The Dark Knight: Record Breaking Midnight Showings [Archive] - Audio & Video Forums

PDA

View Full Version : The Dark Knight: Record Breaking Midnight Showings



Woochifer
07-18-2008, 02:26 PM
The box office numbers have already come in for the midnight showings of The Dark Knight. With $18.5 million in ticket sales, The Dark Knight broke the previous midnight opening record held since 2005 by Revenge of the Sith. This does not include the ticket sales from the 3am and 6am showings that some theaters added to accommodate the overflow.

The only question now is whether The Dark Knight's overall box office take for the weekend will eclipse the opening weekend records set by Spider-Man 3 (biggest opening ever) and Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest (biggest July opening ever).

http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/its-record-breaking-night-warner-bros/story.aspx?guid={95569C4C-902F-4E56-A2EF-389BB3FB7060}&dist=hppr

Rich-n-Texas
07-18-2008, 02:33 PM
Well, I contributed to the take this morning when I played hookey from work and, at 11 am took all 2.5 hrs. of it in. That showing wasn't completely sold out, but darn near it.

I'll give my impressions of this blockbuster later. Suffice to say, we've lost a GREAT actor.

Smokey
07-18-2008, 03:15 PM
Lets all hope it will live it to its expectation.

If this movie have the same tone as Batman Begins (too dark), think I wait till DVD comes out.

Woochifer
07-18-2008, 04:04 PM
Lets all hope it will live it to its expectation.

If this movie have the same tone as Batman Begins (too dark), think I wait till DVD comes out.

You mean wait until the DVD hits the WalMart or Big Lots bins? :D

Actually, I thought Batman Begins hit exactly the right tone for the Batman character. Certainly a lot more faithful to the comic book depictions than the crap that Joel Schumacher inflicted on batfans with Batman Forever and Batman & Robin. If you read any of the Batman graphic novels like The Dark Knight Returns, Batman: Year One or Killing Joke, Batman is supposed to be a shadowy scary vigilante, and the Joker is not some goofy prankster -- he's a sadistic killer who enjoys mayhem and murder for its own sake.

The Dark Knight is supposed to be even darker and more disturbing than Batman Begins. Critics are comparing it more with dark crime thrillers like The Departed and Heat than other comic book movies.

Rich-n-Texas
07-18-2008, 05:02 PM
...Actually, I thought Batman Begins hit exactly the right tone for the Batman character. Certainly a lot more faithful to the comic book depictions than the crap that Joel Schumacher inflicted on batfans with Batman Forever and Batman & Robin. If you read any of the Batman graphic novels like The Dark Knight Returns, Batman: Year One or Killing Joke, Batman is supposed to be a shadowy scary vigilante, and the Joker is not some goofy prankster -- he's a sadistic killer who enjoys mayhem and murder for its own sake.
Exactly. And this one lives right up to it. You nailed it Wooch!

thekid
07-19-2008, 01:57 AM
My daughter went to a midnight showing because her friends wanted to see it. My daughter is not anywhere close to being a comic book fan or even an action/adventure film fan. So when I bought tickets for the 9:30 AM show today for my wife, my son and myself I was completely surprised when she asked where was her ticket. so she will be rising early with the rest of us and seeing it for the second time in 2 days.

For a teenager to want to go see a film a second time that is showing at that time of the morning who is not into this type of film is probably the highest form of praise. Can't wait to see it and have a big ol bag a popcorn for breakfast....... :)

emaidel
07-19-2008, 03:50 AM
I saw it yesterday with my wife at a 10:00 AM showing, along with about a dozen other people. One of the perks of retirement is the ability to go to the movies early in the day and see blockbuster films in virtually empty theatres, with no wait, or worry about not being able to get in.

I thought it was quite good, but I had a few quibbles: for one, it's at least 1/2 hour too long. For another, it's relentlessly grim and dark, to the point of being depressing. It's also extremely suspenseful (a good thing), and often I had to remind myself that I was just watching a movie! Last, there's no humor anywhere in the film, save an occasional witty remark from Michael Caine. The lack of humor only adds to the grim, dark atmosphere.

Still, Heath Ledger's performance is nothing less than remarkable. It's highly likely he'll receive a posthumous Oscar Nod (and could even win!) for Best Supporting Actor. His "Joker" character isn't the silly incarnation previous Jokers were, but an all new take resulting in perhaps the most vile, and unceasingly and downright evil screen villain in a long, long time. He's downright scary, he's so bad! The film's worth seeing, if only to see the last performance of a truly terrific young actor. He'll be sorely missed.

RGA
07-19-2008, 12:40 PM
So far this film along with the little seen "In Bruges" are my favorites of the year. Miles better than Iron Man.

BUT the warning here is for folks who want to see a light comic book movie film like Spiderman you're not going to get it. This is an actual film and what is interesting here is that it plays a lot less like a comic book and a lot more like a social commentary. There is no Batman lore with cheese ball comic book level writing. This movie could have worked without the Joker's painted face and with the dark night not wearing a bat suit. That's a compliment!

Batman Begins was an excellent film but it did have the onerous job of providing exposition about how the batman came to be - and most people know that by now - it's a little bit of what bogged down the first Superman and Spiderman movies. The sequel in all three cases IMO are better because rather than filling in somewhat tedious exposition we can get right to a story and screen time is dedicated to more than JUST the title character.

While I enjoyed Batman Begins the Dark Knight is a far better movie. The tension is real here - it does not play in just the comic book realm - we care about the characters, we care about Harvey Dent and we see ourselves and our world in this film with chaos (the joker) right around the corner.

Ledger's joker is a real person not a cartoon that Jack Nicholson played. Jack was fun but when I came home yesterday from seeing Ledger's Joker - the Nicholson Batman was on TV. I call it the Nicholson Batman because every second Nicholson was not on the screen that Batman movie STUNK. Bassinger was just terrible as well.

I digress. Dark Knight is dark, the Joker is not a funny guy, he's a sadist, a killer, a psychotic but not in a mugging for the camera sort of way.

I think you know when a super hero movie is truly special is when the special effects are very secondary to what is going on. You don't notice the CGI - and the special effects are there to support the story not to BE the story.

Ledger deserves a nomination but I would argue that Christopher Nolan deserves a best director nod as well. Rarely does a super hero movie escape the genre. Batman has always been, arguably, the most storied and interesting of the super hero characters because unlike other super heroes Bruce Wayne is in the end just a man - there is no super strength or laser beam eyes or shooting ice shards out of his hands.

In a way I was thinking back to the show Dexter (if you have not seen it see it) because essentially Dexter is a similar character. And the line of good and evil hero and terrorist murderer and righteous is a fine line. The ideals of a government writes on paper versus their actions "Guantanamo" is seen in this film as well.

This is arguably the greatest Superhero movie ever made - but people who like to see a superhero movie like the Superman and Spiderman films might be disappointed by the bleak dark nature of this one.

9/10

For comparison (6 out of 10 or better is recommended thumbs up)

Batman (1989) 5 / 10
Batman Returns 5 / 10
Batman Forever 3 / 10
Batman and Robin 1 / 10
Batman: The Movie (1966) 6/10 (so bad it was funny)
Batman Begins 8/10

Superman 7 / 10
Superman II 7.5 / 10 (not the Donner Cut)
Superman III 3.5 / 10
Superman IV 1 / 10

Spiderman 7 / 10
Spiderman II 8 / 10
Spiderman III 5.5 / 10

X-Men 5.5 / 10
X-Men II 5.5 /10
X Men III 4 / 10

Iron Man 6.5 / 10

Rich-n-Texas
07-19-2008, 03:39 PM
Why so serious RGA? :crazy:

RGA
07-19-2008, 06:14 PM
I guess the movie stuck with me:arf:

Smokey
07-20-2008, 05:19 PM
You mean wait until the DVD hits the WalMart or Big Lots bins? :D


Hopefully not. By that time, the rest of movie actors might also be dead :p

As I was reading RGA and emaidel’s reviews (and most online reviews), I noticed that they did not mention any thing about its IMAX scenes-as Wooch said about 20% of the total film length were filmed using 70mm IMAX cameras.

