"The Dark Knight" - Sort of less impressed!

[Neil]

I watched the second Batman film over the weekend, and while it's very good, I sort of felt less impressed with it than I recalled... It just sort of felt a little clunky and contrived.

Anyway, still a great flick...

[bassman]

The flick has pacing issues and could use a bit of trimming, but other than that I still love it.

Sure, some of it seems a bit silly. Particular sections of Joker's Chaos plan makes no sense, but c'mon....its friggin batman, man!:cool:

I love to occasionally watch both films back to back. Can't wait to add The Dark Knight Rises to that marathon. Could turn out to be one of the best trilogies ever.

[LouCipherr]

Hmmmm, y'know, I could comment on this and point back to my theory about Ledger & the popularity of the film when it came out, but...

Oh snap, I just did, didn't I? :elol:

[AcesandEights]

Hmmmm, y'know, I could comment on this and point back to my theory about Ledger & the popularity of the film when it came out, but...

You'd be wrong? :D

Ledger's portrayal of the Joker is the best thing about that film. It's a good film with some great acting, though I do agree with Bassman that the pacing is off and it could use some trimming.

[LouCipherr]

You'd be wrong? :D

Perhaps some might think that.. :lol: :p

I'm not saying his portrayal of Joker wasn't the best thing about the The Dark Knight - I've never disagreed with that point. ;)

[bassman]

Yeah....Ledger's death brought that film to a billion bucks. The same thing happened with the Twilight Zone movie after Vic Morrow was killed ON SET.

Wait...no it didn't. That's funny. Why wasn't that film super successful? :p

[DjfunkmasterG]

Yeah....Ledger's death brought that film to a billion bucks. The same thing happened with the Twilight Zone movie after Vic Morrow was killed ON SET.

Wait...no it didn't. That's funny. Why wasn't that film super successful? :p

Cuz it sucked, other than the segment with John Lithgow

[bassman]

Cuz it sucked, other than the segment with John Lithgow

I actually like that flick. But yeah...the remake of Terror at 20,000 Feet was superb.

[DjfunkmasterG]

I actually like that flick. But yeah...the remake of Terror at 20,000 Feet was superb.

Of course it was, it starred John Lithgow :D

[bassman]

Of course it was, it starred John Lithgow :D

I like Lithgow and all...but if you haven't seen the original episode with William Shatner, you should check it out(available on youtube). The shat-man's performance in that flick is classic. And the goblin looks hilarious, even for the sixties.

I can't recall if the first segment with Morrow is from an episode, but the other three were alright for remakes. 20,000 Feet being the best, Kick the Can second, and It's a Good Life being the least. Good Life wasn't so bad, but the boy just wasn't as creepy as the original.

[wayzim]

It mostly sucked because the wrap to Morrows segment was apparently not as it was meant to be. Was his bigot supposed to be redeemed? Saving those Vietnamese kids? Anyone?
While some hated the heavy handed 'Kick The Can. ' remake, it wasn't any worse than the usual Spielberg fare. Personally, I hated the way they pulled the teeth on 'It's A Good Life. ' which terrified me when I read the Jerome Bixby story as a kid. Kathleen Quinlan was nice in that striped top, but sweet didn't quite work for the premise.
As for Dan Ackroyd and Albert Brooks? I often use 'Do You Wanna To Something Really Scary? ' for people trying to BS me.

Wayne Z
"Is that ... ? I Love Creedence. "

[Legion2213]

I'd never even heard of Ledger before DK, I read all the fawning after he died about how he stole the show etc and just thought "yeah, sure...you lot aren't just saying that cuz he is dead are you..." :rolleyes:

Then I actually watched the movie...and I needed a big serving of "humble crow pie" after it, because he was epic, there's that hollywood soundbite about "chewing up the scenery" or suchlike...I truly understood the meaning of it after watching him in that flick...I got nervous every time he was on screen, he was more unstable than something that is really unstable. Chaos was his co-pilot in every scene! :cool:

So, yeah, most hollywood BS is just that, pure BS with a thick layer of hype on top...Ledger on the other hand was amazing and proved an exception to the rule for me.

[LouCipherr]

Yeah....Ledger's death brought that film to a billion bucks. The same thing happened with the Twilight Zone movie after Vic Morrow was killed ON SET.

Wait...no it didn't. That's funny. Why wasn't that film super successful? :p

One word: MARKETING :p


Cuz it sucked, other than the segment with John Lithgow

True dat. :D

[EvilNed]

I think it's pretty naive to think that Heath Ledger's death didn't have a huge marketing impact on TDK. First off, he was already singled out (before he died!) about how unfit he was for the role and how it wouldn't work. Then once he died everyone started saying how this was his best role, and how sad it was his career was cut short etc. etc, you all remember.

We live in a vastly more media and information centered society now than we did in 1984. Everyone's online now. TDK was also a major blockbuster aiming for the high concept. The Twilight Zone was not.

Without Heath Ledger's death there's no way this film would've made as much money as it did. If I'm not mistaken it's the third highest grossing film ever? Come on, use your head. :p

And the film is way too long by the way, and not all that exciting all the time.

[Neil]

I think it's pretty naive to think that Heath Ledger's death didn't have a huge marketing impact on TDK. First off, he was already singled out (before he died!) about how unfit he was for the role and how it wouldn't work. Then once he died everyone started saying how this was his best role, and how sad it was his career was cut short etc. etc, you all remember.

We live in a vastly more media and information centered society now than we did in 1984. Everyone's online now. TDK was also a major blockbuster aiming for the high concept. The Twilight Zone was not.

Without Heath Ledger's death there's no way this film would've made as much money as it did. If I'm not mistaken it's the third highest grossing film ever? Come on, use your head. :p

And the film is way too long by the way, and not all that exciting all the time.

Personally I think Heath was excellent as the joker! He came across as beautifully calculating yet chaotic :)

The film does feel like it's trying to find its feet at times, I suspect because it's trying to cover so many different things. It almost feels like they tried to cram too much in?

But again, a great flick :)

[Danny]

its better than batman begins, that film sucks.

[Neil]

^ Here we ago again with the binary opinion stuff :( How can anyone wishing to be taken seriously use that sort of description on a well made, well crafted film? To me it just comes across as ill-considered, illogical and unfair.

