressed and discrimated against person, or persons in this world. Nolan should have remembered what was quoted in his own film Batman Begins, a famous quote that 'We are only afriad of what we do not understand'. if only people took as much energy to understand these people we have labelled as terrorists as we put into shooting them and incarsorating them the world would be a better place.
Some interesting points there, I think what Nolan was trying to say was what The Joker said "I'm an agent of chaos". That was probably Nolan's motivation. Just chaos. The funny thing about Nolan and Burton is that Burton doesn't have to explain everything in his Batman films, we saw the nuances of the characters, both hero and villains, just through either an image or great acting. With Nolan he sees the need to explain everything especially with dialogue.
For the most part Nolan's vision works but by not getting into a little bit at least of the Joker and his past, he actually negates some of the mystery behind the Joker.
Just a point, since someone mentioned about the mystery of the Joker.
To me the Joker is NOT a mystery. As a Batman fan, I know where he came from, just like I know the origin of Batman.
But in the context of movies - the audience knows where Batman came from, but the characters in the film dont.....
So, again, in the context of Burtons Batman, and the mystery of the Joker, we the audience know where the Joker came from in that movie. As Batman fans we know his origin anyway. But the beauty of Burtons Batman is that the CHARACTERS dont know where he came from (apart from Bruce Wayne). I like that in that film, does it really matter whether there is mystery for the audience!!???
I love the last scene with the Joker when hes laying dead on the cathedral steps. You can hear the laugjing bag. The police and commishioner Gordan close in. Gordon kneels beside him, and gives the dead, still smiling Joker, a look of 'Is he still alive? - Why is he still smiling?' Its creepy!! Then he lifts out the damaged laughing bag! CLASSIC!
Quote from: Joker81 on Wed, 21 Jan 2009, 21:57
I love the last scene with the Joker when hes laying dead on the cathedral steps. You can hear the laugjing bag. The police and commishioner Gordan close in. Gordon kneels beside him, and gives the dead, still smiling Joker, a look of 'Is he still alive? - Why is he still smiling?' Its creepy!! Then he lifts out the damaged laughing bag! CLASSIC!
Agreed. I think we can all say that the Joker had the last laugh LOL! ;D
Quote from: Joker81 on Wed, 21 Jan 2009, 15:38
thecoloursblend, I also agree with you. I am a fan of The Dark Knight, but, it is when people say it is the greatest film ever made, and its very smart and more mature and realistic than other Batman films, thats when the truth has to be told, and the backlash begins.
The people that say these things need to be put in their place. And just because Ledger wins an oscar (which he will) doesnt make it a better film, or best 'superhero/comic' movie!
I know what you mean, It is for the most part a smart and mature movie, but it's in such a hype that people will think it's the greatest film before they even see it. But what i hate the most are the people that work for TV and Newspapers saying sh*t about Burton, Keaton And Nicholson when they know nothing of Batman and thats what makes the problem worse.
People that know nothing of Batman hear this and belive it like its a freaking fact, take for example i went off at a friend of mine the other day for bagging out Nicholson in favor of Ledger and this is a guy that knows nothing of Batman the only thing he has ever seen is The Dark Knight but he heard everyone else bagging out Burton's movies in favor of Nolan and thought it was the correct thing todo.
And as for Heath's Oscar it sadly is going to happen and once that card is read it will be the end for Tim Burton's Batman.... and it will be offical the Oscar's are full of S***.
Quote from: The Batman Returns on Wed, 21 Jan 2009, 22:28
"I love the last scene with the Joker when hes laying dead on the cathedral steps. You can hear the laugjing bag. The police and commishioner Gordan close in. Gordon kneels beside him, and gives the dead, still smiling Joker, a look of 'Is he still alive? - Why is he still smiling?' Its creepy!! Then he lifts out the damaged laughing bag! CLASSIC!"
Agreed. I think we can all say that the Joker had the last laugh LOL! ;D
Same. God i love this movie Keaton, Nicholson, EVERYONE was just perfect in it. It can't be explained everything about it is just great. ;).
The Golden Globes are not always an indication of who will win Oscars.
Remember Jim Carrey won a Best Actor Golden Globe for "Man on the Moon" but didn't even get an Oscar nomination!
Oh, I wasnt saying that The Dark Knight was smart or mature, I actually meant the opposite, but what I am saying is I like it!! But I hate when people make it out to be something it is not!!
It is an action adventure popcorn summer blockbuster!!
I avoided all the spoilers for TDK because I wanted to be surprised when I seen it opening night in the cinema, and I can honestly say, all the plots, twists and turns were predictable and I seen them coming a mile off. It wasnt that clever or smart IMO. And some of the plot points were convienient and unrealistic.
Although the new age fan-boys won't admit it, TDK actually just makes a more eccentric use of the idiot plot. There is nothing wrong with that, but it obviously doesn't spell out the recipe for this amazing twisting crime drama.
Well if anything it just insults the intellegence of the audience lol
I take it for what it is , a fun fantasy action film. Thats how I ednjoy it.
I dont take that particular film too seriously.
I feel the same way i hardly knew any of The Dark Knight before seeing it and although i did enjoy it as a Batman movie i found it to be very full of itself if that makes sense?. Just because it had alot of "intelligent words" doesn't make it a better movie, half of those 10 min rants Batman and Joker went on about made no sense.
I think the hype of the movie, Batman Begins following and Heath Ledger's death had alot todo with the movie's popularity and even Nolan might be starting to believe his own hype, i don't know why but that whole Joker falling of the edge laughing instead of screaming and Batman catching him felt like a great BIG FU! to Burton.
lol, thats an insult to Heat, a proper crime/drama thriller / adult film.
Yeah I agree sandman, I found alot of that Burton FU stuff, even in Begins. There was a lot of things he done in Begins and TDK, which I felt he was trying to outdo Burton, like he was saying 'This is how I would do it' or 'I can do it better' etc.
I know what you mean, It does feel like watching Heat, although i like Heat much better. That prob one of the reasons i don't like the film as much as the Burton films, Nolan while an exellent Director tried to make the movie into somthing it wasn't while Burton made a Batman movie. And i agree even if the Nolanites wont except it Nolan where not ripped out of the comic and placed on screen.
Quote from: Joker81 on Thu, 22 Jan 2009, 02:55
Yeah I agree sandman, I found alot of that Burton FU stuff, even in Begins. There was a lot of things he done in Begins and TDK, which I felt he was trying to outdo Burton, like he was saying 'This is how I would do it' or 'I can do it better' etc.
Oh My God Thats just how it feels to me word for word.
Quote from: Joker81 on Thu, 22 Jan 2009, 02:55
lol, thats an insult to Heat, a proper crime/drama thriller / adult film.
Did you mean that I insulted it? If it sounds like that, what I was trying to say is that the plot of TDK was sort of out of the Batman universe & not fresh in certain areas. Don't you find it funny that Val Kilmer, a former Batman, starred in one of the original crime/drama films, while Christian Bale, the current Batman, starred in a film that was apparently trying to go for Heat's crime/suspense plot? Is that Nolan's way of giving a small homage to a former Batman actor? :D
Quote from: The Batman Returns on Thu, 22 Jan 2009, 03:11
"lol, thats an insult to Heat, a proper crime/drama thriller / adult film."
Did you mean that I insulted it? If it sounds like that, what I was trying to say is that the plot of TDK was sort of out of the Batman universe & not fresh in certain areas. Don't you find it funny that Val Kilmer, a former Batman, starred in one of the original crime/drama films, while Christian Bale, the current Batman, starred in a film that was apparently trying to go for Heat's crime/suspense plot? Is that Nolan's way of giving a small homage to a former Batman actor? :D
Sorry, I wasnt trying to be cheeky lol I just mean there is no comparision to TDK to a film like Heat.
