6 years on.....The Dark Knight.

jpm4

Soft Falling Rain wrote: »

For one, I never liked how the critics accused WB of using Ledger's death to market the film. Ledger was heavily used in marketing before his death because the performance was that good.

Then you have the ones who say Ledger's performance carried the film, but they fail to realise that The Joker IS the plot. It's like saying the silence of the lambs is **** without Hopkins. It's idiotic.

Hopkins is barely in Silence of the Lambs actually when you add up the on screen minutes. It has a lot else to recommend it besides him (great as he was) but for the Dark Knight it is pretty much all Ledger IMO.

Zubeneschamali

Soft Falling Rain wrote: »

That post wasn't directly aimed at you, it was just a general reponse to the typical claims of the contrarians and snobs.

There are of course film snobs who look down on all blockbusters, but they are not coming into a thread like this to sneer.

I'm not a film snob at all - in fact one reason I dislike the Dark Knight movies is that they take themselves so seriously while still being so comic-book stupid. All the dumbness, none of the fun.

MagicMarker

jpm4 wrote: »

Hopkins is barely in Silence of the Lambs actually when you add up the on screen minutes. It has a lot else to recommend it besides him (great as he was) but for the Dark Knight it is pretty much all Ledger IMO.

Hopkins has 16 minutes screen time in SotL with a running time of 118 minutes.

Ledger has 33 minutes in TDK with a running time of 153 minutes.

Not much of a difference.

Zubeneschamali

MagicMarker wrote: »

SotL with a running time of 118 minutes.

TDK with a running time of 153 minutes.

Not much of a difference.

35 minutes of my life I'm never getting back...

Bobeagleburger

Still haven't got around to watching it. Plan to sometime soon though!

AllGunsBlazing

DrWu wrote: »

Didnt like any of the trilogy. No vision - all too realistic. Batman should be full of lunacy and over the top villains. "The Cult" graphic novel had that perfect mix of grit and lunacy. Lots of vivid colours and meaty storylines.

Same as that. Gotham just didn't seem like it should. Too modern. Burton got just the right feel of a town slightly off its axis. Where the notion of peace keepers and law breakers dressed in bizarre costume doesn't seem out of place.

A vigilante running around in a bat costume seemed a tad ludicrous to me in Nolan's Gotham.

jpm4

MagicMarker wrote: »

Hopkins has 16 minutes screen time in SotL with a running time of 118 minutes.

Ledger has 33 minutes in TDK with a running time of 153 minutes.

Not much of a difference.

Like I said....Lambs would have been a great film even without Hopkins (maybe not as iconic), without Ledger on screen the Dark Knight just sags.

Looper007

Bipolar Joe wrote: »

Seriously, why am I a snob for disagreeing? Why are you the last word on cinema?

Cause I am

Looper007

DrWu wrote: »

I find them really banal. What makes batman different from other superheroes is the lunacy and dark fantasy. Nolan's batman is just plain boring. Even the joker is reduced to a realistic Unibomber type of character. The Arkham Asylum video games are far superior in terms of having a vision. IMHO of course!

If you find Nolan's Batman films boring I would like to know what you find exciting. A bloody video game over Nolan vision of greatness, says it all really. I'm not shocked by the hate on the forum by most, nearly ever film that's legendary gets slaughtered on here.

Looper007

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

There are of course film snobs who look down on all blockbusters, but they are not coming into a thread like this to sneer.

I'm not a film snob at all - in fact one reason I dislike the Dark Knight movies is that they take themselves so seriously while still being so comic-book stupid. All the dumbness, none of the fun.

Whats the problem with taking itself so serious? It's the first film of it's kind that pulls it off without having to pander to the crowd. Where in the Dark Knight is the Comic book stupid?.

You are one of those Blockbuster haters, You are sneering on it by saying it didn't deliver none of the fun, 1 billion people disagree with you.

Bipolar Joe

Get over yourself, buddy. You might fit in better on the TDKR IMDB forum.

e_e

Looper007 wrote: »

Cause I am

What that phrase about the pot and the kettle again? :pac:

johnny_ultimate

What the hell is it about The Dark Knight films that has threads inevitably descend into bickering and insults?

Keep it civil, please.

The sooner people realise that film, like all art is subjective, the sooner we can discuss films without the childish back and forth.

The trilogy is deeply flawed, of that there is no doubt but that doesn't mean that they aren't amongst the best blockbusters ever made. The trilogy could quite easily have been a brain dead series if set pieces but Nolan and Goyer tried to do something a little more interesting and for that you have to applaud them. Sure the films suffer from some truly abysmal editing, numerous moments that belong on the cutting room floor, a score that's far too intrusive by half, some truly dumb logic and one of the worst line deliveries ("Jim Gordon, he's a friend") in the history of the medium but there's still far more great than bad there.