I actually prefered Batman Begins :) The final 10 mins lets it down a little bit, but as an overall 'emotional' experience, I'd rather watch it to 'The Dark Knight' I recon...

[Danny]

^ Here we ago again with the binary opinion stuff :( How can anyone wishing to be taken seriously use that sort of description on a well made, well crafted film? To me it just comes across as ill-considered, illogical and unfair.

I actually prefered Batman Begins :) The final 10 mins lets it down a little bit, but as an overall 'emotional' experience, I'd rather watch it to 'The Dark Knight' I recon...

because in dark knight there is some semblance of 'worlds greatest detective'. if i wanted to watch a film about a wealthy american guy becoming a ninja id watch daredevil again.

-and for the record the plot is much worse for begins, its a terrible origins film that gained praise because of the batman films that preceded it, it looked like "big boys batman" in comparison. The villain was ineffectual and bland, as was bales performance. I never cared about any of the characters and there progression felt artificial and numb.
There was a better movie contained in just the harvey twoface subplot of dark knight than begins.

[bassman]

I think it's pretty naive to think that Heath Ledger's death didn't have a huge marketing impact on TDK. First off, he was already singled out (before he died!) about how unfit he was for the role and how it wouldn't work. Then once he died everyone started saying how this was his best role, and how sad it was his career was cut short etc. etc, you all remember.

We live in a vastly more media and information centered society now than we did in 1984. Everyone's online now. TDK was also a major blockbuster aiming for the high concept. The Twilight Zone was not.

Without Heath Ledger's death there's no way this film would've made as much money as it did. If I'm not mistaken it's the third highest grossing film ever? Come on, use your head. :p

And the film is way too long by the way, and not all that exciting all the time.

Well if you ask me, it's pretty naive to think Ledger's death is what brought the film to the heights it reached.

One of the things was the role of The Joker in and of itself. The character hadn't been on screen for twenty years and most people foolishly thought Nicholson's was the end of the line. So when Ledger was announced, many fanboys thought it was a poor casting decision. But then, as you mentioned, word started leaking out about what he was doing. We got a voiceover trailer, followed by a full length trailer MONTHS before he died. At this point the hype train was already rolling strong and everyone could see that he was taking it in an all new direction and the internet was buzzing with anticipation. Anyone else remember when that trailer hit? You could go to Martha Stuart's website and there was talk about it.

But the biggest contributor to TDK's success was Batman Begins. The film stumbled through it's theatrical run. It didn't do horribly, but it definitely didn't make the numbers you would expect of such a film. It kinda dragged in and licked the wounds of a dead franchise that many people still associated with 1997's Batman and Robin. Then Begins hit DVD with 125+ million in sales, indicating a surge of interest from the theatrical run. People were starting to realize that this was in no way associated with the films of the past. Then of course you have it also airing on TV what seems like once a week. So the first film kept building and building all the way up to the release of the next film, TDK.

Not to mention TDK is the first ever to utilize the IMAX film format for a motion picture. That obviously also helped bring it to a larger total.

Now....do I think some people saw the film out of a morbid curiousity surrounding Ledger's death? Sure. Absolutely. Do I think this small amount of people would make up over a billion dollars? No...that's not possible. If anything, the curiosity surrounding his death was the LEAST contributing factor to it's success. A contributing factor nevertheless, but the least.

[Neil]

because in dark knight there is some semblance of 'worlds greatest detective'. if i wanted to watch a film about a wealthy american guy becoming a ninja id watch daredevil again.

-and for the record the plot is much worse for begins, its a terrible origins film that gained praise because of the batman films that preceded it, it looked like "big boys batman" in comparison. The villain was ineffectual and bland, as was bales performance. I never cared about any of the characters and there progression felt artificial and numb.
There was a better movie contained in just the harvey twoface subplot of dark knight than begins.

We'll have to disagree there I'm afraid... I can see good and less-good (don't want to use 'bad' as it wouldn't really be accurate) in both films. But as an overall 'experience' personally I rate 'Begins' better.

Now I can totally see why others may prefer 'The Dark Knight.' But I really cannot understand how anyone (logically) can use the term 'sucks' for either film, when clearly they're both well made solid films. Maybe one or both are not to ones liking, but none-the-less, common sense should dictate 'suck' is rather unfair and unfounded.

Previously I'd give them both a 9/10. But at the moment, 'The Dark Knight' has just dropped down a bit. eg: 8/10.

[LouCipherr]

I can think of hundreds of examples in music where death has skyrocketed not only popularity but sales too, but we're saying now the same thing cannot be applied to movies and their sales, eh? :lol: :p

[bassman]

I'm beginning to think some peopledon't really understand how much a BILLION dollars really is.

Sometimes films, worthy or not, just become huge events. Look at Avatar. While I don't find it to be awful like some, I don't see how it went on to make as much as it did. Same with Titanic or LOTR. They went on to make these insane amounts of money becuase they turned into social events. They became water cooler discussion topics. Batman films were always huge events. This one was going to be huge regardless of Ledger's death.

As I said before, I'm sure his death helped make the film some money and gain a bit of popularity, but if you think it made it to a billion bucks because of that alone.......you're just jumping on the "cool to hate" and "going against the grain" bandwagons.

That's the end of my two cents, anyway....

[LouCipherr]

I'm beginning to think some peopledon't really understand how much a BILLION dollars really is.

That's ok, I'm beginning to think some people have no idea what death can do to push sales of a movie. :lol: :p :D

No one said it made TDK a "billion dollars" my friend. ;)

...and you just said in this last post that "They went on to make these insane amounts of money becuase they turned into social events. They became water cooler discussion topics. Batman films were always huge events." but a few posts prior, didn't you say that BB didn't do well when it was first released? what kind of 'social event' was that? :lol:

[JonOfTheShred]

I really, REALLY hated the Dark Knight. It was extremely boring, and I felt like their attempt at making it as 'realistic' as possible sucked all creativity out of the project. Definitely the most overrated movie of the last decade, perhaps of all-time.