I dont think thats what Nolan was trying to do with Kilmer and TDK! lol I remember when Batman Begins came out that it was being hailed for being a very 'smart' film with a plot like out of a drug/crime film! I watched it and thought, yeah it has a very gritty feel to it, but its not up there with the likes of Scareface lol!! I thought it was the wrong direction to go.
So I suppose Nolan wanted to carry on the trend of more adult themes. I guess he admires the likes of Heat, and wanted to make a 'crime' movie out of TDK. But again, it is pale in comparison to a movie like Heat! He has admitted Heat was an inspiration. He's walking a fine line. These films are supposed to be for kids, yet at the same time he appears to be trying to please the adult audience, by making it more straight laced. Something that may backfire in future.
To be honest, something that is on my mind is Jaws. I can see a lot of the film Jaws infleuencing some scenes in TDK, and especially that of the Joker. The two note theme tune he has, and the fact Nolan already said "Heaths Joker is like the shark out of Jaws". Even the scene where the Joker interrupts the mob boss meeting. People say it is like the mob meeting in Batman, yes I see similarities, but I see it being heavily influenced by the town meeting in Jaws when Quint interrupts it "I'll catch this bird for ya."
"Its simple, kill the Batman."
And after Batman crashes his bike and is knocked out, the Joker takes his knife out and walks towrd him "Du dum du dum du dum" - is that the Jaws theme tune he is humming????
Quote from: Joker81 on Thu, 22 Jan 2009, 12:31
I dont think thats what Nolan was trying to do with Kilmer and TDK! lol I remember when Batman Begins came out that it was being hailed for being a very 'smart' film...
Very smart!? What were these people thinking when they said that? If this film is supposed to be "very smart", then why in the world are Katie Holmes & Rachel Dawes in it!? Katie Holmes is one of the worst actresses I've ever seen. :P As for Rachel Dawes, she's not even from the comics & really doesn't add anything to Begins. She's just a self righteous b****, lecturing people for her own personal pleasure. >:( I think she should've died at the hands of Scarecrow in Begins. That would've raised TDK's plot to a better level in my opinion! At least she was given more humanity in TDK (not to mention that she's played by a MUCH MORE talented actress). GO MAGGIE! ;D
^ I think my overall distaste for Begins is well noted by now but what kind of criticism is that? Was Carl Grissom in the comics? Did I miss the issue that had Max Shreck in it?
Have to say, I like Maggie Gyllenthal in TDK.
I am a film fan, I can understand the relenvence of that subplot, having a kind of love interest, the heart of the picture so to speak, maybe the emotional side to the film.
But in saying that, if I was to be a real bitch of a batman fan, I could say "Rachels not in the comics!! And Batman didnt have ONE love interest in the comics, he didnt have a Louis lane!" I could be as petty as the Nolanites. But I am not, because I understand how films are made. I am not as ignorant as some Nolan fans who think their Batman films are better than Burtons just because they have a marginal character like Carmine Falcone, and Sal Moroni, and Burtons have Carl Grissom, and Max Schreck.
This is where Nolan fans cannot be honest and say "Ok, Nolan got it right where Falcone and Maroni is concerned, but why is Bruce pondering over a girl - who didnt appear in the comics? Surley Bruce Wayne in the comics knew he did not have time for that type of life because he was too busy concentrating fighting crime?" - And he knows this!
But no, they just concentrate on the negetives of the Burton films. they should look a little closer to home before slating the Burton films.
I know Grissom & Shreck aren't from the comics, but Grissom borrows elements from Rupert Thorne, while Shreck borrows from Mayor Hamilton Hill.
Dawes doesn't borrow anything at all, just like Chase Meridian before her. Of those two women, one is a self righteous robot while the other sounds like a confused 16 yr. old who can't decide to choose between her loving parents or her corrupted boyfriend. They're both absolutely lame. Grissom didn't do much in BATMAN, but he's definitely like Thorne. Shreck is corrupted, like Hamilton Hill was, & he hires people to carry out crimes (Hill had Thorne & some or most of the GCPD, while Shreck had the Penguin & RTCG).
Overall, while they're not from the comics, it's not like they were made into self righteous robots or confused "doctors". In fact, Shreck, IMO, should've definitely been made into a comic book character (he was originally going to be in B:TAS instead of Roland Daggett).
Dont be getting me wrong tho, I like Schrek and Grissom, all this so called realism in Nolans films, and lets be honest - Schreck and Grissom were far more realistic and scary gangster villians than the way Falcone and Maroni were portrayed in the movies.
Oh, and played by two terrific actors, Jack Palance and Christopher Walken!!
Christopher Walken was made to be in a comic book with his look in Returns. The size of that hair was utterly ridiculous but it fit him to a tee.
Quote from: Batmoney on Thu, 22 Jan 2009, 21:06
Christopher Walken was made to be in a comic book with his look in Returns. The size of that hair was utterly ridiculous but it fit him to a tee.
Really that's awesome. LOL i agree the hair was perfect for him, made him look crazy.
Quote from: The Batman Returns on Thu, 22 Jan 2009, 17:40while Shreck borrows from Mayor Hamilton Hill.
Whaa?? Uh, was not Hill invented for BTAS? What kind of influence could an animated show which hadn't even aired yet possibly have been on BR????
QuoteDawes doesn't borrow anything at all, just like Chase Meridian before her. Of those two women, one is a self righteous robot while the other sounds like a confused 16 yr. old who can't decide to choose between her loving parents or her corrupted boyfriend.
...
wtf?
Quote from: thecolorsblend on Sat, 24 Jan 2009, 06:43
Quote from: The Batman Returns on Thu, 22 Jan 2009, 17:40while Shreck borrows from Mayor Hamilton Hill.
Whaa?? Uh, was not Hill invented for BTAS?
Actually no, Hill was in the comics as far back as 1983 from what I've seen.
Cant beat the oul Kim basinger, at least she was straight! lol And not a stalker (Meridian), or psycho (Kyle) or head f##k!(Dawes)
No one, & I MEAN absolutely NO ONE, beats Ms. Kyle (played by the lovely Michelle Pfeiffer)! Anyway, Vicki Vale is MUCH better as a love interest for Bruce when compared to the 16 yr. old Meridian & the robotic Dawes, but just not the Catwoman! ;D
Hellsing920 made a review of TDK (along w/ funny fanboy impressions):
http://www.youtube.com/watch/v/hmeUiUNkA2E
That was a very slick review, I laughed so hard at certain points, this guy just gives it to you straight.
Heath Ledger was great but I couldn't help but LMAO at the Andy Dick comment. ;D
I think things are starting to even out a little bit with respect to TDK. Some people are finally starting to cool off a little and give the film a bit more of an objective review. The basic discourse still skews to gushing over-praise but if you dig a little bit, you'll see a little more criticism. Not in a negative sense but something a little more balanced. "There were a few leaps in logic" or "where the hell did THAT subplot come from/vanish to?" or "Dawes really was a superfluous character in a lot of ways" and such.
Weaknesses aside, I maintain that it's a quality film. A big improvement over BB, no doubts there.
I agree that the views of TDk are evening out and people are starting to see and discuss some of the flaws. Even over at the TDK boards, it's not as hyper as it used to be and I am actually starting to see people looking back at Burton's films (especially the first) and giving it soome well deserved praise. TDK does have a few slipups in my opinion but overall it's still a great film.
I enjoyed both Batman Begins and the Dark Knight for what Nolan was trying to do. He was trying to make Batman "plausible" in a "realistic" setting. On the other hand, I feel the attempt to be realistic sucks some of the fun out of Batman. I loved the visual style of Burton's Batman. The combination of 40's and 80's. I love 40's styles. The double breasted suits, the fedoras, TOMMY GUNS! Whoo! And nothing says classic Batman to me than seeing him beat up a bunch of "Godfather" thugs. Also, many of his villains are crazy variations on the classic mobster. Most of his rogues gallery are guys in suits! So while, like I said, I like the"realistic" approach, my heart belongs to the stylized, german expressionistic, FUN Batman films.