So IMAX seem not to be a big factor in this movie attraction (given that there maybe one IMAX theater per town).

Smokey
07-20-2008, 05:27 PM
For comparison (6 out of 10 or better is recommended thumbs up)

Batman (1989) 5 / 10
Batman Returns 5 / 10
Batman Forever 3 / 10
Batman and Robin 1 / 10
Batman: The Movie (1966) 6/10 (so bad it was funny)
Batman Begins 8/10



Batman Forever only get 3 stars! IMO this movie had the best villains of entire Batman series.

http://www.virginmedia.com/microsites/movies/slideshow/topcomicvillians/img_9.jpg

Woochifer
07-20-2008, 06:15 PM
Hopefully not. By that time, the rest of movie actors might also be dead :p

What?! You mean you're actually going to pay full price for a DVD?! Someone call 9-1-1, the real Smokey's missing! :D


As I was reading RGA and emaidel’s reviews (and most online reviews), I noticed that they did not mention any thing about its IMAX scenes-as Wooch said about 20% of the total film length were filmed using 70mm IMAX cameras.

Actually, plenty of the online and newspaper reviews and pre-release articles about the movie mentioned IMAX. For one thing, most of the big city press screenings were done exclusively at IMAX theaters.

A Google search for the terms "the dark knight" and "imax" will return over 2,000 news articles.

That's why there has been such a huge run on the IMAX screenings. The only thing holding back the box office numbers on the IMAX screenings was simply capacity. A total of 94 IMAX screens showed The Dark Knight, while about the movie opened on over 10,000 screens total.


So IMAX seem not to be a big factor in this movie attraction (given that there maybe one IMAX theater per town).

The IMAX screenings accounted for more than $6.2 million of the weekend box office (about 4% of the box office total, and less than 1% of the total screens), which was also an all-time box office record for IMAX. An interview with the IMAX CEO indicated that the IMAX screenings were a complete sell out this week with all available tickets sold. Considering that IMAX tickets for The Dark Knight were selling on eBay for upwards of $90, I'd say there was plenty of demand.

Keep in mind that the first screenings to sell out in every city were the IMAX ones (some of which sold out within hours of going on sale 4 weeks ago). In general, for big blockbusters, IMAX screenings hold their audience much better from week to week. Part of the reason is that a lot of fans want to see it on opening night no matter what, but then watch it in IMAX for their second (or third) viewing.

Woochifer
07-20-2008, 06:23 PM
Batman Forever only get 3 stars! IMO this movie had the best villains of entire Batman series.

http://www.virginmedia.com/microsites/movies/slideshow/topcomicvillians/img_9.jpg

Jim Carrey was good as the Riddler, but the rest of the movie was a heap of crap (albeit a cinematic masterpiece compared to Batman & Robin). I mean, you had career worst performances from Val Kilmer, Chris O'Donnell, Tommy Lee Jones, and Nicole Kidman, along with hackmeister director Joel Schumacher subjecting audiences to his man-nipple and crotch shot fetishes! :shocked:

BradH
07-20-2008, 08:52 PM
Actually, I thought Batman Begins hit exactly the right tone for the Batman character. Certainly a lot more faithful to the comic book depictions than the crap that Joel Schumacher inflicted on batfans...

Joel Schumacher's entire career is a waste of electricity.

I caught The Dark Knight yesterday. That's one seriously dense, complex storyline that never let's up for 2 1/2 hours. It will definitely take repeated viewings to catch all the implications. Ledger was priceless. The Pencil Scene was one the funniest, coolest things I've seen in years. At that moment I totally accepted Ledger as The Joker. This was better than Batman Begins but Tim Burton's 1989 Batman is still my favorite of the lot. By far.

Bring it.


Batman Begins was an excellent film but it did have the onerous job of providing exposition about how the batman came to be...

That's one of the reasons I like Burton's first turn at bat. (Okay, I couldn't resist.) In that film, the Batman was surrounded in mystery (the exposition was all on the Joker) and what was slowly revealed was more twisted than anything Nolan has brought so far. Sure, Ledger's Joker was extreme but Keaton's Bruce Wayne had a split personality, was awkward with women, and beat people up while dressed in black leather like a bat. That was his release, he had to do it. That's twisted. The beauty part is that all this was subversively placed within a summer blockbuster but never explicity explained like it would've been in Nolan's hands. Ledger's Joker tries to convince Batman to submit to public anarchy while Nicholson's Joker reflected Keaton's own dark side, they were doppelgangers. Would Wayne fall to psychological madness or would he get the girl? One film was a psychologic exploration of the complex nature of madness and the other was a complex crime/punishment/terrorism fable. That alone doesn't make one better than the other but I'm amazed when people so readily dismiss the first Batfilm as fluff. It was clear to me in 1989 that Burton had taken Miller's The Dark Knight Returns and smashed it up a little with Moore's The Watchmen, resulting in a decadent alt-future Gotham City that looked like a combination of Metropolis, Blade Runner and Brazil. Throw in some Gothic elements from Dracula and Phantom of the Opera and you've got something that's all over any comic book film including Spidey or X-anything.

But I would definitely rank The Dark Knight as second of all time. Burton's second batflick hit the fail button despite its visual beauty; I don't think he was really into the project. Then, as producer, he handed the franchise off to Schumacher and for that he should publicly run in his underwear through a gauntlet of towel-popping film gods. Or something.

Btw, can we officially call Bob Kane a genius after all those brilliant archetypes he created? Look how many different ways they lend themselves to interpretation in various hands. Amazing.

s dog
07-21-2008, 06:40 AM
Seen it sunday, Joker was great, sounded great, Had a good time watching this movie.

RGA
07-21-2008, 08:09 AM
Brad

Unfortunately for me the original Batman(1989) was let down by pretty poor acting (except Nicholson) and that includes Keaton. I respect ideas in films as I respect it in music but you have to be able to communicate it well. Bob Dylan mumbles everything so whatever he is trying to say must be in the liner notes because the man has one of the worst singing voices I've ever heard and people complain about American Idol.

The Batman 1989 comes across more as a comic book which depending how you view things could be a good thing. Nolan's Batman is ultimately more believable - virtually everything that happens in both movies is somewhat of a believable future including the stunt work. A ninja in a bat suit with lots of money to buy expensive arms - hey they can leap from buildings and take out 10 guys.

None of that back story was in the 1989 version. I found no depth in terms of character development and certainly no feeling. Hell I wanted the Joker to win because it was the only performance I enjoyed.

Batman Returns I liked more on second and third viewings. But really in all four of those films the LEAST interesting character was Batman. Nolan actually creates a character study as much as anything else and for the first time in film Batman is actually an interesting well rounded character.

I went and put Batman Begins on last night and I liked it more than the first time.

And with the new Superman film, and other super hero movies like Iron Man, Hulk, Spiderman, X-men, Fantastic Four, Hellboy, Catwoman....

I want to see some sort of quasi Justice League battle royal movie.:4:

Anyone know what Nolan is gonna do next with the Batman - who will be the next villain - tune in next week - same bat time same bat channel.

Troy
07-21-2008, 09:33 AM
My wife fell asleep. I came close, especially in the 3rd act after Dent became 2-face.