[bassman]

...and you just said in this last post that "They went on to make these insane amounts of money becuase they turned into social events. They became water cooler discussion topics. Batman films were always huge events." but a few posts prior, didn't you say that BB didn't do well when it was first released? what kind of 'social event' was that? :lol:

I also said in that post that BB suffered because of Batman & Robin. Before and up to the release of B&R the previous franchise films WERE huge events. It was always about who would play the next villain. Begins brought it back to that "watercooler" status post-release.

I'm still wondering what happened to The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus. The exact same death, actually DURING production, yet it didn't do a fraction of the business. Funny how that works. :sneaky:

[LouCipherr]

Puh-lease. How did I know you were going to once again name that movie. :rolleyes:

Those two movies were a far cry from each other. There was "hype" behind TDK, which when Ledger died, it pushed curiosity & hype into the stratosphere. What "hype" or "excitement" was there behind "The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus"? Oh yeah, NONE. I never even heard of this flick 'till WAY after it came out. Why? Oh yeah, because they hype around TDK clouded everything around Ledger.

So, since you tend not to believe in death pushing sales, lets take a look at some music for comparison (because I'm more into music than movies, so it's my forte')

Example #1:

Jimi Hendrix: He died on 9/18/70 - With that in mind, since 1991 (when Soundscan officially started to properly "count" record sales), he's sold 15.5 MILLION albums. You do realize Hendrix was popular, but not THAT popular, until after he died, correct? he was never considered a "guitar god" by MOST peopple until AFTER he croaked. Sure, many guitarists thought so, but that's about it - until AFTER his death.

15.5 million Hendrix units moved at 15.99 (average price of a cd near me unless you catch it on sale or on first week of release) is almost $240 million in record sales. Remember, that doesn't include the years from 1970 when he died 'till 1991. EASILY this man has sold half a billion dollars worth of albums - a number he would've NEVER hit had he still been alive today... but death had no impact on his sales, right?



Example #2:

Kurt Kobain - Died in 1994. Ok, here's an example of someone with some SERIOUS hype behind them. Since 1991 (which does include 3 years before he shot himself), Nirvana albums have sold 24.9 million. At my 15.99 example, that's almost $400 million in sales since he died. NO artist continues to sell records at such a clip had there not been a shit-ton of "hype" behind the machine (hype includes 'death'). We all know Cobain had a shit-ton of hype behind him now don't we? He certainly wasn't a prodigy of the guitar, and even though I despise this bozo with a passion, he had a knack for songwriting and had the "hype" behind him of being leader of the "grunge" movement. His death by all means pushed sales higher than they would have ever been. I don't think anyone can argue that point.


Example #3:

Michael Jackson - died in 2009.

Lets just say this: "Jackson, the last pop superstar whose fame rivaled that of Elvis Presley or The Beatles, is again experiencing a surge of popularity after his sudden death. More than 2.3 million Michael Jackson albums have sold since his death, and his Number Ones album is the top-selling record (though it's ineligible for the Billboard 200 because it isn't a new release. Jackson, who became famous at age 11 as the lead singer of the Jackson 5, is best known for his 1982 album, Thriller, and the string of hits that came from it, including Billie Jean."

but, excitement and intrigue due to his death is no reason for this surge in sales since 2009 (even though they state it right in the article I pulled this from). I realize it's not "a billion dollars" (then again, no one claimed TDK made a BILLION because of the hype, it's just claimed it helped skyrocket the sales of the movie) - but the point here is to show how death drives sales, and extremely well under the right conditions.

This is just 3 examples of MANY. James Brown, Johnny cash, John Lennon, Janis Joplin, Frank Sinatra, Elvis Presley - all of their albums surged in sales after their death and many continue to do so and sell at an unheard of rate in 2011. Why is it soooo hard to believe that Ledgers death could be a major force in driving the sales of TDK? Does this pattern only work in music and not movies? Funny how that works, isn't it? :p

Again, no one is saying Ledger wasn't a fantastic joker, and no one is saying that the movie wouldn't have done well in every single market - but to honestly believe his death didn't have a MAJOR impact on the sales of certain movies (just like certain musical artists) is just being intentionally naive.

[bassman]

We'll just have to agree to disagree.

It looks now that we both agree the film was highly anticipated BEFORE his death and that was my point. It was going to be huge regardless. As I said many times, his death no doubt helped it a bit, but we'll just have to disagree one what amount it helped.

You say it was his death, I say the film just happened to become an event. Much like Avatar, sometimes these things just hit the right time and do extremely well.

BTW....I was never debating the quality of his role or the film. Just the numbers. To me...it's naive to think it made the numbers it did because of his death, when his death clearly didn't help the other. Again, agree to disagree.

[LouCipherr]

We'll just have to agree to disagree.

It looks now that we both agree the film was highly anticipated BEFORE his death and that was my point. It was going to be huge regardless. As I said many times, his death no doubt helped it a bit, but we'll just have to disagree one what amount it helped.

Fair enough.


BTW....I was never debating the quality of his role or the film. Just the numbers. To me...it's naive to think it made the numbers it did because of his death, when his death clearly didn't help the other.

I know, but I wanted to make it perfectly clear - I had no issues with his role or his acting. I just can't believe that even with examples all over the entertainment industry that pople (not just you) can't see how much death can really help a film (or album) get pushed way past what it would have been. When you say his death "didn't help one film but did the other" - i'm sure if we broke down Hendrix's record sales, most of those came from "Smash Hits" (his greatest his collection) or "Electric Ladyland" and not every single one of his records. So again, it's certain albums whose sales would spike, not all. Just like with Ledger, TDK took off, while Imaginarium did not. It's just a product of what was at the forefront when he croaked. Imaginarium was certainly not at the forefront of the Ledger hype when he died. TDK was. ;)

[DjfunkmasterG]

Oh oh oh, WTF you can agree to disagree with him, but when I praise Piranha you say NO FUCKING WAY.... WTH? :lol:

[LouCipherr]

Oh oh oh, WTF you can agree to disagree with him, but when I praise Piranha you say NO FUCKING WAY.... WTH? :lol:

Because bassman is a smart dude - you on the other hand... I wonder about you. Chantix. Love of Piranha... that shit adds up to you being looney. :lol:

[DjfunkmasterG]

Because bassman is a smart dude - you on the other hand... I wonder about you. Chantix. Love of Piranha... that shit adds up to you being looney. :lol:

Did Bassman like Piranha?