I did like Heath Ledger's Joker a lot! I actually thought with the dark circles and the stringy hair that he looked more like a Tim Burton Joker than Nicholson. As far as Nicholson went, the only complaint I had with his joker was the costume. The double breasted vest with the round edge gave the false impression that he was chubby. If you look at him earlier when he's electrocuting Rotelli, that suit, while more traditional made him look thinner. I do like the fact that Nicholson's physique is a little stockier. It makes him look like more of a physical threat, in fact I wish they actually played up on that and had a more evenly matched battle in the bell tower, but I just don't think that style of vest, in conjuncture with the tail coat, was a smart idea. I did like Ledger's coat and wished that they would have had something like that for Nicholson, shorter than an overcoat, but longer than a blazer. Or they could have put him in a zoot suit like the mask only purple. That would have been Awesome and again ties it into the 40's.
I really went off on a tangent there, sorry.
I loved Ledger's protrayal in the Dark Knight primarily because he reminded me of the Joker's first appearance in the comics, back when He was more scary than funny. Ledger was funny, but it was a lot of nervous laughter on my part. The magic trick was sick and terrble, and I loved it! Same thing with him plodding out of the hospital in the nurse's outfit.
They could have used the acid bath in the film if they really wanted to. There are certain acids that bleach instead of completely burn. He coul have climbed with his clothes all faded, and skin and hair white, gone crazy and painted the rest of the look on, just like in the film. Another option would be to depict him as an ablino who dyed his hair and smeared his make-up on etc. etc. But they didn't and still enjoyed the performance. In my opinion he was true to the character even though the exterior was changed.
As for Harvey Dent, I loved his character development, but felt shorted when it came to Two-Face. You can't relegated Batman's 2nd best villain to having a one evening killing spree and then, supposedly, killng him off. We just saw Batman and Rachel fall a greater distance, and survive, yet according to everyone Two-Face is now dead. To me that is sloppy. I also didn't like the fact that they used CGI on His face. I certainly didn't want the clown make-up that Tomy Lee Jones wore, but you don't have to have the bulgy eye and exposed teeth. Like I said with the Heath's Joker, you can change the exterior if the core of the character is still true. I was hoping for more of a Darkman look for Two-face, with some sort of cracked and damaged lips on the left side and a reddish brown sort of burnon the face. I loved thfact that there was no hair on that side, reminded me of The Long Halloween and Dark Victory.
Anyway, those are the bigger issues, likes and dislikes, of the Dark Knight where character was concerned.
Oh, and long live Keaton's whispery Batman voice!
Sorry to revive an old thread, I just watched it again recently.
I think the most ridiculous and cliched moment is by far the "Big Convict throws the detonator out of the window". I'm not only talking about its plausibility, but it feels so forced and contrived that I almost cringe, like taken away from a different (dumb) movie by Jerry Bruckheimer that features only cliched and propagandistic "inspiring" hero moments. I loved the movie, but this scene makes me cringe. It' obvious what they wanted to "say", but...
I just watched it again too. :)
It's an ok film, no doubt. I can watch this anytime over Batman Forever and B&R. But I personally find that it still lacks the mysterious and fantastical seduction I embraced with 89 and Returns. (more so with 89).
Here's what I don't like about the film and I will be as fair as possible. :)
First, the music. I miss Elfman's original BATMAN score. The music found in BB and TDK is too repetitive. There's no variations in instruments. And it's easy to reproduce on a keyboard. *CHUNG CHUNG chung.... CHUNG CHUNG chung...* etc. It's always tense. And while some people may think that's cool, I think some balance and variation would have been good. I mean, when you have the entire film going *CHUNG CHUNG chung... CHUNG CHUNG chung...* like some horror film, it gets old pretty fast.
Second.. the replacement actress for the character Rachel.
I was left wondering if Katie Holme's face aged 10 years since Batman Begins.
While I appreciate Nolan trying to make a seamless transition with a different actress, I never supported having using a somewhat look a like stand in. Because it gets awkward. And She looked more like Rachel's mother instead.
One minor thing that I felt was unnecessary, was the inclusion of Scarecrow at the beginning in this film. Did anyone find it pointless besides me?
I'm also not as crazy about Bruce Wayne in these series. I know people say he fits the comic mold better, but I kinda miss Michael Keaton's more conflicting and odd mannerisms rather than the conceited rich boy deal to cover up his true identity.
Actually, I think thats why I personally liked Batman Begins more than TDK. Bruce was more conflicted and in some kind of agony in that film that I was captivated by.
But you know whats funny... I would have been able to forgive all the above if they'd given Christian Bale a better mask/cowl!! lol. Seriously.
I truly hate the Begins and TDK costumes. They're so ugly in my eyes. Like a potato head. Or Catman. SO dorky looking. The stuff they used in Batman and Batman Returns are still the best cowls made in my opinion. After that, they got all flashy and retarded like toys (for toys actually hehe).
And if I'm going to be forced to pick suits and masks between BB and TDK, I'd rather they have stuck with BB to be honest. I just cant stand how the mask makes Bale look. He's got a great chissled jaw and the cowl only eliminates that in my humble opinion.
They need to give him longer ears and take away that potato head look. Give him his panther neck back. Screw him being able to turn his neck. The "bat turn" is so much more intimidating in my opinion.
So there you have it. lol.
In honesty, a good film to watch. But I was never infected by the hype.
It's just not iconic enough like 1989.
Oh, as for Heath's Joker... Jack is still the best. Seriously.
I truly believe Batman 1989 is still to this day, the definitive BATMAN!
Quote from: Batnar on Thu, 7 May 2009, 15:33
But I personally find that it still lacks the mysterious and fantastical seduction I embraced with 89 and Returns. (more so with 89).
Exactly. My main reason why I prefer Burton's Batman films.
Quote from: Batnar on Thu, 7 May 2009, 15:33
First, the music. I miss Elfman's original BATMAN score. The music found in BB and TDK is too repetitive. There's no variations in instruments. And it's easy to reproduce on a keyboard. *CHUNG CHUNG chung.... CHUNG CHUNG chung...* etc. It's always tense. And while some people may think that's cool, I think some balance and variation would have been good. I mean, when you have the entire film going *CHUNG CHUNG chung... CHUNG CHUNG chung...* like some horror film, it gets old pretty fast.
I must agree. It sort of reminds me of the music in thriller films like
Heat,
Speed,
Inside Man, etc.
Quote from: Batnar on Thu, 7 May 2009, 15:33
Second.. the replacement actress for the character Rachel.
I was left wondering if Katie Holme's face aged 10 years since Batman Begins.
While I appreciate Nolan trying to make a seamless transition with a different actress, I never supported having using a somewhat look a like stand in. Because it gets awkward. And She looked more like Rachel's mother instead.
Actually, Maggie's casting is one of the reasons why TDK is such a huge improvement over
Begins IMO. She added humanity to the character & really seemed like she was acting, as opposed to Katie Holmes who seemed out of place with her best robot impression.
Quote from: Batnar on Thu, 7 May 2009, 15:33
One minor thing that I felt was unnecessary, was the inclusion of Scarecrow at the beginning in this film. Did anyone find it pointless besides me?
Yes, it was rather pointless, esp. with, "I'm not wearing hockey pads!" But then again, at least we get to see how Scarecrow gets thrown back in Arkham.
Quote from: Batnar on Thu, 7 May 2009, 15:33
I'm also not as crazy about Bruce Wayne in these series. I know people say he fits the comic mold better, but I kinda miss Michael Keaton's more conflicting and odd mannerisms rather than the conceited rich boy deal to cover up his true identity.