Ledger was a blast, but that's about it for me. It was just a lot of noise and hysteria without any really engaging characters or real meaning. All the intensity and pathos felt forced and artificial. Bale's gruff Batman voice sounded silly and WAY over the top. The "shocking" plot twists were all too telegraphed and predictable. Convoluted and bloated with about 12 too many characters and superfluous scenes, the movie was at least 45 minutes too long. I think I've seen all of Chris Nolan's movies now and can safely say that he's the most over-rated, unsubtle director working today.

How many Batman movies can Americans sit through? What is this, the 7th or 8th? Enough already! There hasn't been a single one that's been better than 3 stars.

Xoote
07-21-2008, 12:07 PM
I cant wait to see this movie. Just need to free up some time to go

Woochifer
07-21-2008, 02:09 PM
Joel Schumacher's entire career is a waste of electricity.

Couldn't agree more, although in his defense, I read that the turn in direction with the Batman series beginning with Batman Forever was basically forced on Schumacher by the studio bosses who wanted a more campy and kid-friendly movie than the decidedly dark and bizarre Batman Returns (which is one of those movies that I appreciate a lot more than I like or enjoy). Even so, he chose to keep the batnipples, so that pretty much cements his infamy in my book! :6:


I caught The Dark Knight yesterday. That's one seriously dense, complex storyline that never let's up for 2 1/2 hours. It will definitely take repeated viewings to catch all the implications. Ledger was priceless. The Pencil Scene was one the funniest, coolest things I've seen in years. At that moment I totally accepted Ledger as The Joker. This was better than Batman Begins but Tim Burton's 1989 Batman is still my favorite of the lot. By far.

Because my wife and I couldn't get out this weekend, I rewatched Batman and Batman Begins. Those two visions of the Batman saga are about as decidedly different as you can get!

Kind of a paradox because the Tim Burton movie was drawn up in a gothic comic book world yet very much rooted in late-80s pop culture and strongly reflected the sensibility of that era. For that movie, the style and flair was every bit as important as the story and the action, and that very much reflected the times. In contrast, the Nolan movie was rooted in more of a real world setting but the Batman character was presented more as a mythic presence.

I like both movies, but I think Batman Begins holds up a lot better through repeat viewings. As RGA points out, the Nolan film simply has a much stronger script.


Btw, can we officially call Bob Kane a genius after all those brilliant archetypes he created? Look how many different ways they lend themselves to interpretation in various hands. Amazing.

Yep, I would agree there. I think that in a way, the times caught up with Kane's comic book depiction. He created Batman during a time before serial killers wearing clown make-up became the stuff of reality, and before you had debates on the TV news about vigilantes patrolling city streets. Batman speaks to today's world much more than other comic book heroes from the golden era like Superman, Captain America, et al.

Also have to remember though that a lot of comic book heroes had to pull back on their creative arc during the 50s and 60s because of the Comics Code.


Unfortunately for me the original Batman(1989) was let down by pretty poor acting (except Nicholson) and that includes Keaton. I respect ideas in films as I respect it in music but you have to be able to communicate it well.

I kinda have the opposite opinion here. Every successive time I've seen the original Batman, the less I like Nicholson's Joker. It seems more like I was watching Nicholson in clown makeup, than actually seeing him create a standalone character. Looking forward to seeing Heath Ledger's version of the Joker, because I've yet to see a live action Joker that matches the outright nightmarish and evil villian that he is in the comics (at least the more recent and original depictions).

In that respect, I liked Keaton's low key portrayal of Batman. Where he fell short was when he had to resort to Bruce Wayne (and this is where I think Christian Bale's more multidimensional portrayal wins out overall).


The Batman 1989 comes across more as a comic book which depending how you view things could be a good thing. Nolan's Batman is ultimately more believable - virtually everything that happens in both movies is somewhat of a believable future including the stunt work.

But, I think that was the whole point of the Burton movie. He was trying to create a grandiose gothic comic book world that's not rooted in reality (Warren Beatty would take it to the next level the following year with Dick Tracy). Yet, it strangely epitomized the pop cultural sensibility of the late-80s in how the visual style and general feel of that world was perhaps more important than the dialog. Burton is a very visual director, and this movie very much fit with his particular approach to storytelling. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't, but in this case I thought it worked more often than not.


I think I've seen all of Chris Nolan's movies now and can safely say that he's the most over-rated, unsubtle director working today.

Couldn't disagree more. With Memento, Insomnia, Batman Begins, The Prestige and now The Dark Knight under his belt, I find Nolan to be the most interesting and versatile director out there right now. With The Prestige he actually made a Hugh Jackman character interesting, and that's saying a lot. Have yet to see TDK, but the consensus from critics and audiences alike on this and Nolan's other films seems to disagree with you.


How many Batman movies can Americans sit through? What is this, the 7th or 8th? Enough already!

There hasn't been a single one that's been better than 3 stars.

Well, with $158 million in domestic ticket sales over the weekend, apparently the public's appetite for Batman hasn't let up, and more Batman movies are on the way. Yet, despite being disappointed time after time by the Batman movies, you still ponied up and braved the crowds on opening weekend for The Dark Knight? Maybe you need to sit the next one out ... :cool:

BradH
07-21-2008, 02:39 PM
Unfortunately for me the original Batman(1989) was let down by pretty poor acting (except Nicholson) and that includes Keaton. I respect ideas in films as I respect it in music but you have to be able to communicate it well.

The whole point of that film was that Bruce Wayne didn't look like he could kick anyone's butt. Again, it was a split personality thing. I think these ideas were communicated well; Keaton is, I think, a far better actor than Christian Bale who is clearly the same person in or out of the suit - and in every movie, it seems. If you take the political allegory out of The Dark Knight then half the things people do in that film make no sense; it's debatable how well any of that was communicated. Also, Burton's movies lose a lot if they're not seen on the big screen. That's true of anything but it happens with some directors more than others. I'm glad Nolan's revived Batman but he's not in the ballpark with Tim Burton when it comes to style. From a visual sense, Nolan's films could've been done by any number of directors. You make a great point about whether a comic book film should be realistic or look like a comic book. I come down on the comic book side, otherwise it's just James Bond in a batsuit. Even the great WB animation looked like the Fleischer Bros, very art-deco. Nolan has to explain so much because everything is set in a modern, believable world. Burton's screwed up retro-future landscape allowed some mystery about the Batman. It was a decadent playground where anything could happen. One thing about Nolan, he's not afraid to take chances. 40 more minutes for Harvey Dent? Sure, why the hell not? There's a cult film carelesness to that structure that I sort of admired about The Dark Knight. Twenty years ago that wouldn't have been allowed in a big-buget film. It happened in the Pirates of the Carribean series too. Anyway, I don't think Nolan is a great director but he's a godsend after Clooneys batnipples.

I'm really looking forward to The Spirit. I've been a Spirit fan since the 70's. And I cannot freaking wait for The Watchmen. I still can't believe that's happening.

BradH
07-21-2008, 03:13 PM
I like both movies, but I think Batman Begins holds up a lot better through repeat viewings. As RGA points out, the Nolan film simply has a much stronger script.

Well, it's certainly more linear but it was an origin story after all. What struck me about Batman was how he was slowly revealed with the same structure Disney used for Capt. Nemo (another vigilante) in 20,000 Leagues Under The Sea. Instead of an exposition about why Nemo was wealthy and how the Nautilus was built, he appears mysteriously, strikes, disappears and is eventually revealed throughout the film. (Granted, that's how it was in the novel too but the origin details were revealed in Verne's godawful sequel Mysterious Island.) Also, as a screenplay, Batman is actually pretty damned tight as a 40's style film-noir crime drama. All the operatic, Gothic stuff was built on top of that.