[LouCipherr]

Did Bassman like Piranha?

Does it matter? :lol: :lol: :D

[Trin]

I didn't much care for Dark Kaniggit. I thought the plot was convoluted and goofy. It was too long. At 2 separate times I thought it was ending... and was disappointed it wasn't.

I thought the acting was overall good. I thought Ledger was a nice reprise of Batman, although I like Nicholson better. I believe Keaton was the best Batman brought to the big screen yet.

I have a hard time believing that Ledger's death propelled the movie to greatness... but I also have a hard time believing the movie stood solely on its own merits. How the movie did so well given any hype or circumstances is pretty mind-boggling to me. :duh:

[Neil]

Definitely the most overrated movie of the last decade, perhaps of all-time.
What the? Is exagerating the new black?

[JonOfTheShred]

What the? Is exagerating the new black?

I can't think of any other film close to as overrated as this one. Never have I hated on a movie and got more backlash than the Dark Knight. Every aspect of the film is overblown and over-celebrated by its fanboys.

How about its 94% at Rotten Tomatoes? That ties it with the original Star Wars. Seriously? As good as STAR WARS? You can choose almost any scene in Star Wars and it'll have more substance and life than every scene from Dark Knight combined.

The Dark Knight also hit the #1 spot on IMDB for quite a while, upstaging long victor "The Godfather." In a city of film-making, the Dark Knight doesn't deserve to be in the same building as the Godfather, nevermind the same room. Currently, it rests at #8. The 8th greatest movie of all-time? C'mon, it was all right at best.


To summarize, here are some quick reasons why I personally think that the Dark Knight sucks. (And not none of this hostility is aimed at anyone here, I've just hated this movie with a passion since the first time I watched it and like to vent about why I think it sucks)

All the movies themes are spoon-fed through cheesy dialogue. And not just in one heartfelt speech, not just in one witty anecdote session, not just in two or three angry rants...this happens AGAIN, and AGAIN, and AGAIN. Then the fanboys will say the movie is too 'deep' for the detractors to understand. No, its not deep at all, they practically put dialogue bubbles on screen describing each characters motive in explicit, boring, pretentious detail.
(Funny thing is, if they actually used the dialogue balloons, it'd be the closest thing they got to the actual comics. ;))


The action sucked. Name a good action scene from this movie. ONE. A single good fight scene, without the camera being too zoomed in to be able to see whats going on. Batman Begins actually had some decent choreographed action, but the Dark Knight had pretty much none.


It tried too hard. Much like me trying too hard to describe my hate for this movie :p. Seriously though, this movie takes itself way too seriously, and is a complete drag because of it. Its so boring. Just because the movie lacks flashiness and feels drained of color doesn't make it 'dark' and 'mature,' it just makes it bland.

Not enough Joker, too much Two-Face. I didn't think Ledgers performance was as spectacular as everyone else does. I did enjoy what little time he was on the screen, though. Should've been more of the Joker. And way too much Two-Face. Great actor to portray him, but god damn did they beat the Harvey Dent into the ground. So much so that hearing that name again, having to type it, kinda pisses me off.

Cheap, sophomoric film-making tricks:
The 'cut away before something happens' trick, for example. Like when the Joker is telling yet another rendition about his scars, leading up to him giving someone else the very same scars he bears on his face, but...nope. Cuts away.

Or when the Joker tells the two dudes to fight to the death to get on his team. Once again, it cuts away. Why couldn't we have seen at least a LITTLE of that fight? Perhaps it would be too much effort on Nolans part to show action for more than 2 minutes without 45 more minutes of characters ranting "Anarchy 101."

Shaking camera during fight scenes, as well as the camera being zoomed incredibly far in. Very dim lighting during fights as well. So the camera is shaking and zoomed in incredibly close, not to mention that in every fight, the power seems to be out. This seems like another lazy way out of choreographing fights that are actually captivating.

There is also plot holes, obvious twists, terrible logic from all characters, and Batman completely SUCKS in a movie about Batman. Bale portrays a somewhat believable Bruce Wayne, but his Batman is terrible.

I could go on, but I feel like my point is at least half made, and its getting quite lengthy.

[Doc]

How about its 94% at Rotten Tomatoes? That ties it with the original Star Wars. Seriously? As good as STAR WARS?

Haha, not that I hate New Hope, but this film is the reason why I don't get why the prequels get much hate that they do. New Hope was revolutionary for it's time, but other then effects it really falls in alot of departments. The acting for the exception, of Ford and Guiness is pretty laughable. Alot of heavy ham handed dialouge, and plotholes. Luckily for the most part most of this was fixed in 'Empire', and 'Jedi'. Despite, the critisism of 'Jedi' being the weakest I always found it a better made film then the original. 'Empire' is without a doubt the best of the bunch. Best directing, acting( I do feel Hamill best performance was in 'Jedi'), great effects, and plot of the original trilogy.

The only big complaint of the prequels too me is that almost everything is damn cgi, and the rather bad performances that don't seem to improve in the entire trilogy.

The Dark Knight also hit the #1 spot on IMDB for quite a while, upstaging long victor "The Godfather." In a city of film-making, the Dark Knight doesn't deserve to be in the same building as the Godfather, nevermind the same room. Currently, it rests at #8. The 8th greatest movie of all-time? C'mon, it was all right at best.


Eh....why your actually take the IMDB top movies list seriously? Don't! That list is nothing, but a popularity list. Trust me just ignore it.

[JonOfTheShred]

Haha, not that I hate New Hope, but this film is the reason why I don't get why the prequels get much hate that they do. New Hope was revolutionary for it's time, but other then effects it really falls in alot of departments. The acting for the exception, of Ford and Guiness is pretty laughable. Alot of heavy ham handed dialouge, and plotholes. Luckily for the most part most of this was fixed in 'Empire', and 'Jedi'. Despite, the critisism of 'Jedi' being the weakest I always found it a better made film then the original. 'Empire' is without a doubt the best of the bunch. Best directing, acting( I do feel Hamill best performance was in 'Jedi'), great effects, and plot of the original trilogy.