I sort of hate Bruce's characterization in
Begins. It bothered me when he held a firearm to Gordon's (even though Batman carried a gun originally, & I'm not crazy about it) & wandered around the world aimlessly. The moment he sees his parents murdered, he should absolutely hate guns, become determined to become the best he could be, & declare his war on crime. To me,
that's Bruce Wayne. And yes, I don't really find him to be really intimidating as Batman. He speaks too much, & with that growly voice. Batman should speak in a voice that's frightening, yet understandable, & should say as little as possible (there are exceptions, though). To me,
that's Batman.
But TDK showed that Bruce Wayne/Batman could possibly fit my characterization of him in the upcoming film(s). :), but there are some things I would like to add in for him. As Bruce Wayne, just give him a subtle demeanor & a brooding manner (and less of a playboyish behavior), & we've struck something. As Batman, just make him a little more frightening, give him a more traditional batsuit, & give him an intimidating yet comprehensible voice, & there we have it. 8)
I agree with Batnar about the TDK suit, the Begins suit I think is pretty good. On both though, I agree that the lower part of the mask needs a little more exposure, not a little hole to talk through like a ski-mask.
I really am not a fan of the TDK suit. It has its moments where it looks pretty badass, but overall it looks simply stupid most of the time in my opinion. The head is so bulbous, I can definitely see the Potato Head reference for the TDK suit.
In the interrogation scene where Batman goes to lock the door with a chair, it looks like he is about to topple over as he goes up to the door because his head is so big.
Quote from: Batmoney on Thu, 7 May 2009, 20:11
In the interrogation scene where Batman goes to lock the door with a chair, it looks like he is about to topple over as he goes up to the door because his head is so big.
LOL :D
Yeah, the batsuit in TDK does look ridiculous, & rather unrealistic for Batman. He needs to wear a suit that strikes fear into the hearts of criminals, not make them think he's Robocop's brother! :P
I can't really agree with many of the criticisms aimed at Nolan's films (although I do think that TDK is vastly superior to the slightly over-rated Batman Begins).
The only thing I really hate about Nolan's films are some of the fans or so-called 'Nolanites' (we know who they are) who use their love of these films as justification for bashing Burton's Batman films. I think both series are great, although I probably favour of Burton's films more for two reasons; one, that I grew up with them and two, that I generally prefer a more imaginative, creative take to genre movies than a solidly 'realitic' approach.
Nevertheless, as I say I really like TDK and Begins. I just wish some of the 'Nolanites' could open their minds a little and show a similar appreciation for Batman and Returns. After all, Nolan himself has given his own thumbs up to Burton's movies.
Well Nolan is not the enemy here. In fact, no one is. But you're absolutely right Johnnygobbs. Some fans have taken this whole Nolan vs Burton thing, a bit too far.
I also agree with a previous post that the hype is dissipating and some of those Tim Burton nay sayers are beginning to realize how truly wonderful the original films were/are.
This isn't a war of who's better than who, but it is also hard not to compare the level of batmania each film produces. Though TDK made a ton of money, I don't see it as iconic as Tim's first Batman where you saw the bat symbol everywhere you went. Including your breakfast cereal!
But then again, I do respect a film for what it is.
I wish they hired Reevz to do the sculpts for the cowls. Reevz can make some pretty mean looking Batman cowls, snarls and everything heh. ;)
Quote from: Batnar on Fri, 8 May 2009, 01:54
I wish they hired Reevz to do the sculpts for the cowls. Reevz can make some pretty mean looking Batman cowls, snarls and everything heh. ;)
Yep, hire him, & we could see a
real Batman suit return to theaters! ;D
I love Lucious Fox and his partnership with Batman, but please please please, no more techno-gadget futuristic military bat-suits with oversized heads and weirdo neck pads in the new film. I'm hoping that seeing as it looks like they are gonna re-create the batmobile, they should make a whole new suit design to go with it. The suit needs to be aesthetically pleasing and practical in an imaginary sense, it doesn't have to be the real thing, or look like the "real thing". Please, you can tell us it's bulletproof, we will believe it. You can tell us you can move your head, WE WILL BELIEVE IT!
Quote from: Batmoney on Fri, 8 May 2009, 06:18
The suit needs to be aesthetically pleasing and practical in an imaginary sense, it doesn't have to be the real thing, or look like the "real thing". Please, you can tell us it's bulletproof, we will believe it. You can tell us you can move your head, WE WILL BELIEVE IT!
bingo
Quote from: Batmoney on Fri, 8 May 2009, 06:18
I love Lucious Fox and his partnership with Batman, but please please please, no more techno-gadget futuristic military bat-suits with oversized heads and weirdo neck pads in the new film. I'm hoping that seeing as it looks like they are gonna re-create the batmobile, they should make a whole new suit design to go with it. The suit needs to be aesthetically pleasing and practical in an imaginary sense, it doesn't have to be the real thing, or look like the "real thing". Please, you can tell us it's bulletproof, we will believe it. You can tell us you can move your head, WE WILL BELIEVE IT!
Yes indeed!
Agree on those points, folks. A piece of dialogue is all it needs to sell the product, not making the thing into Robo Bat just for 'realism'. The Burton batsuits were bulletproof anyway, as showcased in the opening scene of Batman89.
The Burton suits are the best in the franchise, just because he can't turn his head in them doesn't make them inferior at all. They look slick and Keaton moves like an animal in them.
I totally agree with most points about the batsuit. The TDK suit for me is plain ugly, no explanations needed. Just see the jaw. His head looks like the Adam West Batman.
If you remove the ears and the cowl, it would be a fine outfit for a "Running Man" or "Smash TV" type of future sports (Batman's "I don't wear Hokey pads" line is pretty ironic as his own suit looks like a Rugby/American Football outfit).
Quote from: silenig on Sat, 9 May 2009, 15:04
(Batman's "I don't wear Hokey pads" line is pretty ironic as his own suit looks like a Rugby/American Football outfit).
Good point. I really hate that line as is. Batman doesn't need to justify himself to anybody. He should have walked away and driven off in silence.
Quote from: silenig on Sat, 9 May 2009, 15:04
If you remove the ears and the cowl, it would be a fine outfit for a "Running Man" or "Smash TV" type of future sports (Batman's "I don't wear Hokey pads" line is pretty ironic as his own suit looks like a Rugby/American Football outfit).
LOL :D
Let's just hope that the costume designers will make Batman a suit that will actually make him look like a bat. We don't need him to look like he's a part of a S.W.A.T. team, now...
I couldn't tell if he was saying "pads" or "masks" the first couple of times I saw that scene.
Quote from: Batmoney on Sat, 9 May 2009, 17:05
I couldn't tell if he was saying "pads" or "masks" the first couple of times I saw that scene.
I've read people say that they couldn't understand what Bale is saying in this bit:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vhJYt0UL7AQ&feature=related (Keaton makes a cameo, too)
Quote from: Dark Knight Detective on Sat, 9 May 2009, 17:57
Quote from: Batmoney on Sat, 9 May 2009, 17:05
I couldn't tell if he was saying "pads" or "masks" the first couple of times I saw that scene.
I've read people say that they couldn't understand what Bale is saying in this bit:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vhJYt0UL7AQ&feature=related (Keaton makes a cameo, too)
"You're peanut butter jell forever"LOL, hahahahaha.
Let's all remember this video (we all watched it last summer of course, but it's still funny)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w2yv8aT0UFc
"You mind, uh, saying that one more time?"
(Speaks w/ a growl) "WHY DO YOU WANT TO KILL ME?!"
