The Dark Knight Criticism

[thecolorsblend]

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

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.

I love the Nolan films

I love pissing on them when I think they deserve it.

[Azrael]

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.

[thecolorsblend]

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.

[Paul (ral)]

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.

[Gotham Knight]

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.

[Azrael]

I was only partly joking about the French.

I know

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.

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.

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.

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".

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.

[Sandman]

He's making more or less generic action films starring Batman

Yes i found it alot more James Bond then Batman.

[The Dark Knight]

/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.

[greggbray]

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).

[The Dark Knight]

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.