I agree, Empire destroys any other Star Wars movie. General consensus is correct on this one, great movie. But despite its shortcomings, A New Hope is fun and rewatchable. It was extremely creative film-making and revolutionary in this regard. It oozed personality; the designs, the models, the set, the story itself. Its a huge reason the prequels all sucked. (How can anyone be expected to act an entire trilogy in front of a blue screen and be expected to perform well?) But I reiterate, A New Hope is still a very fun movie and rewatchable to this day. The Dark Knight is boring and I never want to sit through it again, and everything form the set piece to the story was, in this guys opinion, extremely unoriginal and reaching. In fact, the only thing really fun to look at on screen (aside from Rachel, who's dece looking) was the Jokers crazy outfits, the one thing that I really noticed showing any creativity.



The only big complaint of the prequels too me is that almost everything is damn cgi, and the rather bad performances that don't seem to improve in the entire trilogy.

That's because it felt like they were just going through the motions. No one was having fun. They were TRYING to make Star Wars, instead of taking solace in the fact that their job gets to be...making STAR WARS.

I saw a picture with George Lucas filming a film from the OT; he stood in front of a huge array of models; x-wings, the falcon, the death star trenches, landscapes. It looked fucking bad ass. Then a comparison shot of him on set for on the PT movies...he's standing in front of a vast, green emptiness. Actually, let me find that picture...

http://img.kyon.pl/static/img/remiq.net_12908.jpg

I'm not a huge Tim Burton fan, but I can see him and his team on the left of this picture and Nolan, Bale and their crew on the right of this picture. If that makes any sense. I feel like he was having fun and being creative with his Batman movies, whereas Nolan and crew were simply trying to make a 'more mature Batman' and completely missed the point of the comics in the execution of the film. And I know the comics are dark, but they're still interesting.


Eh....why your actually take the IMDB top movies list seriously? Don't! That list is nothing, but a popularity list. Trust me just ignore it.

Nah, just trying to support my opinion its a candidate for perhaps the most overrated movie of all-time; when I rant I speak in hyperbole for comedic effect, I ain't really angry, I just put myself in the shoes of Larry David when I criticize something. I can rant in such a fashion for a long time :deadhorse:

[bassman]

Although I like the film, I'll go along with most of what is being said here.

The IMDB rating was and still is insane. But as Doc mentioned - it's IMDB. Ben Hur, which I find to be the greatest epic of all time, sits at 159 while the likes of Pulp Fiction sit in the top 5? Wow. :rolleyes:

I would also have to agree with Doc about the Star Wars thing. The first film is pretty damn weak. Empire is what made the trilogy for me. I would also watch Jedi before SW. Star Wars could be just as overrated as TDK.

I personally love TDK as a life long batman fan. It's the best batman film to date. And thank god they finally made Batman a vigilante hunted by the cops. It only took them six films to get around to it. And no, Tim Burton's Tim Burton film with Batman as a supporting character doesn't count. Anyway....TDK has it's flaws like any other film but it's damn good entertainment and a damn great batman film, imo.

[LouCipherr]

http://img.kyon.pl/static/img/remiq.net_12908.jpg

OMG. Truest. Picture. Ever.

:lol:

[AcesandEights]

I can't think of any other film close to as overrated as this one.

How about more so? Gladiator? The original True Grit?

I could probably think of a ton more that are more overrated than TDK. Not that the film isn't overrated at all, mind you. I agree it's IP, the success of its immediate predecessor, the talent pool involved and Ledger's death all helped add to a sense of hype, but I still think the film delivers close enough on promised target to not be considered some grand case of being overrated.

[bassman]

True Grit?!?! You son of a bitch! :p Nah...I could understand why that one wouldn't be enjoyed by some. Dying to see the remake. Probably wont get a chance to until dvd, though...



Hows this for an overrated one around these parts...Dawn of the Dead. Oh yeah.:elol:

[Trin]

Yes, Dawn of the Dead '04 was highly overrated. :sneaky::p

Star Wars had more of an impact than you guys are giving it credit for. The way it grappled with religious topics was more important than the fact that it had unique special effects.

And Dawn of the Dead had more of an impact too. It's easy to watch it today and declare it poorly acted and cheesy. But live through the 70's and early 80's and you'd know that Dawn was the crowning achievement of horror for a decade.

This is pretty typical. The significance of movies is lost over time and they become judged solely on what can be seen by viewing them.

[bassman]

Puh-lease. I'll look for underlying meaning in films as much as the next guy, but if you think the religious similarities are what made Star Wars an international phenomenon you're really stretching. :p

Besides, I wasn't talking about what the films could represent underneath the surface. You can find special meaning under the surface of any film really. I just believe that the original SW and original Dawn are pretty mediocre and overrated for what they are. Regardless of the time they were created. That doesn't mean I can't enjoy them. Just that sometimes they're given more credit than they deserve. Same as the topic of this thread, TDK.

Time shouldn't have an effect on a film at all, really. Sure the effects, clothing, etc will look dated but that doesn't change the overall value of the film. Some of my favorite films are quite old but they're just as entertaining today as they were the day they were made. That's not to say they don't have their problems. Dawn has horrible acting, slow pacing, jarring editing, poor makeup, and a few other things but that's not the time it was made, just HOW it was made. And that's also not to say it's awful, just that it's given a bit more credit than it deserves sometimes. It's just the name of the game when you get into genre or classic pictures, I suppose.

[AcesandEights]

This is pretty typical. The significance of movies is lost over time and they become judged solely on what can be seen by viewing them.

Completely agree. While a lot of people seem willing to be very realistic about Dawn of the Dead as it compares to not only current zombies movies in particular, but modern cinema in general--and while I agree with a lot of what those people say--a lot of these same people seem to write off the impact of the film upon it's viewers at release and, perhaps more importantly, its overall effect on the genre.

[bassman]

The impact a film had on it's genre, while good to acknowledge, should not be taken into account while juding the film itself, imo. The film should be judged on it's own merits rather than the genre it helped or hurt.