Hilarious! :D ;D
What I dislike about Nolan?s version is that sometimes I am under the impression that I am watching a documentary and not a film ? there is no mystery (which is, in my opinion, essential to Batman). I really can?t see what makes it more realistic, in any way, in comparison to Burton?s interpretation. It is enough to look at the sets. Burton?s Gotham is disorganized, claustrophobic, it is a city that cries for help. It demands cleaning, and it justifies Batman?s existence ? and I don?t have that feeling in Nolan?s version. Most of it looks like an average, relatively clean city, and the characters talk throughout the film about corruption suffocating the city. And that?s not convincing or ?realistic? to me.
It's not a matter of the city looking clean but in my opinion the nature of Gotham itself. I have read dozens of comics from the 40's and 50's through tot he 70's, 80's and nineties and some of the most recent ones, and have always realized Gotham as a character within itself. There is decay and corruption and although parts of the city are clean it is still punctuated by grimness, dirt and filth. In Burton's films we see very nice, beautiful areas of Gotham but at the same time decay is right around the corner. Gotham to me is never a fully "normal" city with just Batman and his villains running around, there is individualism in the city itself and true character.
The real world is full of buildings that "satisfy" this image we usually have about Gotham - historicist, eclecticist, gothic revival, classicist etc. architecture. Real buildings that have been used and are still used in the real world as libraries, offices, universities etc. Maybe a disappointment I have is that the films didn't have enough such locations - only Arkham Asylum came close. Too many glass buildings ;D
Of course corruption has nothing to do with how a city looks, sometimes you can say that the shinier and taller the skyscrapers are, the deeper the ordeal of the common folk is (see: China, Dubai and other places) - it's just that the image of a Furst-like city is more visually satisfying, or striking.
I insist however that we should separate the two "Burton" cities. Furst's is much more of an "Urban Dystopia" than Welch's - with a few exceptions (like the oppressive Plaza with the enormous statues that pull the levers, an image that stayed with me after I watched the film as a young boy), Welch's Gotham was more like a Gothic Dreamland and maybe too fantastic. I would never believe that there was a mob running the Returns Gotham - only a vampire-like industrialist like Max Shreck and a circus from Hell. Furst's Gotham was owned by the mob.
Anyway, these are some random thoughts. I just hoped that the way BB and TDK were shot had some more iconic images, using buildings of the real world, but it's obvious they wanted to visually separate them as much as they could from the "fantastic" Batman films.
I actually enjoy
The Dark Knight quite a bit - it's probably my second-favourite Batman movie. The fact that it is surprises me, because Nolan's overall take on the character is so far off from my own. I don't agree with trying to bring Batman into "our world," I've been consistently disappointed with Nolan's visual style, and I prefer a more visual approach to storytelling in film as opposed to the dialogue-heavy scripts Nolan has relied on. But
The Dark Knight's story is very interesting and well told and the film has a great pace for its 2 1/2 hour running time. I think the two things that edge it over
Batman for me are a more consistent tone and the fact that, while I consider Jack and Heath's two Jokers equally valid and spectacular, I've come to slightly prefer Heath's characterisation.
So far as criticisms go - I think (and no offence intended here) - that the tendency has almost become to fault
The Dark Knight for being a different approach than Burton's rather than go after what's actually wrong in the film itself. I've done that to some extent, but at the end of the day, that's a matter of taste. I may not like the Batman suit or the fact that Gotham is Chicago, but that's not necessarily a mistake or flaw in the film. Gotham being Chicago is a little more substantial a criticism IMO because I do think that the more you recognise this supposedly fictional city as a major metropolitan area, the more you risk taking the audience out of the story, but overall, complaints about visuals and tone, while valid, aren't really faults.
Certain things within the movie that I have a problem with and don't consider a matter of taste are:
1. Rachel Dawes. This is a character who I think was a mistake from the get-go. To begin with, I've never understood why the childhood friend of Bruce's who grows up to become Batman's ally in the DA's office in Begins couldn't have just been Harvey. I accept that Warner Bros. requires a love interest in these films, but there was no need to have that love interest take a spot in the story that would have been perfect for Harvey. There's not even a reason for the love interest to be a major character at all - Julie Madison was enough for them in
Batman & Robin (and that will be the ONLY time I use that film as an example of a good idea for future Bat-films). But beyond that basic complaint about where the character is put, Rachel's just an unattractive character to me. I find her to be whiney, overconfident, and condescending to anyone she doesn't think is in public service. Some of this came from Katie Holmes's performance in
Begins, and I will say that Maggie is far less obnoxious. But I do think a lot of that attitude is in the character in the script, not in the performances. I also never bought her romatic relationship with Bruce Wayne. In
Begins, we see them as childhood friends. Then we see them during the Chill trial, which is supposedly the time that they're supposed to be together. The problem is that we never get any indication of that until the end of the movie. They don't hug or kiss, they don't acknowledge their relationship, they don't get along in the scene...the only clue anyone would have that these two are dating is Carmine Falcone calling Rachel Bruce's "lady friend," which I do not usually interpret as being the same thing as "girlfriend." The next time Rachel and Bruce are connected is when she's told that Bruce is back in Gotham, to which Holmes's Rachel gives no reaction. When they meet, she tells him off because he's (as far as she knows) a wild playboy having fun, not a public servant. There's no way to argue that a wild playboy is morally superior to a public servant, but that doesn't mean a public servant can act like a snotty brat. This is even more annoying to me when, once Rachel finds out who Batman is (in one of the worst "reveal" scenes in any of the films IMO), she rejects him for being completely obsessed and committed to fighting crime in Gotham. Why? And how does she instantly know after *just* finding out about Bruce's secret identity that "this is [his] mask. [His] real face is the one the criminals now fear." How the hell would she know that? (More on this later)
I realise all of that has to do with
Begins, not
The Dark Knight. But the character's very weak introduction in
Begins made it impossible for me to care about her in
The Dark Knight or to have a reaction to her dying. The "love triangle" sub-plot doesn't hold up to me because I never bought that Bruce and Rachel were in love to begin with, and it doesn't help that neither Katie nor Maggie have any chemistry with Bale whatsoever. I do buy her relationship with Harvey Dent, where I think Maggie had great chemistry with Aaron, and I will repeat that I thought Maggie made the character overall less obnoxious. But the flaws from the first film are largely still there in my eyes, a key example being that she tells Bruce in her letter "I'm certain the day will never come when you no longer need Batman." Again, how the hell does she know this? It was just a poorly designed character from the get-go, and I'm quite happy to see her gone and hope that she's not referred to in any way in the third film.
2. Bale's Batman is not my preferred take on the character, but I don't fault him for that. I may not choose his Batman over Keaton's or the one from TAS, but I do think he does a good job and I don't think the take on the character in these films is bad. His Bruce/Batman comes off to me as a man who, having lost his parents, went out into the world angry and vengeful but, through training and experience, channeled that rage and thirst for vengeance into an earnest zeal to win justice for Gotham City, and in order to achieve that in a dramatic fashion that would inspire others, created the persona of Batman in order to wake up Gotham and give rise to such heroes as Harvey, and maybe one day retire. There's absolutely nothing wrong with playing the character this way, and I think the way Bale and Nolan have played it has made it more acceptable and enjoyable for me than perhaps another team would. The problem, though, is that
this version of the character isn't the version that Bale and Nolan have said they want to portray.
Here are some quotes from Bale and Nolan themselves:
QuoteBatman is a marvelously complex character-somebody who has absolute charm and then, just like that, can turn it into ice-cold ruthlessness.
QuoteYou couldn't pull it off unless you became a beast inside that suit.
QuoteHe's a messed-up individual, as well. He's got all sorts of issues. He's just as twisted and messed-up as the villains he's fighting, and that's part of the beauty of the whole story.