3-LockBox
07-21-2008, 04:15 PM
I like Bale's Bruce Wayne compared to Keaton's, who came across as wooden to me. I like that Bale's Batman is much more self-righteous, while Keaton's was more vigilante. I do appreciate that Keaton's turn in the suit was way more a stretch and a pleasant surprise to boot, but the latest Batman movies are just way better scripted.

After Burton's first Batman movie, it turned into one star-villain-turn after another. All Jim Carrey did was ape Frank Gorshan's Riddler from the '60s TV series, which seemed to be Schumacher's template.

Worf101
07-22-2008, 04:36 AM
Seen it sunday, Joker was great, sounded great, Had a good time watching this movie.
S-Dog FTW!!!! Short, sweet, too the effin point!!! Gutshot baybeee!!!!!

Da (sometimes less is more) Worfster

RGA
07-22-2008, 08:31 AM
Woochifer

Let me say Heath's Joker is a lot better than Nicholson's - everything you said about Nicholson's Joker I agree with. he basically was a guy in a clown suit mugging (hamming) it up for the camera. Still it was the only thing in the movie worth watching and I enjoyed the hamming.

Ledger gets far less screen time in a longer movie.

I have seen all these Batman films on the big screen and I stand by my assessment. if it ain't on the page it ain't on the stage. I go to movies for good story telling and visuals for me is a very secondary concern UNLESS it supports good story telling. The comic look of the Tim Burton Batman's were incredible but in the end they can't lift it out of the two dimensional caricatures of the comic book. The 1989 version was a silly story with wooden performances with a lot of nice visuals and Jack Nicholson to go way way over the top to cover over the drivel of a story.

The Nolan Batman's create a more Blade Runner film Noir feel of a big corrupt city (which could be any big city today) with story telling, characters, and human nature front and center.

This is similarly why I felt Casino Royale is the best James Bond film. The character is a human shark, which is more like what a Bond would really be, and less cartoon like. Though I did enjoy many of the previous Bond films. I understand why people like them over Casino Royale and why people like the comic book looking Batman (1989).

Troy
07-22-2008, 08:54 AM
Couldn't disagree more. With Memento, Insomnia, Batman Begins, The Prestige and now The Dark Knight under his belt, I find Nolan to be the most interesting and versatile director out there right now. With The Prestige he actually made a Hugh Jackman character interesting, and that's saying a lot. Have yet to see TDK, but the consensus from critics and audiences alike on this and Nolan's other films seems to disagree with you.

Hardly a "versatile" list, really. Where's the comedy? Where's the lightness? Where's the romance? All his movies are complex, dark and very serious. How is that versatile? The Coen Brothers are the most versatile directing team working today. They do consistently amazing work in any style.

I liked Insomnia quite a bit. Once you get past being confounded by the non-linear plot, Memento falls apart under repeat viewings. Prestiege is all about the plot twist. Get past that and it's a pedestrian Victorian magician flick. And casting Bowie as Tesla, WTF was that all about. Laughable.

I know I'm in the minority in my feelings about Nolan's Batman flicks and risk a flame-job by all the Batman fanboys that are posting here. I don't mind. There needs to be a voice here that can distance himself from the "Bob Kane is a genius" crowd, Someone who can see past the fatal flaw that no one can see that Bruce Wayne is Batman in every Batman movie. Step back from it and stop drinking the Batman-flavored Koolade and see this juvenile and silly premise for what it is.

For me, the Burton, and even the 60s Adam West version had it more correct: The whole Batman premise is so absurd that is should be treated as campy. Nolan's version takes itself far too seriously.



Well, with $158 million in domestic ticket sales over the weekend, apparently the public's appetite for Batman hasn't let up, and more Batman movies are on the way.

Yeah, and the public is so smart, right? The public sees what it's told to see and enjoys what it's told to enjoy. Or are you too close to it to see that?


Yet, despite being disappointed time after time by the Batman movies, you still ponied up and braved the crowds on opening weekend for The Dark Knight? Maybe you need to sit the next one out ... :cool:

For the record, my wife loved Batman Begins and I thought is was ok, so she wanted to see this new one as a matinee. The theater wasn't that packed, so "braving the crowds" is an overstatement. (the big lines were for Mama Mia!)

I skipped the 2nd and 3rd Spiderman flicks because I was bored by the first one. I expect I will skip a 3rd Nolan Batman flick and leave it for you fawning Batman fanboys.

Rich-n-Texas
07-22-2008, 09:20 AM
Book sales not what you expected? :smilewinkgrin:

Woochifer
07-22-2008, 11:30 AM
I have seen all these Batman films on the big screen and I stand by my assessment. if it ain't on the page it ain't on the stage. I go to movies for good story telling and visuals for me is a very secondary concern UNLESS it supports good story telling. The comic look of the Tim Burton Batman's were incredible but in the end they can't lift it out of the two dimensional caricatures of the comic book. The 1989 version was a silly story with wooden performances with a lot of nice visuals and Jack Nicholson to go way way over the top to cover over the drivel of a story.

We've gone thru this discussion before, haven't we? :14:

I think you're implying that if something can't be adapted as a live stage play, then it won't work on film? Live drama relies on the dialog because that's the nature of the medium. Film doesn't have those limitations. If the visuals are secondary in your view, then do you automatically dismiss something like Godfrey Reggio's Qatsi trilogy because those movies are entirely visual with no dialog or narration?

With animated cartoons, a lot of the best ones ever done were entirely scripted using drawn storyboards rather than written screenplays. The storytelling was entirely visual with any dialog (if any) added in later. Movies adapted from comic books can use a similar storyboarding approach (which I believe that Burton does), because that's a fantasy world they're emulating.

RGA
07-22-2008, 12:31 PM
I never said I discounted visuals but they still MUST support the story well. Spiderman 2 has preposterous special effects but the story works on a romance level and the fact that Doc Ock was not a cartoon but a sympathetic real well written character. Spiderman 3 took the special effects up several notches but the story was bogged down and the villains again became cartoons and the film won't be taking up space on my shelf.

Of course special effects and visual effects can play a major part in film (and sound) but if all you have is great special effects, a great looking film, but the acting stinks, there's no character development and at the end I just could not give a damn then no matter how pretty it is I am not going to like it. With the Batman films the critics pretty much agree with me. The 1989 got ok reviews the rest sucked - the new ones get great reviews and will stand the test of time. Watching the 1989 one again it was almost painfully embarrassing to watch. Tim Burton has a terrific visual eye but quite frankly he's not much of a director. mars Attacks was rubbish - his Johnny Depp cartoon movie with the dead girl coming back --- well i can;t even remember the name - looked nice but pretty much crap compared to something like Shrek.

Someone said that Batman took itself too seriously and that is a somewhat valid argument - a comic book movie people have certain expectations will be more like the 1966 version than a vigilante tale. Conversely Lord of the Rings and Star Wars were based largely on the Tolken novels but Star Wars and Empire didn't take itself seriously and were quite excellent entertainments while LOTR was a great looking exercise in some of the most tedious films I've seen in decades. So I suppose if I like the newer serious Batman movies I should like the LOTR films better but I don't.

The fact is that there is a gut reaction that supercedes all arguments intellectually for liking or disliking a movie. Batman 1989 IMO had pretty lousy acting and some of the worst dialog I've had the misfortune to listen to in film (Bassinger to Keaton mostly) but Bassinger is mostly a terrible actress. I can't say the film looks any better than the new ones either - it looked more cartoony (read fake). Keaton was one note with his usual Keaton tics, and there was no heart anywhere in the film. It was a live action cartoon. The Nolen films are films - better deeper stories - far better dialog and acting - better action sequences better special effects (not even counting the 1989 versus 2008 argument). Hell even the bat-mobile is better.