That's the way I view Dawn. I respect the hell out of it for what it did for the genre. Not only do I respect it, but I love the film. I watch it often. That, however, is not going to cloud my judgement and make me believe the film has no flaws. Despite what some people seem to think, it IS okay to have negative things to say about films you love. You don't have to blindly say it's perfect. And Dawn's flaws, while some of them are no doubt due to the time period it was created, are extremely evident regardless of the period.

[JonOfTheShred]

I actually watched a fan edit of Dawn this morning, the longest cut I've seen so far. (2 hours and 34 minutes) Its called the "Extended Mall Hours" cut. Probably the best version I've seen thus far; it flows much better with more insight into the characters.

But I agree its still flawed and aged terribly. Still one of my favorites, but if only it had the gore effects and zombie makeup of its sequel Day. One thing that bugged me on this re-viewing was Rogers 'mental breakdown' when they were moving the trucks. It was just bad. Hell, I even feel like Goblins amazing soundtrack could use some upgrading, as well as some of the 'hokier' music they went with.

So I can agree its overrated, but when in the right mood, it can still be an epic experience. The biker fight in particular is much better extended, or better than I remember it, and more intense.

[Doc]

Is that extended version the one that combines all 3 previous cuts together?

As, for Dawn. The only problem I have with it is the zombies. Not a threat AT ALL! Alone, or in a group they all go down pretty easy. It's the only problem I have with the film. They just weren't a believable world-wide threat too me. The Walking Dead, and Day of the Dead zombies are more to my kind.


Oh, and I agree with you Bass. Dark Knight is also my favorite Batman film. And I grew up with both Burton, and that other guy's Batman films.....What's his name?

[shootemindehead]

The batman films leave me cold to be honest and out of all the superheros, Batman is probably the best.

They're ok films, but JUST ok. Nothing special in my honest opinion. However, when Bale starts talking all Batman-like, it just cracks me up. It's fecking terrible. I laughed out loud in the cinema when he did it first in 'Batman Begins'. It's a dreadful idea.

[Neil]

The batman films leave me cold to be honest and out of all the superheros, Batman is probably the best.

They're ok films, but JUST ok. Nothing special in my honest opinion. However, when Bale starts talking all Batman-like, it just cracks me up. It's fecking terrible. I laughed out loud in the cinema when he did it first in 'Batman Begins'. It's a dreadful idea.Odd! I find Batman Begins very moving, especially the father son relationship etc...

[shootemindehead]

Aye, some elements are ok. But overall, I was just "meh" about it. No film version has worked that well for me yet.

[Neil]

Aye, some elements are ok. But overall, I was just "meh" about it. No film version has worked that well for me yet.

That's a shame...

I still can't believe we've had nonsense like Clooney playing Batman :( But I do recon the two most recent films have been huge steps in the right direction!

[bassman]

I still can't believe we've had nonsense like Clooney playing Batman :(

http://geekflavor.com/files/2009/01/batman-nipples.jpg

I don't see how some think the current batman voice can be so bad when you think back to that. :p

[shootemindehead]

That's a shame...

I still can't believe we've had nonsense like Clooney playing Batman :( But I do recon the two most recent films have been huge steps in the right direction!

True. They're definitely going in the right direction. I actually saw the Clooney one in the cinema...back in the days when I used to go to the pictures a couple of times a week. now, there has to be something really good on before I'll move.

Sad that.

I'd like to see a Batman that presents Gotham in the way that Se7en presented New York. And a story that's really gritty and dirty, with some real screwed up Batman/Bruce Wayne mental crap. I want Batman to be a nutter and one step away from the goons he's chasing.

[JonOfTheShred]

Aye, some elements are ok. But overall, I was just "meh" about it. No film version has worked that well for me yet.

I agree with this, although I think Batman Begins is the best film adaptation so far.



That's a shame...

I still can't believe we've had nonsense like Clooney playing Batman :( But I do recon the two most recent films have been huge steps in the right direction!

I also agree that aspects of the two newest films are a step in the right direction, especially Batman Begins which was a great reboot and springboard to go off of. But I also think the execution of these ideas (particularly in TDK) was very poor. Hopefully with the latest development of Bane and Catwoman it'll feel more like a Batman movie and less like a melodramatic crime drama.

---------- Post added at 02:27 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:23 PM ----------


Is that extended version the one that combines all 3 previous cuts together?

As, for Dawn. The only problem I have with it is the zombies. Not a threat AT ALL! Alone, or in a group they all go down pretty easy. It's the only problem I have with the film. They just weren't a believable world-wide threat too me. The Walking Dead, and Day of the Dead zombies are more to my kind.


Oh, and I agree with you Bass. Dark Knight is also my favorite Batman film. And I grew up with both Burton, and that other guy's Batman films.....What's his name?

The description stated it was the 139 minute cut with all the missing footage from Argentos cut also thrown in. I've never been more drawn into the biker battle as this version, but it might be because I haven't watched this movie in YEARS. I do believe the extra footage adds to the movie though.

[bassman]

I'd like to see a Batman that presents Gotham in the way that Se7en presented New York. And a story that's really gritty and dirty, with some real screwed up Batman/Bruce Wayne mental crap. I want Batman to be a nutter and one step away from the goons he's chasing.

In this new series, Batman is one step above the goons he's chasing. He caused it all. The main theme of the two films so far is escalation. It wasn't until bruce went masquerading around in a bat costume that the freaks began to come out. As Joker says in TDK, "You'd like to think you're one of them, but your not. You're just a freak like me."

Bruce brought the league of shadows to Gotham, he created Joker and Two Face, and I imagine the next film will take that even further. In an attempt to use theatricality to frighten the bad people of Gotham, Batman accidentally created a whole new breed of evil. Bruce is the true freak of this series and he just opened the door to the rest of them.

[LouCipherr]

Bruce brought the league of shadows to Gotham, he created Joker and Two Face, and I imagine the next film will take that even further. In an attempt to use theatricality to frighten the bad people of Gotham, Batman accidentally created a whole new breed of evil. Bruce is the true freak of this series and he just opened the door to the rest of them.

Wow, y'know, I never realized this until I read your post (mind you, not a fan of comics to be honest, so I never followed the Batman comic story). This makes perfect sense, and sheds a whole different light on the character and the story itself.