These are all comments by the two key people behind this new take on Bruce/Batman. If that is honestly what they're going for - and to be honest, their quotes don't sound that different from the Burton/Keaton approach, especially that last one - if that was their goal, then I think they've missed the mark wildly, because as I've already said, that's not what I get out of the character in these films. Bale's Bruce doesn't seem a messed-up, rage-filled man as twisted as his enemies and in desperate need for a costume to channel his rage by the time he gets back to Gotham; he seems like a strong, stable, committed individual with a plan for helping the city that involved using a strong persona. And I've already mentioned how annoying I thought it was that Rachel was accusing Bruce of being consumned by Batman when she really didn't know much about his alter-ego, but beyond how much I dislike her saying that, I just don't buy the lines about Bruce being consumned by Batman. I don't buy Alfred's comment about Bruce "getting lost inside this monster of [his]" in
Begins. I just don't believe that this Bruce is completely lost and obsessed. There's far too much material in
The Dark Knight focused on Bruce hoping that he can lead a normal life and put away the cowl for me to believe that. Even when Batman does such extreme things as spying on Gotham City, they make sure to point out that he gave the power to control that spying to Lucius Fox, and they make sure to destroy the spying equipment at the end of the movie. Again, I'm not knocking Bale and Nolan for presenting a Batman that
isn't obsessed and lost in his persona, because there's nothing inherently wrong with that; I'm knocking them because, if I take them at their word (and there's no reason not to), they didn't succeed with their goals.
That, and I just don't like the Batman voice. It isn't inaudible to me, and I don't find it that annoying; it's just a bit too much, and he tries a bit too hard with it.
3. The action scenes in
The Dark Knight are far and away an improvement over those in
Begins, but they're still not that great and still aren't the easiest to follow. I really hope that Nolan will go and hire a solid second unit director to handle the action scenes with the next film, because he's not doing well with what he has right now.
I have to agree with almost everything you said zDBZ. Personally, I have little problem with the realistic approach using "our world", nor do I have a problem with the take on the characters that the film-makers want to take.
My problem is with the execution of that take.
zDBZ's take has to be one of the most spot-on criticisms I have read about TDK.
you know... I think I would have liked the movie better if they would have given Bale a better looking bat suit. I dislike the BB and TDK suits/cowls sooo much. It's not even funny. If Bale ran around in something that looked a bit more 89 or return'ish (cowls), I think I would have opened up more to this film. But his funky suit just spoils it for me. Everything else was acceptable. Even the tumbler..
Quote from: Batnar on Sun, 24 May 2009, 13:18
you know... I think I would have liked the movie better if they would have given Bale a better looking bat suit. I dislike the BB and TDK suits/cowls sooo much. It's not even funny. If Bale ran around in something that looked a bit more 89 or return'ish (cowls), I think I would have opened up more to this film. But his funky suit just spoils it for me. Everything else was acceptable. Even the tumbler..
Just because you have 2 great cowls... ;)
Quote from: Batnar on Sun, 24 May 2009, 13:18
you know... I think I would have liked the movie better if they would have given Bale a better looking bat suit. I dislike the BB and TDK suits/cowls sooo much. It's not even funny. If Bale ran around in something that looked a bit more 89 or return'ish (cowls), I think I would have opened up more to this film. But his funky suit just spoils it for me. Everything else was acceptable. Even the tumbler..
Strangely enough, the evolution of the suit from
Begins to
The Dark Knight I think parallels the evolution of the suit from
Batman to
Returns, in that the suit became less bulky and the design became more mechanical. I actually like the Dark Knight suit; it's a much better fit for Bale and the cowl looks far less egg-like from certain angles than the Begins cowl. What bugs me the most is the cape being thrown over his shoulders like Superman's. You can't even tell he has a cape in some shots.
Near the top of my list for things to wish for once Nolan leaves the series is a suit that finally combines the aesthetic strength of the Burton-era suits with the flexibility they've managed to achieve in Nolan's era.
They need to give him a better cowl, in my view. It would be crazy to see a cowl more like the Long Halloween/Haunted Night/Dark Victory comics portray. Apparently they were influential on the film, and the lower part of the mask seems to be a lot like the version in those comics. Give him some super long ears like the ones from those comics, the current ones look a little to mousy to me. In my view, they just need to get rid of that bulbous potato head cowl in TDK.
Also, I can't be certain, but did anyone else notice that Bale's voice got ridiculous once he got the new suit? In Batman Begins and for a bit of the beginning of TDK, his voice wasn't...so...guttural. I think Bale should stick to the voice he used for Batman Begins, and absolutely scrap the one he used for TDK.
Quote from: Batmoney on Sun, 24 May 2009, 19:08
Also, I can't be certain, but did anyone else notice that Bale's voice got ridiculous once he got the new suit? In Batman Begins and for a bit of the beginning of TDK, his voice wasn't...so...guttural. I think Bale should stick to the voice he used for Batman Begins, and absolutely scrap the one he used for TDK.
Well, Bale's voice was digitally altered in TDK to make it sound raspier.
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Mon, 25 May 2009, 03:57
Quote from: Batmoney on Sun, 24 May 2009, 19:08
Also, I can't be certain, but did anyone else notice that Bale's voice got ridiculous once he got the new suit? In Batman Begins and for a bit of the beginning of TDK, his voice wasn't...so...guttural. I think Bale should stick to the voice he used for Batman Begins, and absolutely scrap the one he used for TDK.
Well, Bale's voice was digitally altered in TDK to make it sound raspier.
Really?
Yes. You didn't know? I thought it was common knowledge among Batman fans.
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Mon, 25 May 2009, 04:04
Yes. You didn't know? I thought it was common knowledge among Batman fans.
Damn, I feel embarrassed. :-[ But I did have thoughts on whether or not it was real or invalid.
I wonder what the people behind this were smoking/drinking? :D
Yeah, the cowl in TDK looked at times ridiculous, especially with the lighting during the beat'em'up (aka interrogation room) scene. He really looked like a Catman with this cowl.
Quote from: silenig on Mon, 25 May 2009, 13:37
Yeah, the cowl in TDK looked at times ridiculous, especially with the lighting during the beat'em'up (aka interrogation room) scene. He really looked like a Catman with this cowl.
(https://www.batman-online.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fs135.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fq137%2Fcomicsonthebrain%2Fcotbart%2Fcat-man.jpg&hash=957c1e52a148d5a260077f20db64008cc9ca48bf)
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Mon, 25 May 2009, 04:04
Yes. You didn't know? I thought it was common knowledge among Batman fans.
I'd never heard about this before now either.
But I wonder why Bale hasn't said anything about the editing of his voice?
Hmmm .....
Why so ... hoarse?
I had heard rumors, but I didn't know it was true. Production is ruining Bale's Batvoice, what the hell is wrong with them?
Quote from: Dark Knight Detective on Mon, 25 May 2009, 13:42
Quote from: silenig on Mon, 25 May 2009, 13:37
Yeah, the cowl in TDK looked at times ridiculous, especially with the lighting during the beat'em'up (aka interrogation room) scene. He really looked like a Catman with this cowl.
(https://www.batman-online.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fs135.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fq137%2Fcomicsonthebrain%2Fcotbart%2Fcat-man.jpg&hash=957c1e52a148d5a260077f20db64008cc9ca48bf)
LOL, I didn't even know that such a thing existed.
Why so hoarse? At the end of the day, I think we can take this voice as some cheese value in an otherwise dark film. ALL good comic book films have cheese value, no matter how serious they try to take themselves (be it Burton's Batman, Iron-Man, Singer's X-Men, Raimi's Spider-Man or whatever), so one can be fine with that. :)
Quote from: silenig on Tue, 26 May 2009, 11:59
Why so hoarse? At the end of the day, I think we can take this voice as some cheese value in an otherwise dark film. ALL good comic book films have cheese value, no matter how serious they try to take themselves (be it Burton's Batman, Iron-Man, Singer's X-Men, Raimi's Spider-Man or whatever), so one can be fine with that. :)
Presumably, it's clearly unintentional ... but that just makes the easily mocked Bale hoarse voice even more hilarious!