I have not seen Godfrey Reggio's Qatsi trilogy so I don't know if I would dismiss it or not. But I was not much of a fan of Fantasia for what it's worth.

Woochifer
07-22-2008, 12:32 PM
Hardly a "versatile" list, really. Where's the comedy? Where's the lightness? Where's the romance? All his movies are complex, dark and very serious. How is that versatile? The Coen Brothers are the most versatile directing team working today. They do consistently amazing work in any style.

I was referring to visual style, big budget, low budget, context, setting, character development, etc. The Coen Brothers make great movies in their own right, but at the core their movies are essentially eccentric character studies. They've not done any high concept films or summer blockbusters. You might think that's a good thing, but those are also movies that Nolan has done that the Coens have not.


I know I'm in the minority in my feelings about Nolan's Batman flicks and risk a flame-job by all the Batman fanboys that are posting here. I don't mind. There needs to be a voice here that can distance himself from the "Bob Kane is a genius" crowd,

Seems more like you're inviting the flaming intentionally.

My opinion on Bob Kane's creation is quite simple -- it has been consistently ahead of its time, and provided ample space for compelling story telling by successive generations of writers like Frank Miller and Alan Moore. Think about it, the Batman storyline was created nearly 70 years ago, yet remains relevant because it mirrors and foreshadows societal trends and attitudes.


Someone who can see past the fatal flaw that no one can see that Bruce Wayne is Batman in every Batman movie. Step back from it and stop drinking the Batman-flavored Koolade and see this juvenile and silly premise for what it is.

Uh, ever heard of suspension of disbelief? I guess then that every sci-fi flick where you can hear loud explosions in outer space is a "juvenile and silly premise" because after all space is really a vacuum and sound does not travel in space? Or that those CGI-created visual effects in today's action pics are also a "fatal flaw" because nobody can possibly live through all the gunfire and explosions (not to mention impossible physics)?

And if you judge the validity of secret identities as a measuring stick for comic book films, then you might as well axe nearly the entire genre out of your viewing library. Superman just dons a pair of glasses and a business suit, and he becomes Clark Kent. The only thing separating Diana Prince from Wonder Woman is a tiara and a skimpy costume. The Flash's mask conceals even less of Barry Allen's face than the bat costume.


For me, the Burton, and even the 60s Adam West version had it more correct: The whole Batman premise is so absurd that is should be treated as campy. Nolan's version takes itself far too seriously.

Correct? How do you determine whether an interpretation of a comic book character is correct or wrong?

If you're going with the tone of the Batman comics and graphic novels, then Nolan's version is actually a lot closer to the source. If you prefer the Adam West intentionally silly take, which deviates significantly from the comic book stories, then maybe that's what you should stick with.


Yeah, and the public is so smart, right? The public sees what it's told to see and enjoys what it's told to enjoy. Or are you too close to it to see that?

Too close? I've yet to see The Dark Knight! :cool:

Considering that I've only been to one movie in the past year, who then is telling me what to see and what to enjoy?

Besides, you were questioning "how many Batman movies Americans can sit through" as if the public was as sick of Batman as you apparently are.

The box office numbers gave you the answer you didn't want, so now you're saying that the public blindly goes to the movies because someone told them do so? And if the Cinemascore audience poll gives The Dark Knight the highest rating (and a straight A rating on Cinemascore is not very common), you're saying that this was because someone again forced them to do so? That's quite a stretch even by the most blindly contrarian standards.

Maybe most people who went to see The Dark Knight came to the opinion that they like the movie on their own free will? And maybe they went to see the movie because they CHOSE to do so on their own free will? I mean, you saw the movie on opening weekend, was that your free choice or were you ordered to drive to the theater and sit through the movie?

If someone needs to take a step back and look at something more objectively, it's certainly not me...


For the record, my wife loved Batman Begins and I thought is was ok, so she wanted to see this new one as a matinee. The theater wasn't that packed, so "braving the crowds" is an overstatement. (the big lines were for Mama Mia!)

Maybe an Abba musical is in the cards for this weekend? :D


I skipped the 2nd and 3rd Spiderman flicks because I was bored by the first one.

Too bad for you then, because the 2nd Spidey flick was easily the best of the bunch, and pretty much a consensus pick among the best comic book films. Feel free to skip the 3rd one, though. :cool:


I expect I will skip a 3rd Nolan Batman flick and leave it for you fawning Batman fanboys.

Fawning? I'll leave that til after I get around to seeing the movie first.

BradH
07-22-2008, 01:07 PM
I have seen all these Batman films on the big screen and I stand by my assessment. if it ain't on the page it ain't on the stage. I go to movies for good story telling and visuals for me is a very secondary concern UNLESS it supports good story telling.

But you haven't described why you thought Batman was a silly story. If putting on a batsuit is silly then all the Batman movies are silly. The psychology of the first film WAS on the page, it was in the dialogue, it was in front of everybody's face but a lot of people missed it. Burton's handling of Bruce Wayne in the first movie was every bit as complex as Nolan's. It was just different because Keaton was playing a mild-mannered Wayne who had a dark side. You can blame Burton for that decision if you want but I wouldn't blame Keaton's acting ability.


Nolan's version takes itself far too seriously.

I knew you were going to say that because that's what you said about the first movie. Now you're saying the first one was campy. Guess what? You're right on both counts.

Here's the deal: Burton recognized the absurdity of the whole thing so he gave Wayne a twisted psychological drive as motivation for the bat fetish. Otherwise, in Burton's own words, Wayne could just put on a hockey mask and got out and beat people up. That was brilliant, it allowed Burton to play absurd and dark at the same time. That's why he never worked with the Robin character because, as he described it, they had a hard enough time getting one guy into a costume without figuring out an angle for a teenage boy in tights. I think that's why Batman Returns failed; it relied too much on the acceptance of the Bob Kane characters as a given. It's like the Catwoman and the Penguin are there because they're supposed to be there. There was no real character motivation driving that one. So, in the first Batman, Burton had the best of both worlds. It was campy, over the top and disturbing at the same time. A Burton trademark, actually. But I completely disagree that Wayne was two-dimensional in that film. People used to say, "Why did he lower himself down slowly like he was Dracula" or "Why did he fly around in the Batplane doing aerobatics instead of immediately joining the fight?" My answer was always the same: He did it because he got off on it. Burton saw the humour and the darkness in it.

Btw, Troy, I heard Bruce Dern had a cameo in WALL-E.

"Drone Two! The farrest is dying! The farrest is dying!"

Just messin' with ya. I haven't seen it yet.

Troy
07-22-2008, 02:48 PM
I was referring to visual style, big budget, low budget, context, setting, character development, etc. The Coen Brothers make great movies in their own right, but at the core their movies are essentially eccentric character studies. They've not done any high concept films or summer blockbusters. You might think that's a good thing, but those are also movies that Nolan has done that the Coens have not.


From where I sit, Nolan is no more versatile than Tim Burton or David Fincher. Yes, they've all done movies of varying budgets and milieus, but each one has a specific tonal/stylistic niche they fill. You can always tell it's a Burton, Fincher or Nolan film. The Coens are the really versatile ones, doing broad comedies, serious film noir, romantic comedies and even Homeric allegories. How can Nolan's oeuvre be compared to that?

I believe the term "High Concept" is actually an insult, isn't it? Any movie that can be explained in one sentence can't be a good movie.



Seems more like you're inviting the flaming intentionally.


Perhaps. I'm just having fun here. No insult intended, even if I come across that way.