Thanks for the insight. :D

[JonOfTheShred]

In this new series, Batman is one step above the goons he's chasing. He caused it all. The main theme of the two films so far is escalation. It wasn't until bruce went masquerading around in a bat costume that the freaks began to come out. As Joker says in TDK, "You'd like to think you're one of them, but your not. You're just a freak like me."

Bruce brought the league of shadows to Gotham, he created Joker and Two Face, and I imagine the next film will take that even further. In an attempt to use theatricality to frighten the bad people of Gotham, Batman accidentally created a whole new breed of evil. Bruce is the true freak of this series and he just opened the door to the rest of them.

I like that perspective, actually. Gives me hope the Bane storyline they're using for the last film they're making is the arc I've heard about; Bane letting loose all the villians in Arkham. That'd be crazy if done right. Especially the culmination, which would be a great way to end the trilogy in a dark, realistic fashion Nolan might find suitable to leave the series with.

[Neil]

I agree with this, although I think Batman Begins is the best film adaptation so far.

Ahmen!

[SymphonicX]

Dark Knight is probably 30 minutes too long. It's an over inflated, self indulgent tale that massages the egos of Nolan and Bale in equal measures. They were shown up royally by Ledger however, but his untimely death ultimiately led them to use every available frame of Ledger as the Joker and by doing so ruined the plot continuity and the tension that it was supposed to build up.

It's one of the worst paced movies I've ever seen - the whole end section about the hospital was so extraneous, we didn't need it, it wasn't necessary and really served no creative purpose other than to see Ledger in a nurse's uniform, which was quite funny, but really...pointless.

Batman Begins is slightly better than TDK, but at the same time, it can easily be said that it's an exceptionally poorly paced movie and it lulls unforgivably halfway through and descends into near tedium. But hey at least you could grasp what was going on without being thrown from here to there and all over the place for the sake of it.

Nolan can't do much right in my eyes - Inception was a killer though, what a beautifully executed movie - but the Batman series, I'll leave well alone until its on telly.

[bassman]

the whole end section about the hospital was so extraneous, we didn't need it, it wasn't necessary and really served no creative purpose other than to see Ledger in a nurse's uniform, which was quite funny, but really...pointless.


Were you and I watching the same movie? The Hospital segment is one of the most important in TDK. It's when Harvey Dent(arguably the main character of the film) fully turns into an antagonist. His last bit of good is stripped away by Joker's lecture about society's willingness to crumble when plans go awry and how it's all nothing more than chance. The movie literally couldn't exist without that scene....

[EvilNed]

Were you and I watching the same movie? The Hospital segment is one of the most important in TDK. It's when Harvey Dent(arguably the main character of the film) fully turns into an antagonist. His last bit of good is stripped away by Joker's lecture about society's willingness to crumble when plans go awry and how it's all nothing more than chance. The movie literally couldn't exist without that scene....

Actually, yes it could. Just crop the last 30 minutes right off the film, and you've got a complete film right there, with a start, middle and end.

Oh, and crop the Hong Kong subplot as well. What was that all about?

[bassman]

Actually, yes it could. Just crop the last 30 minutes right off the film, and you've got a complete film right there, with a start, middle and end.


So Dent would just decide out of nowhere that "Hey...I think I'm gonna go on a killing spree"? That would make no sense to have him go from the hero to villain with no explanation. The Hospital scene was definitely needed.

The Hong Kong bit...yeah, that could've been removed. Basically they only did that to show that Batman isn't limited to Gotham. Pointless to the story, really.

[Mitchified]

I like that perspective, actually. Gives me hope the Bane storyline they're using for the last film they're making is the arc I've heard about; Bane letting loose all the villians in Arkham. That'd be crazy if done right. Especially the culmination, which would be a great way to end the trilogy in a dark, realistic fashion Nolan might find suitable to leave the series with.

It's doubtful. There aren't really all that many villains in Arkham at this point, especially major players. As it stands now, assuming that Jonathan Crane got taken there after he was captured in The Dark Knight, there would only be Zsasz, Scarecrow, and Joker. Nolan has said in interviews that he won't have anyone else play the Joker after Ledger's death, so that makes it just Zsasz and Scarecrow. Plus it would be very similiar to Batman Begins if you think about it, when all the criminals were roaming the streets.

Frankly I'm not sure I want to see Bane in the new movie.. A Knightfall-esque storyline couldn't really be done in a single movie, and outside of Knightfall, Bane has been a fairly generic villain. Besides, the entire point of Bane was that Batman had reached the peak of his strength and was almost untouchable, and along came this mysterious individual that was his complete antithesis. Bane wasn't just as good as Batman, he was BETTER than him. Physically stronger due to the Venom and a master detective in his own right (he deduced that Bruce Wayne was Batman simply by watching Bruce move around). The Nolan movies are too early in Batman's career to have Bane be such a huge impact.

What the franchise needs for the finale is Hugo Strange. Specifically the Hugo Strange that appeared in the Prey storyline. A completely cerebral villain that would be a completely different animal than going up against the anarchist Joker or the chance-dependant Two Face. In Prey, Strange completely dissects Batman psychologically and brings him to the breaking point emotionally all while being completely insane himself. He didn't just want to defeat Batman, he wanted to be Batman. Prey was what Batman RIP wished it could have been.

So I say use Hugo Strange as your main villain, and have Bane be the secondary villain. But that's just me.

[bassman]

That's actually who I though Hardy was going to play when they first announced him in an unspecified role. Strange would've been interesting. And the Prey storyline could be a fitting next step to the trilogy considering Batman's current state with the police and catwoman coming in.

Who knows? Maybe Strange could still be in the flcik and they haven't announced it yet.

[Mitchified]

Having Bane in the film probably rules out Hugo Strange. Assuming that they use the comic book depiction of Bane, that is. There was a huge emphasis put on Bane's intellect during his first storyline in Knightfall, so I doubt that they would use another character that is completely based around his intellect. Plus God only knows how many monologues there would have to be for both Bane AND Strange; neither character ever shuts up.