Adamantium

As an aside:

I thought Raimi's Spiderman films were also simliar in terms in strong one shot cohesive unified vision, as a previous poster pointed out, not having your movies planned out to 2028 on a manufacture line leaves the films a bit fuller.

Very well directed movies and I love Tobey Maguire (and his ****e apartment), Kirsten Dunst and James Franco as that trio of uneasy friends. Amazingly well cast side characters (Simmons in the Bugle) and memorable scenes (Ben's death). New York setting felt like New York.

Charming as hell. And films that adapted the stories for film, much like Nolan's.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iSDU2tu7rpk

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_r_mkJMPZWE

Skittlemon

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

What the hell is it about The Dark Knight films that has threads inevitably descend into bickering and insults?

Keep it civil, please.

A few TDK notions die and EVERYBODY LOSES THEIR MINDS! See, the thing about boards mods is.... *pause for effect*......it's fair
:pac:

Zubeneschamali

Looper007 wrote: »

You are one of those Blockbuster haters.

Captain America 2 has a lot of flaws, but it's a better movie than The Dark Knight.

Soft Falling Rain

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Captain America 2 has a lot of flaws, but it's a better movie than The Dark Knight.

While I thought it was arguably the best of what Marvel have offered, it was still ultimately by the numbers and safe. Jesus, even when Marvel kill off a bit player they retcon it to appease fan anger. They have no balls.

None of the Marvel films have moments I'll remember forever (most of the dialogue in Cap 2 has gone from my mind) but TDK is full of scenes I can recite word for word. Not because I'm a fanboy, because it's that ****ing good.

LuckyLloyd

Deleted User wrote: »

The sooner people realise that film, like all art is subjective, the sooner we can discuss films without the childish back and forth.

The trilogy is deeply flawed, of that there is no doubt but that doesn't mean that they aren't amongst the best blockbusters ever made. The trilogy could quite easily have been a brain dead series if set pieces but Nolan and Goyer tried to do something a little more interesting and for that you have to applaud them. Sure the films suffer from some truly abysmal editing, numerous moments that belong on the cutting room floor, a score that's far too intrusive by half, some truly dumb logic and one of the worst line deliveries ("Jim Gordon, he's a friend") in the history of the medium but there's still far more great than bad there.

I think this is fairly spot on. Moments like:

- The Bank robbery;
- The prison van chase and subsequent capture of the joker;
- Wayne escaping from the prison pitt;

are just great cinematic moments. Not that people are wrong when they point out numerous pacing / editing / characterisation flaws or that it's incorrect to say that the series is conservative or uninteresting in its politics or societal comment. It's just that focussing on that stuff misses the point completely imo. When the sequences work this is escapist visual cinema at its most thrilling, that should be the focus imo.

DrWu

Looper007 wrote: »

If you find Nolan's Batman films boring I would like to know what you find exciting. A bloody video game over Nolan vision of greatness, says it all really. I'm not shocked by the hate on the forum by most, nearly ever film that's legendary gets slaughtered on here.

Don't want to wander too much off topic but video games have produced some of the most imaginative and creative ideas of the last decade (or more). While movies have stagnated, video games are now a hive of creativity.

I found Nolan's Batman so dull. Gotham is just Chicago, Batman is incredibly superficial, and the villains range from burn-victims to WWF wrestlers. No attempt to reflect all the things that make batman different. Just my opinion.

MJ23

It could have been so much better if they'd have brought back Barry O' Hanlon.

e_e

DrWu wrote: »

While movies have stagnated, video games are now a hive of creativity.

Well one half of this sentence is correct at least, I'm gonna leave you guessing which.

Theboinkmaster

Adamantium wrote: »

As an aside:

I thought Raimi's Spiderman films were also simliar in terms in strong one shot cohesive unified vision, as a previous poster pointed out, not having your movies planned out to 2028 on a manufacture line leaves the films a bit fuller.

Very well directed movies and I love Tobey Maguire (and his ****e apartment), Kirsten Dunst and James Franco as that trio of uneasy friends. Amazingly well cast side characters (Simmons in the Bugle) and memorable scenes (Ben's death). New York setting felt like New York.

Charming as hell. And films that adapted the stories for film, much like Nolan's.

IMHO i think all of the recent spiderman films were terrible.

RossFixxxed

For me they were claiming to be realistic but relied on ridiculous setups like the bank robbery, the timing of the busses, the fact nobody notices an empty schoolbus driven by a clown coverd in dust and crap from the bank drive into the ONLY opening between the huge line of busses, the timing of the bombs the joker set etc with Rachel and Harvey. He would have to be psychic. Dreadful. The whold 'villian getting caught deliberately and doing things he could not time or even know' about needs to stop. Skyfall, Star Trek into Darkness and the Avengers all did this too. Awful writing.