My opinion on Bob Kane's creation is quite simple -- it has been consistently ahead of its time, and provided ample space for compelling story telling by successive generations of writers like Frank Miller and Alan Moore. Think about it, the Batman storyline was created nearly 70 years ago, yet remains relevant because it mirrors and foreshadows societal trends and attitudes.


Kane invented extremely broad and simple characters for his original comic book. They have been repeatedly reinvented 6-ways-from-sunday by Miller, Moore, Ed Graham, Burton, Shoemaker, Nolan and a dozen others. Each generation builds on the mythology created by all the previous interpretations, but going back to Kane's bare-bones original and calling him a genius is an insult to all genius's.



Uh, ever heard of suspension of disbelief? I guess then that every sci-fi flick where you can hear loud explosions in outer space is a "juvenile and silly premise" because after all space is really a vacuum and sound does not travel in space? Or that those CGI-created visual effects in today's action pics are also a "fatal flaw" because nobody can possibly live through all the gunfire and explosions (not to mention impossible physics)?

Sure, suspension of disbelief is a line you either cross or not based on how drawn in you are by the story. I was totally forgiving of everything technically "wrong" with Wall•E because I bought into the logic of the story. I just don't buy into the most basic tenets and motivations of Batman. I find suspension of disbelief very difficult in ANY Batman movie.



And if you judge the validity of secret identities as a measuring stick for comic book films, then you might as well axe nearly the entire genre out of your viewing library. Superman just dons a pair of glasses and a business suit, and he becomes Clark Kent. The only thing separating Diana Prince from Wonder Woman is a tiara and a skimpy costume. The Flash's mask conceals even less of Barry Allen's face than the bat costume.

Damn skippy. This conceit is a pathetic flaw in almost every superhero story that makes suspension of disbelief very difficult for me.



Correct? How do you determine whether an interpretation of a comic book character is correct or wrong?

My opinion is just as valid as yours or anyone else. Unless you're Bob Kane, you don't really know how close any of these interpretations of his story are to Kane's original vision. And don't bother throwing a quote from Kane at me about how much he liked Burton's vision, because all these old guys are smart enough to say what's right in order to get thier old product to sell.



Considering that I've only been to one movie in the past year, who then is telling me what to see and what to enjoy?

It was a general statement not directly pointed at you.



Besides, you were questioning "how many Batman movies Americans can sit through" as if the public was as sick of Batman as you apparently are.

The box office numbers gave you the answer you didn't want, so now you're saying that the public blindly goes to the movies because someone told them do so? And if the Cinemascore audience poll gives The Dark Knight the highest rating (and a straight A rating on Cinemascore is not very common), you're saying that this was because someone again forced them to do so? That's quite a stretch even by the most blindly contrarian standards.

Maybe most people who went to see The Dark Knight came to the opinion that they like the movie on their own free will? And maybe they went to see the movie because they CHOSE to do so on their own free will? I mean, you saw the movie on opening weekend, was that your free choice or were you ordered to drive to the theater and sit through the movie?

If someone needs to take a step back and look at something more objectively, it's certainly not me...

Don't make it sound like I have a vested interest in this movie either way. I'm just mystified and frankly, disappointed in human nature, by it's popularity.

And yeah, I kinda WAS ordered to see the movie. And I suspect a lot of people felt hyped into seeing it as well.



Maybe an Abba musical is in the cards for this weekend? :D

Thank god, no. She's gonna have to see that with her ABBA loving girlfriend.



Too bad for you then, because the 2nd Spidey flick was easily the best of the bunch, and pretty much a consensus pick among the best comic book films. Feel free to skip the 3rd one, though. :cool:

I saw part on cable. It's a silly children's movie.

For me, calling something "The best of the comic book films" is like saying "spinach is the best of the vegetables" to someone that can't stand vegetables.

Comic book superhero movies suck because they're based on superhero comic books. Superhero comic books suck because they are written so that a 4th-grader can understand the concepts, dialog and motivations of the characters. I'm an adult with adult tastes and needs. Comicbook superheroes do not satisfy these needs and I'm disappointed that they satisfy such a vast majority of the American public. We should want more.



Fawning? I'll leave that til after I get around to seeing the movie first.

Why so defensive then?



Here's the deal: Burton recognized the absurdity of the whole thing so he gave Wayne a twisted psychological drive as motivation for the bat fetish. Otherwise, in Burton's own words, Wayne could just put on a hockey mask and got out and beat people up. That was brilliant, it allowed Burton to play absurd and dark at the same time. That's why he never worked with the Robin character because, as he described it, they had a hard enough time getting one guy into a costume without figuring out an angle for a teenage boy in tights. I think that's why Batman Returns failed; it relied too much on the acceptance of the Bob Kane characters as a given. It's like the Catwoman and the Penguin are there because they're supposed to be there. There was no real character motivation driving that one. So, in the first Batman, Burton had the best of both worlds. It was campy, over the top and disturbing at the same time. A Burton trademark, actually. But I completely disagree that Wayne was two-dimensional in that film. People used to say, "Why did he lower himself down slowly like he was Dracula" or "Why did he fly around in the Batplane doing aerobatics instead of immediately joining the fight?" My answer was always the same: He did it because he got off on it. Burton saw the humour and the darkness in it.

Hiya bud, long time no see. Hope you find a copy of my new book!

That's a pretty solid description of why the Burton take on the Batman mythology is the best version. It strikes a balance between camp and dark seriousness. I prefer Batman Returns with the Devito as The Penguin, personally because this dichotomy is even more extreme. That movie is just over the top weird.

But even the best Batman movie only gets 3 stars from me.



Btw, Troy, I heard Bruce Dern had a cameo in WALL-E.
"Drone Two! The farrest is dying! The farrest is dying!

heh, yeah, I made the Silent Running connection to Wall•E immediately too. See it, it's staggeringly bright, visionary and fresh.

3-LockBox
07-22-2008, 03:17 PM
And if you judge the validity of secret identities as a measuring stick for comic book films, then you might as well axe nearly the entire genre out of your viewing library. Superman just dons a pair of glasses and a business suit, and he becomes Clark Kent. The only thing separating Diana Prince from Wonder Woman is a tiara and a skimpy costume. The Flash's mask conceals even less of Barry Allen's face than the bat costume.

Yes, a great measure of suspension of disbelief is necessary for any sci-fi or fantasy film, otherwise, why bother. Guy in a bat suit? Yes, its silly, but so are all comic book characters. At least Iron Man's "costume" is functional and the Hulk's transformation serves as his "costume". I do think the secret identity is a curious function, given that the over-the-top villains don't hide their identity.

I did enjoy the Burton Batman, and I enjoy the Nolan Batman flicks as well, because I like the story line, but I always liked Marvel comic characters better because DC Comic characters were always too black-n-white for me. Marvel characters were, a lot of the time, victims of circumstance, rather than crusaders.

But still, I can't imagine why anyone would go to a superhero flick if they didn't like superhero flicks. I do think the genre is getting thin, and I imagine that by the time the first Avengers movie hits the theaters, we'll all have had our fill of them. I'd like to see a different take on the genre, like The Incredibles.

Woochifer
07-22-2008, 04:04 PM
From where I sit, Nolan is no more versatile than Tim Burton or David Fincher. Yes, they've all done movies of varying budgets and milieus, but each one has a specific tonal/stylistic niche they fill. You can always tell it's a Burton, Fincher or Nolan film. The Coens are the really versatile ones, doing broad comedies, serious film noir, romantic comedies and even Homeric allegories. How can Nolan's oeuvre be compared to that?

That depends on what you want to focus on. I think there is a sameness to the Coens' work in that they like to create off-center eccentric characters, and put them into a multitude of contexts. I'm not saying that's bad, but at the same time, I don't think that's any different than whatever signature/sameness you might see from Burton or Fincher.