I still dont believe they dubbed Bales voice.
Quote from: damiean dark on Mon, 1 Jun 2009, 09:59
I still dont believe they dubbed Bales voice.
What the hell are you on about?
Bale's voice was not dubbed.
The Bale Batman voice IS Bale, just digitally altered a tad to sound raspier.
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Mon, 1 Jun 2009, 12:44
Quote from: damiean dark on Mon, 1 Jun 2009, 09:59
I still dont believe they dubbed Bales voice.
What the hell are you on about?
Bale's voice was not dubbed.
The Bale Batman voice IS Bale, just digitally altered a tad to sound raspier.
I think it's a crashing course by altering his voice. Hopefully in the sequel they'll just leave it alone (& maybe he'll try to make his voice sound less forced).
I think people exaggerate Bale's Batman voice. I don't find it as bad as people say, I commend Bale for making an obvious distinction between the two roles - Bruce and Batman. When he puts on the suit, his personality changes. He has to disguise his voice after all.
I think that Bale's Batman voice was a little over the top in BB, & was made worse in TDK. I can't imagine Batman having those voices. But hey, that's me.
Bales Batman voice was terrible imo it was like a singer singing out of tune, no consistency so sounded completely fake.
The argument that he is changing his voice to hide his identity is stupid too "its like it would be in real life" they cry so jumping off buildings, taking down multiple foes and feats of strength that are physically impossible is real for you? give me a break.
would the whole premise of him as batman be completely ruined for the viewer if he spoke normally? no and we all know it.
This is my problem with Nolans batman theres no mystery to him far to much is told to the viewer in speech and actions so batman isnt some elemental voice who appears and dissapears but a really angry guy in a suit.
No it's not stupid.
And the reasons you cite are absolutely weak, which have nothing to do with his voice at all.
It makes perfect sense for Bruce Wayne to hide his voice. We don't want him to get around like Clooney, who didn't change his Batman voice at all - who just used his Bruce voice.
Apart from knowing who the guy is, I wouldn't be intimidated by him at all. The premise can be ruined and has been in the past.
When he's in the suit, he transforms into this animalistic alter-ego.
Get real, mate.
But why bother to hide his voice in the movie would the movie lose all credibility to you if he had a normal voice or at least one that wasnt so inconsistent?
No offence to you but Your trying to rationalise as if it was real rather then the fantasy of a movie where it doesnt matter and wouldnt influence the storyline one iota and has created the major flaw people see with Bales batman.
And the if an animalistic alter ego is your perfect batman thats fine but i personally prefer the cold logic, intelligence, and obsession of the comic,BTAS,Burton where you saw a batman who i feel was far more intelligent and focused in his obsession to protect gotham in comparison to TDK where he really seemed an angry bruce wayne running about gotham while Joker dictated everything it seems Bales bats only answer to the chaos was to try to intimidate and scream his way to a resolution.
Sorry but bale as batman was one of the weak points of the film imo.
Batman should have a different voice. Period.
Keaton understood that, and Bale's doing his own version of that without copying. In a realistic setting, it's even more important to understand that.
He can not use his normal Bruce Wayne voice while in the suit. People would know who he is, that's why he hides his voice. Apart from the fact that Batman and Bruce Wayne essentially are two different characters. It's very simple to understand, yet you fail to grasp that. I can't say it any other way.
If Bale did not alter his voice in any way in the suit, spoke just like Bruce Wayne, it would be disgraceful.
And I find reading your posts difficult. Improve your grammar - use full stops, they are your friend.
It's just that this "extrapolated" voice is almost as over the top as Doug Bradley's (processed) "voice" in Hellraiser. It is an, at times, cheesy element of the film (one could say the same about many things in other comic book movies). But it's alright, I like it.
You are spot on when you say that the voice has to be different, the problem is the way in which it was done.
Well, you've at least got to admit it's better than Clooney's laziness of not changing his voice at all.
Well, George Clooney was simply playing George Clooney with a Batsuit in THAT... *ahem* "film". ;D
Quote from: silenig on Tue, 2 Jun 2009, 15:41
You are spot on when you say that the voice has to be different, the problem is the way in which it was done.
Definitely.
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Tue, 2 Jun 2009, 15:44
Well, you've at least got to admit it's better than Clooney's laziness of not changing his voice at all.
Quote from: silenig on Tue, 2 Jun 2009, 15:48
Well, George Clooney was simply playing George Clooney with a Batsuit in THAT... *ahem* "film". ;D
Guess we should blame Joel for not saying anything about it...
Quote from: silenig on Tue, 2 Jun 2009, 15:48
Well, George Clooney was simply playing George Clooney with a Batsuit in THAT... *ahem* "film". ;D
Basically.
Quote from: Dark Knight Detective on Tue, 2 Jun 2009, 16:20
Guess we should blame Joel for not saying anything about it...
Schumacher's direction just got really horrid during B&R.
John Glover quoting Joel in the B&R SE by saying that before every take, Joel would announce, "Now remember, folks. It's a cartoon!" tells me all that I really need to know. ::)
Quote from: The Joker on Thu, 4 Jun 2009, 02:36
before every take, Joel would announce, "Now remember, folks. It's a cartoon!"
Ugh. Disgusting.
Dont even tell me you guys are whining about Bales amazing Batman voice, if you want to blame someone blame WB for digitally modifying his voice in post production.
Quote from: DarkVengeance on Fri, 5 Jun 2009, 15:16
Dont even tell me you guys are whining about Bales amazing Batman voice, if you want to blame someone blame WB for digitally modifying his voice in post production.
Slow down there, cowboy!
Thanks to The Dark Knight (the user), now I know for sure that Bale's voice was modified, so I can't fully blame him. But still, I'm not much of a fan of his unaltered Bat voice, as it comes off as too monstrous.
I like how "monstrous" he sounds, it adds to the creature of the night thing for me, the same as I love Keatons mysterious whispery voice, theyre both amazing.
Its fine if you liked bales voice, everyone has there idea of Batman, but i personally see a more smoother and coldly logical voice when i think of him. Conroy was low but smooth, Keatons was perfect it was a whisper at times but seemed completely natural as an alter ego like Conroy a complete set of sentences where completely naturally delivered and vitally had an authoritive tone. Though this is one seperate medium of batman (the movies) i can imagine keatons or conroys voice ordering around the superpowered beings of Superman and wonderwoman when i read a JLA comic i just dont get that with Bales voice or interpretation of the character.
Even Kilmer (very underated batman/wayne imo) had a good voice even though it actually sounded very much like the wayne voice it was just slightly tilted so you can understand someone not being sure when they met him.
Bales was far to gutteral and constantly angry it just didnt seem natural the argument will be he changed his voice to avoid detection but in the batman i always invisioned it is always a mystery who is the real person batman or wayne the ease of voice between the two should make it even harder to distinuish.
dark I can understand your point, I personally liked what Bale did with his Batman voice much more in BB, because you can tell it wasnt digitally altered and at times was very dark and mysterious similar to Keatons, but in TDK WB screwed it all up and changed it completly, I guess the stuido wanted him to be growling all the time.
By the way I like Conroys Batman voice alot too but at the same time it sounds so similar to his Wayne voice alot of the time, its not really that much of a difference.
Come on Guys, I havent met a person yet that wasnt irritated by Bales voice, motified or not.
Its undefendable! Sometimes you cant even make out what hes saying!!
Quote from: Joker81 on Fri, 5 Jun 2009, 18:58
Come on Guys, I havent met a person yet that wasnt irritated by Bales voice, motified or not.