You have Gary Olman and Aaron Eckhart talking about taking out the mob through their finances and bank accounts and Christian Bale waltzes in wearing a rubber suit and nobdoy even comments or notices.

Once the now infamous BATMAN. TALK. LIKE. THIS. started the whole cinema burst out laughing. This was the opening night, in a packed cinema and we're lauging at his stupid voice. It was really cringing and interferred with the movie for me big time.

The Joker was well played by Ledger, I've seen far better, but he was good. The dreadful dialogue he had to deliver was terrible at times though... like a leper. Shiver.

None of it worked for me, they felt ill paced and stodgy. They took everything so overly serious but with ridiculous scenarios. The prisoner's dilemma on the boats was pointless, the Hong Kong bits were incredibly pointless. The set pieces were confusingly shot and the fights/action were poorly constructed and shot.

I was playing Batman Arkham City the other day and I like it more. Batman is a detective, the villains are murderous psychopaths, they kill a LOT of people in evil ways and for pleasure and gain. Batman has gadgets and there is a sense of self knowing that is totally absent in Nolan's work. It's a Billionaire in a rubber suit beating up poor people as Zero Punctiation said. It is inherently ridiculous!

TL;DR didn't like them much. Weren't realistic, weren't comic book. Luke warm Tea.

krudler

You have Gary Olman and Aaron Eckhart talking about taking out the mob through their finances and bank accounts and Christian Bale waltzes in wearing a rubber suit and nobdoy even comments or notices.

This part always makes me laugh, Oldman just turns around and Batman is there, he's meant to be a fugitive and he just strolls into a crime scene in full costume past the cops?

Suspension of disbelief and stupid writing are two totally different things in movies.

Bipolar Joe

For me, what tipped me over the edge, was the voice. Is it because of the costume? Is it too tight on his neck? Some of these people know what you really sound like, the scary voice isn't needed.

e_e

Bipolar Joe wrote: »

For me, what tipped me over the edge, was the voice. Is it because of the costume? Is it too tight on his neck? Some of these people know what you really sound like, the scary voice isn't needed.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UmyYKnymT4E

Yeah I honestly didn't have a clue what this line was until I turned on the DVD's subtitles, and I'd already seen it 3 times by that stage.

krudler

Bipolar Joe wrote: »

For me, what tipped me over the edge, was the voice. Is it because of the costume? Is it too tight on his neck? Some of these people know what you really sound like, the scary voice isn't needed.

way back when Batman Begins came out there was some annual or book about the production or something that mentioned something about the suit having a speaker built into it to amplify his voice, now either that's guff or it was an idea that never made it to the screen.

RossFixxxed

The best bit, for me, was the guy in front who brought his small son along who started crying and said "what is Ronald McDonald dooooinnngggwaaahhhh?"

Awesome.

Gamb!t

Adamantium wrote: »

Listen I love a wide range of movies (so don't mistake this the raving of some fanboy, i'm not, Lost In Translation is one of my favourite movies of the last decade) , but very few left me with that electric, blue feeling that this film left me with. I had read nothing about it, and had only watched Begins a few months earlier on TV.

Honestly not a false note, and no superhero films have dared challenge Nolan's Batman films in terms of weight and stakes/loss. (No the Winter Soldier is not that)


The Dark Knight will never be topped, and there's already more than enough ADD explosion-fest **** in theaters in past years to prove that.

I remember walking out of the cinema into the blaring sun
"Wow, that was a serious piece of cinema that I didn't think they could do."

Yeah its on the nose about stuff like "The War on Terror", but it's themes are there and genuinely menacing, disturbinh, thought provoking

It was almost the only film of it's kind where the sheer intrinsic ridiculousness of the scenario was not a barrier to feeling "this is could be happening for real".

I love the fact that is an ensemble as well.

And it didn't need a sequel much like Terminator 2. This story may have been better left a two parter.

Heroism is good (but is ultimately a lie really) and in the end it will cost you everything, your friends and family, your life. And for what in the end?
No film of this ilk, is brave enough say that and leave it at that. Losing and keep on losing as part of that way of life

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0G1TgseTPH0

What do ye think?

I remember the day I left the cinema I was a bit disappointed with TDK as I thought it was over hyped,really loved the ninja stuff from Begins and the Tumbler tearing it up around Gotham.

I have since watched TDK again recently and enjoyed it more,its a great movie and Ledger was fantastic as the joker.

Stumbled across this article the other day.

http://moviepilot.com/posts/2014/10/28/just-how-different-was-nolan-s-third-batman-movie-supposed-to-be-2387918?lt_source=external,manual