Nolan's only on his sixth movie, so it remains to be seen how far he will venture out on his future projects. So far though, I think he has ventured out in a number of interesting directions, and has proven himself with low budget high concept flicks like Memento all the way up to megabudget action thrillers like the Batman series.


I believe the term "High Concept" is actually an insult, isn't it? Any movie that can be explained in one sentence can't be a good movie.

Not really. Plenty of good movies can branch out of a simple concept. Memento for example is simply a murder story featuring a protagonist with no short-term memory that unfolds in reverse time. But, it's not just the concept but the execution as well. I've seen Memento numerous times, and it's a very well crafted movie that gives me something new every time I see it. (I've also seen the sequential edit that came with the Limited Edition DVD -- and it's not just the reverse chronology that makes the movie work).

Other high concepts don't work as well, but at the same time a movie that requires an essay to explain can also suck. :cool:


Sure, suspension of disbelief is a line you either cross or not based on how drawn in you are by the story. I was totally forgiving of everything technically "wrong" with Wall•E because I bought into the logic of the story. I just don't buy into the most basic tenets and motivations of Batman. I find suspension of disbelief very difficult in ANY Batman movie.

Damn skippy. This conceit is a pathetic flaw in almost every superhero story that makes suspension of disbelief very difficult for me.

Well then, at least you know that now!


My opinion is just as valid as yours or anyone else. Unless you're Bob Kane, you don't really know how close any of these interpretations of his story are to Kane's original vision.

The aspect of the comics that you're ignoring though is that those story lines have evolved over time and there's a whole lexicon to compare. Batman did not stop evolving once Kane completed the backstory. I also don't need to be Bob Kane to read the old Detective Comics series or the more recent graphic novels. Just as I don't need to be Roald Dahl to opine that Tim Burton's vision of Willy Wonka is closer to the book than the 1971 movie with Gene Wilder.

The original vision laid out by Kane in the early Batman stories were a precursor of things to come, that's why the character he created has endured all these years. Any comic book character is going to evolve. The thing about Nolan (and to some extent Burton) is that his vision of Batman is a lot closer to the actual comic book story lines as they evolved in the early years (pre Comics Code) and in the more recent story arcs.


And don't bother throwing a quote from Kane at me about how much he liked Burton's vision, because all these old guys are smart enough to say what's right in order to get thier old product to sell.

Then how come Kane was outspoken in how he did not like the Adam West TV series? Didn't he have a product to sell back then too?


Don't make it sound like I have a vested interest in this movie either way. I'm just mystified and frankly, disappointed in human nature, by it's popularity.

"Disappointed in human nature"?! Please, it's just a movie! I liked the previous Batman movie, and I'm looking forward to seeing this one. If that hurls another stone at someone's faith in humankind, then I apologize in advance! :6:


And yeah, I kinda WAS ordered to see the movie. And I suspect a lot of people felt hyped into seeing it as well.

Now c'mon what were the consequences of saying no? (No need to respond if the orders came from the wife...)

Maybe a lot of people WANTED to see it, because like me, they liked Batman Begins? Overhype that coerces a lot of people into watching a bad movie will usually result in a Cinemascore rating below B+. The Dark Knight got the highest audience score possible, so even if people felt coerced by the hype, they also overwhelmingly recommend the movie (which did not happen with the previous weekend box office record holder, Spider-Man 3).


For me, calling something "The best of the comic book films" is like saying "spinach is the best of the vegetables" to someone that can't stand vegetables.

Yet, you keep eating your vegetables!


Comic book superhero movies suck because they're based on superhero comic books. Superhero comic books suck because they are written so that a 4th-grader can understand the concepts, dialog and motivations of the characters.

Obviously, you haven't read Batman: Year One or The Dark Knight Returns or The Killing Joke. Definitely not written for kids.


I'm an adult with adult tastes and needs. Comicbook superheroes do not satisfy these needs and I'm disappointed that they satisfy such a vast majority of the American public. We should want more.

Well, then move on and seek out your "adult" movies (pun not entirely unintentional :D)! We "children" will happily revel in our extended adolescence!


Why so defensive then?

Why so serious? :cool:

Troy
07-22-2008, 06:43 PM
Why so serious? :cool:

Lay the pencil down, please.

Woochifer
07-22-2008, 11:04 PM
Yes, a great measure of suspension of disbelief is necessary for any sci-fi or fantasy film, otherwise, why bother. Guy in a bat suit? Yes, its silly, but so are all comic book characters. At least Iron Man's "costume" is functional and the Hulk's transformation serves as his "costume". I do think the secret identity is a curious function, given that the over-the-top villains don't hide their identity.

I did enjoy the Burton Batman, and I enjoy the Nolan Batman flicks as well, because I like the story line, but I always liked Marvel comic characters better because DC Comic characters were always too black-n-white for me. Marvel characters were, a lot of the time, victims of circumstance, rather than crusaders.

But still, I can't imagine why anyone would go to a superhero flick if they didn't like superhero flicks. I do think the genre is getting thin, and I imagine that by the time the first Avengers movie hits the theaters, we'll all have had our fill of them. I'd like to see a different take on the genre, like The Incredibles.

Actually, for the longest time, comic book characters weren't taken seriously by Hollywood. Even after the success of Superman: The Movie, super heroes movies were primarily done by low budget indie studios. This current run of big budget comic book hero studio movies is relatively new, and the torrent is at a fever pitch simply because they make a lot of money.

Interesting because it seemed for a while that the DC characters had an easier time finding gigs on TV and on the big screen. Part of the reason might have been because of DC's corporate ties to Warner.

I know that it took more than a decade with one abortive project after another before Spidey finally got to the big screen. And with a lot of the Marvel characters, the visual effects tech wasn't ready until relatively recently. If the Spidey project from the early-90s wound up getting made, it would have been a low-budget fare with cheesy effects (sort of like the Captain America movie and the never-released Roger Corman Fantastic Four movie).

BradH
07-23-2008, 12:06 AM
The Coens are the really versatile ones, doing broad comedies, serious film noir, romantic comedies and even Homeric allegories.

I hate to encourage your insanity but I have to agree on this. In fact, I thought The Hudscuker Proxy was very much in the Burton/Gilliam tradition. It was hardly a blockbuster so they put the bong down and slowly backed away...


Kane invented extremely broad and simple characters for his original comic book. They have been repeatedly reinvented 6-ways-from-sunday by Miller, Moore, Ed Graham, Burton, Shoemaker, Nolan and a dozen others. Each generation builds on the mythology created by all the previous interpretations, but going back to Kane's bare-bones original and calling him a genius is an insult to all genius's.

Each generation doesn't build on the mythology so much as reinterprate it. That works because Kane created strong archetypes that stand the test of time. Those characters have been hammered relentlessly if you include all the comic books. They're still viable not because they're so believable but because they're mythical. Creations like that don't happen every day and many comic book characters have fallen by the wayside. Blue Bolt anyone?


And don't bother throwing a quote from Kane at me about how much he liked Burton's vision, because all these old guys are smart enough to say what's right in order to get thier old product to sell.

Well, he certainly had no trouble dissing Frank Miller's story.


Superhero comic books suck because they are written so that a 4th-grader can understand the concepts, dialog and motivations of the characters.

Good call from Wooch on Year One. As I read what you wrote I immediately thought of Gordon and his motivations as a father and husband in that story.


I'm an adult with adult tastes and needs.

Let's not go there.


We should want more.

Yeah, and I'm gonna get it with The Watchmen next March.


Hiya bud, long time no see. Hope you find a copy of my new book!.

You should hope it's hard to find a copy! Hey, check yer e-mail.


heh, yeah, I made the Silent Running connection to Wall•E immediately too.