Its undefendable! Sometimes you cant even make out what hes saying!!
I can make out exactly what he's saying 100% of the time.
I'm with Joker81 on the clarity issue - but then there are nouns used in America that aren't used here ;)
But yeah...did the voice irritate me...yeah.
Quote from: DarkVengeance on Fri, 5 Jun 2009, 19:14
I can make out exactly what he's saying 100% of the time.
So can I.
Would you be scared of an angry bulldog?
I sure would. It's the point, to scare and intimidate evil doers.
I could repeat myself about hiding his voice, how he changes personalities etc...but I won't. This conversation will just go around in circles. No one is going to change their opinion.
Personally, the only time I ever got a little irritated with Bale's voice was during the showdown with Two-Face scene in TDK. For some reason the raspy, growling voice didn't work in that scene, for me. But, to consider the alternative, he shouldn't go back into Bruce Wayne's normal voice in that scenes. Hard finding a happy medium between the two, I suppose.
Quote from: Matuatay on Sat, 6 Jun 2009, 03:04
Personally, the only time I ever got a little irritated with Bale's voice was during the showdown with Two-Face scene in TDK. For some reason the raspy, growling voice didn't work in that scene, for me.
I think it works and makes sense.
Considering the stress he is under in the final scene, after receiving a thrashing from The Joker, being attacked by dogs and being shot by Two-Face....
Not to mention the emotional strain he is under.
To The Dark Knight: Sorry if my post wasn't there. I deleted it by accident. Now let's move on.
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Sat, 6 Jun 2009, 02:59
Would you be scared of an angry bulldog?
Let's just say that you & I have different views of certain things...
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Sat, 6 Jun 2009, 02:59
I could repeat myself about hiding his voice, how he changes personalities etc...but I won't. This conversation will just go around in circles. No one is going to change their opinion.
Listen, I know that the Batman must have an intimidating voice to strike fear into the cowardly & superstitious criminals that he encounters, believe me, but to have him speak like an angry bulldog just doesn't do it for me (I'm referring to his TDK voice). To me, I think Keaton & Conroy did it best, as they were able to sound intimidating, yet keep their mystique at the same time. And while the
Begins isn't really my cup of tea, I'd just much rather have had that voice than TDK's altered voice, because at least it was pure Bale & didn't sound too exaggerated.
If you like it, cool. But hey, the above mentioned is just my opinion.
This is no way a criticism, just an observation.
I was thinking the other day....
When Joker is dangling upside down and talking to Batman, wouldn't all the blood rush to his head?
He could very well die or feel extremely light headed.
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Mon, 8 Jun 2009, 15:25
This is no way a criticism, just an observation.
I was thinking the other day....
When Joker is dangling upside down and talking to Batman, wouldn't all the blood rush to his head?
He could very well die or feel extremely light headed.
Thought the same thing after seeing Bruce hanging upside down after bedding Vicki Vale.
Quote from: The Joker on Mon, 8 Jun 2009, 15:46
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Mon, 8 Jun 2009, 15:25
This is no way a criticism, just an observation.
I was thinking the other day....
When Joker is dangling upside down and talking to Batman, wouldn't all the blood rush to his head?
He could very well die or feel extremely light headed.
Thought the same thing after seeing Bruce hanging upside down after bedding Vicki Vale.
Indeed.
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Mon, 8 Jun 2009, 16:09
Quote from: The Joker on Mon, 8 Jun 2009, 15:46
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Mon, 8 Jun 2009, 15:25
This is no way a criticism, just an observation.
I was thinking the other day....
When Joker is dangling upside down and talking to Batman, wouldn't all the blood rush to his head?
He could very well die or feel extremely light headed.
Thought the same thing after seeing Bruce hanging upside down after bedding Vicki Vale.
Indeed.
It wouldn't phase Bruce because he's the Batman! ;D
You can actually hang upside down for quite a while before dying. lol
I wonder how long the Joker hung up there before the GCPD came....
Quote from: Dark Knight Detective on Mon, 8 Jun 2009, 19:37
I wonder how long the Joker hung up there before the GCPD came....
I'm sure the police came in straight after Batman left.
LOL did you guys watch the film? jk pretty much the whole Gotham Swat Team was in that building already, Im sure they came as soon as Batman walked away!
Quote from: DarkVengeance on Thu, 11 Jun 2009, 18:01
LOL did you guys watch the film? jk pretty much the whole Gotham Swat Team was in that building already, Im sure they came as soon as Batman walked away!
Weren't a lot of them knocked out by Batman, Dark Vengeance?
Quote from: Dark Knight Detective on Mon, 8 Jun 2009, 19:37
I wonder how long the Joker hung up there before the GCPD came....
Well, right after Batman leaves The Joker, we see the SWAT coming for the Joker. They were too fast! :o
Quote from: DarkVengeance on Thu, 11 Jun 2009, 18:01
LOL did you guys watch the film? jk pretty much the whole Gotham Swat Team was in that building already, Im sure they came as soon as Batman walked away!
Quote from: GuedesGothamKnight on Thu, 11 Jun 2009, 18:50
Well, right after Batman leaves The Joker, we see the SWAT coming for the Joker. They were too fast! :o
Just re-watched the scene again to make sure. I sort of forgot before, as I hadn't seen the film for a while.
Quote from: johnnygobbs on Thu, 11 Jun 2009, 18:12
Quote from: DarkVengeance on Thu, 11 Jun 2009, 18:01
LOL did you guys watch the film? jk pretty much the whole Gotham Swat Team was in that building already, Im sure they came as soon as Batman walked away!
Weren't a lot of them knocked out by Batman, Dark Vengeance?
Thats only really speculation, you never see any of them directly knocked out it just seems he put them out of commission for the moment, Im sure a few got knocked out but not the whole team.
I'm not one to complain, I mean I liked the film, but wat really makes me see it as a 4th Best is the fact that we didn't get a BIG blow-off battle between Batman/Joker, I think if it was given this, and a tad more violence, than it would have been much better
Quote from: Seantastic on Thu, 30 Jul 2009, 08:28
I'm not one to complain, I mean I liked the film, but wat really makes me see it as a 4th Best is the fact that we didn't get a BIG blow-off battle between Batman/Joker, I think if it was given this, and a tad more violence, than it would have been much better
Batman never really fought Joker in B89. Sure, he punched him a few times and threw him against a bell...but that's it. Nothing that I would call a BIG blow off battle.
In TDK, Batman punched Joker onto the floor in the penthouse - plus Joker got in a cheap knife kick. Batman gave Joker a beating in the interrogation room and they also fought in the finale. Both Jokers faced down approaching Bat vehicles as well, so I'll call that a confrontation. They aren't big battles either, but Bale and Ledger did interact in combat more. They also fought a mental war of ideologies. Not that it matters, though.
I really enjoyed TDK's showdown with the Joker, in Batman however it didn't have to be the biggest blow-out put on film.It was meant for so much more:
Psychological - Batman beaten and tired and Joker having the upper hand
Mental/Emotional - Batman facing the man who murdered his parents.
Physical - The Joker taking a whooping.
And I have said this before but I love how they fought on what was probably the highest point in Gotham (Cathedral) it's almost metaphoric where these two forces of nature are battling for the soul of Gotham below them.
Pure Epic.
In B89, Joker walked up the cathedral for no apparent reason, basically just to board the helicopter. It was all just an after-thought on his part after the balloons were stolen.
In TDK, Joker's already at the top of the building to view the 'fireworks', knowing that Batman will somehow find his location and fight it out. Their fight is also a diversion to what he has set up with Dent. Batman 'burnt the forest down' - like Alfred said in his speech, to find Joker. There is also that political debate of abuse of technology/spying going on.
Both different, but I prefer how TDK handles things. It's more elaborate.