Now, what I could see is Hugo Strange being brought in by Gotham PD in an adviser role, the way that he was originally introduced in Prey. He could be one of the key figures in the manhunt for Batman after the ending of The Dark Knight, putting together psychological profiles and whatnot. I just can't see him taking the next step and becoming one of the film's main villains, not with Bane in the picture. Which is a shame since Strange is so much stronger of a character than Bane.

[bassman]

Perhaps he'll get a passing mention like Zsasz in Begins? You've got a point, though.

It would be interesting to have Strange come in a minor role for a fourth movie, but seeing how this is the final film I doubt Nolan will leave any loose ends like that. I'm kinda disappointed that he won't be bringing Penguin to the big screen. He's always said he didn't like the character too much, but I really wanted him to bring him to the screen and wash away the public's memory of Burton's Penguin abomination....

[Mitchified]

I still remember being amazed that Burton killed off the Penguin at the end. It just seemed wrong somehow that the Penguin of all people died. To this day I can't explain why it felt so strange, but it did.

That, and the movie managed to somehow take everything that makes the Penguin interesting, flush it down the toilet, and replace it with Danny DeVito acting like a cross between Ted Kennedy and Ted Bundy.

Besides Hugo Strange, I would have loved to see Nolan's take on the Ventriloquist. I've always had a soft spot for him (Arnold Wesker, not Sugar). It would also have been interesting to see how he handled a character that didn't fit as well into his more realistic Batman universe, like a Clayface or Killer Croc.

Black Mask might have been interesting to see if he was used a person that has come to Gotham to fill the power vacuum that the severe losses the crime families have suffered has caused.

[bassman]

Black Mask and Dead Shot were two I figured would be used. They seemed perfect to fit into Nolan's hyper realistic world.

Also kinda disappointed we didn't see Bat Mite or Crazt Quilt! :lol:

[Mitchified]

There's still time for the Batman of Zur-En-Arrh and the Creeper! I have faith that Nolan couldn't possibly end his series without those two gems.

I really wish Nolan would stick around for a few more films so that we could see Hush. I read an interview a while back where he said that he loved the character, but he wasn't the sort of character that you could bring in without buildup. Hush would have been absolutely perfect as a villain in this portrayal of Gotham City.

[EvilNed]

So Dent would just decide out of nowhere that "Hey...I think I'm gonna go on a killing spree"? That would make no sense to have him go from the hero to villain with no explanation. The Hospital scene was definitely needed.


Hence: Cropping the last 30 minutes off it.

[bassman]

Hence: Cropping the last 30 minutes off it.

I don't have copy in front of me, but I imagine if you crop off the last 30 minutes your left somewhere in the middle of the high rise "sonar" scene. You've already seen Dent become Harvey Two Face, kill several people, etc. Dropping the explanation of his transformation would be disasterous. Especially considering the movie is about that character.

Some of the gangster and Hong Kong plots could have been cut, but not so much Dent's.

[SymphonicX]

Were you and I watching the same movie? The Hospital segment is one of the most important in TDK. It's when Harvey Dent(arguably the main character of the film) fully turns into an antagonist. His last bit of good is stripped away by Joker's lecture about society's willingness to crumble when plans go awry and how it's all nothing more than chance. The movie literally couldn't exist without that scene....

Nothing a few rewrites couldn't have sorted....OK so if Ledger was dead by the point they realised this, they realised too late...if at all.

It wasn't an important scene - the penultimate moment of that section of the movie is important - as you say, Dent's journey into madness - but the lead in "family members in hospitals", the Wayne empire employee who was going to reveal batmans identity, the whole section - was massively extraneous.

---------- Post added at 09:38 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:37 AM ----------


I don't have copy in front of me, but I imagine if you crop off the last 30 minutes your left somewhere in the middle of the high rise "sonar" scene. You've already seen Dent become Harvey Two Face, kill several people, etc. Dropping the explanation of his transformation would be disasterous. Especially considering the movie is about that character.

Some of the gangster and Hong Kong plots could have been cut, but not so much Dent's.

Once again, don't assume I mean this in a literal sense of actually slicing out 30 mins of the movie - I'm saying the last 30 mins didn't need to be there, should have been written better and condensed rather than just shooting what felt like a rough draft at times.

[shootemindehead]

Nolan can't do much right in my eyes - Inception was a killer though, what a beautifully executed movie -

Memento?

[SymphonicX]

and momento - Guy Pearce made that movie though

[JonOfTheShred]

It's doubtful. There aren't really all that many villains in Arkham at this point, especially major players. As it stands now, assuming that Jonathan Crane got taken there after he was captured in The Dark Knight, there would only be Zsasz, Scarecrow, and Joker. Nolan has said in interviews that he won't have anyone else play the Joker after Ledger's death, so that makes it just Zsasz and Scarecrow. Plus it would be very similiar to Batman Begins if you think about it, when all the criminals were roaming the streets.

Frankly I'm not sure I want to see Bane in the new movie.. A Knightfall-esque storyline couldn't really be done in a single movie, and outside of Knightfall, Bane has been a fairly generic villain. Besides, the entire point of Bane was that Batman had reached the peak of his strength and was almost untouchable, and along came this mysterious individual that was his complete antithesis. Bane wasn't just as good as Batman, he was BETTER than him. Physically stronger due to the Venom and a master detective in his own right (he deduced that Bruce Wayne was Batman simply by watching Bruce move around). The Nolan movies are too early in Batman's career to have Bane be such a huge impact.

What the franchise needs for the finale is Hugo Strange. Specifically the Hugo Strange that appeared in the Prey storyline. A completely cerebral villain that would be a completely different animal than going up against the anarchist Joker or the chance-dependant Two Face. In Prey, Strange completely dissects Batman psychologically and brings him to the breaking point emotionally all while being completely insane himself. He didn't just want to defeat Batman, he wanted to be Batman. Prey was what Batman RIP wished it could have been.

So I say use Hugo Strange as your main villain, and have Bane be the secondary villain. But that's just me.

All very true points. But I'd actually prefer the film trilogy end with Batmans back breaking, not having it midway through the film, but towards the end if not in the last scene, to solidify the end of Nolans trilogy. I guess it's since I don't really care too much for this trilogy to begin with. I was hoping for a "Godzilla: Final Wars" type ending which obviously would NEVER happen with the Nolans behind the film. But I like to entertain the thought.