Speaking of Pixar, I hear they're doing ERB's A Princess of Mars. It's supposed to be a mix of CG and live action. That makes sense because Disney has had the film rights forever. I remember in '89 when they almost signed Tom Cruise and Julia Roberts for a live action version. Thank GOD that fell through! I predict Warren Specter will make the videogame for Disney. That should rule. He's a genius. Just like Bob Kane.

3-LockBox
07-23-2008, 04:36 PM
Btw, Troy, I heard Bruce Dern had a cameo in WALL-E.

"Drone Two! The farrest is dying! The farrest is dying!"

Just saw that movie for the first time a few months ago. Dern is/was one of a kind. I actually thought it was a decent movie, concidering it comes across as Tree Huggers In Space! on the cover. Its what Sci-Fi is supposed to be; stark, cold, and cautionary.

BradH
07-23-2008, 08:34 PM
Just saw that movie for the first time a few months ago. Dern is/was one of a kind. I actually thought it was a decent movie, concidering it comes across as Tree Huggers In Space! on the cover. Its what Sci-Fi is supposed to be; stark, cold, and cautionary.

Dude, I was a slut for that movie when it was new. I had a Doug Trumbull interview that I almost wore out reading over and over again as a kid. Awfully heavy handed when I see it now but the production design is still awesome.

Ajani
07-24-2008, 03:55 AM
Someone who can see past the fatal flaw that no one can see that Bruce Wayne is Batman in every Batman movie.

I have to disagree on that... you've taken a valid criticism about Superman movies and superimposed it on Batman, but it doesn't work... In the campy Adam West Version and Burton's film it is quite possible that people would deduce that Bruce Wayne is Batman... but this is not the case in either the comics or the Nolan films...

Why? Because Bruce Wayne has the public credibility of Paris Hilton... He is a rich pretty boy, who does nothing meaningful with his life.... apart from having sex with 2 or more hot models at a time (very meaningful.. lol)... Why should anyone conclude that he is Batman? Unlike Superman, he wears a mask and pretty much is only seen at night... And If the arguement is that well Batman has to be rich... well, logically, Bruce Wayne is not the only rich person in Gotham... (and who says Batman had to even have made his money in Gotham?)

It is not a fatal flaw or even a flaw for that matter...


Step back from it and stop drinking the Batman-flavored Koolade and see this juvenile and silly premise for what it is.

For me, the Burton, and even the 60s Adam West version had it more correct: The whole Batman premise is so absurd that is should be treated as campy. Nolan's version takes itself far too seriously.

We all have out favourites... if you prefer a more juvenile and campy Batman, then that's fine... but most comic fans and movie goers do not... and so Batman will continue to be a more a serious film franchise....

Worf101
07-24-2008, 04:51 AM
Dang if this ain't bout the best galdurned flame fest I've seen this side a rave recordings. Pass the taco dip there Tex. Munch, munch, munch.... let's you and him go ta fightin'.

LOL, the ONLY reason I'm staying out of this is the simple fact that I've not seen the movie. I have a rule that I don't spout uninformed opinion. When I've seen it, I'll speak. Till then... "flame on"!!!!

Da Worfster

Ajani
07-24-2008, 06:04 AM
Dang if this ain't bout the best galdurned flame fest I've seen this side a rave recordings. Pass the taco dip there Tex. Munch, munch, munch.... let's you and him go ta fightin'.

LOL, the ONLY reason I'm staying out of this is the simple fact that I've not seen the movie. I have a rule that I don't spout uninformed opinion. When I've seen it, I'll speak. Till then... "flame on"!!!!

Da Worfster

LOL... actually I'm keeping out of any discussions directly about The Dark Knight, since I haven't seen it yet either.... But anything from Adam West's Batman to Batman Begins is fair game!!!

Rich-n-Texas
07-24-2008, 06:29 AM
When I was little, I'd only beat on my younger brothers when the Batman TV show was on. That way, I could sync my punches with Batman's and Robin's in order to acheive maximum intimidation. :thumbsup:

Ahhhhh... youth, where has it all gone. :nonod:

Pass the taco dip there Tex. Munch, munch, munch....
Uhh... Worf, better be careful, I substituted the Jalapeno peppers with Habenaros. :mad5: :yikes:

Kam
07-24-2008, 10:08 AM
When I was little, I'd only beat on my younger brothers when the Batman TV show was on. That way, I could sync my punches with Batman's and Robin's in order to acheive maximum intimidation. :thumbsup:

Ahhhhh... youth, where has it all gone. :nonod:

Uhh... Worf, better be careful, I substituted the Jalapeno peppers with Habenaros. :mad5: :yikes:

not to detract, but have you tried the Spicy Habenaro flavored Doritos? yum!

oh... and to get back on topic...bob kane is a genius. frank miller is a genius. chris claremont is a genius. neil gaiman is a genius. and einstein should be honored to be in their company. comics are the new literary fiction. and.... um... hanna and barabara are genii and so is friz freeling. :D thank you! flame on!

bobsticks
07-24-2008, 03:44 PM
Frank Miller is a genius. Can you imagine what kind of CGI magic could be worked with "Ronin"?

Worf101
07-25-2008, 04:45 AM
When I was little, I'd only beat on my younger brothers when the Batman TV show was on. That way, I could sync my punches with Batman's and Robin's in order to acheive maximum intimidation. :thumbsup:

Ahhhhh... youth, where has it all gone. :nonod:

Uhh... Worf, better be careful, I substituted the Jalapeno peppers with Habenaros. :mad5: :yikes:
Lucky for you my steady diet o Scotch Bonnets has prepared me for such diabolical sabotage... LOL

Da..."Pass the Water Will Ya" Worfster

Worf101
07-25-2008, 04:54 AM
not to detract, but have you tried the Spicy Habenaro flavored Doritos? yum!

oh... and to get back on topic...bob kane is a genius. frank miller is a genius. chris claremont is a genius. neil gaiman is a genius. and einstein should be honored to be in their company. comics are the new literary fiction. and.... um... hanna and barabara are genii and so is friz freeling. :D thank you! flame on!
I'm very very loath to use the words "genius". In music they term is thrown about like beer at a frat house. The only more overused term is "hero" but that's a discussion for another place and time. I would avoid calling a comic book creator/author/illustrator a "genius" but would prefer to say that their work might be a stroke of genius and that the person themselves were "groundbreaking", "brilliant" or created an "icon" or something of lasting worth. Given the fleeting nature of fame and fortune in this world, I find anything still relevent some 70 plus years after its inception to be brilliant. For that alone Mr. Kane gets my kudos but his character would've been dead long ago if not for the life breathed into him by subsequent writer/artist teams.

But as a card carrying member of the "Merry Marvel Marching Society" I find the whole discussion/worship of Bats to be "unseemly" and vile.

Da "Make Mine Marvel" Worfster

Kam
07-25-2008, 06:27 AM
I'm very very loath to use the words "genius". In music they term is thrown about like beer at a frat house. The only more overused term is "hero" but that's a discussion for another place and time. I would avoid calling a comic book creator/author/illustrator a "genius" but would prefer to say that their work might be a stroke of genius and that the person themselves were "groundbreaking", "brilliant" or created an "icon" or something of lasting worth. Given the fleeting nature of fame and fortune in this world, I find anything still relevent some 70 plus years after its inception to be brilliant. For that alone Mr. Kane gets my kudos but his character would've been dead long ago if not for the life breathed into him by subsequent writer/artist teams.

But as a card carrying member of the "Merry Marvel Marching Society" I find the whole discussion/worship of Bats to be "unseemly" and vile.

Da "Make Mine Marvel" Worfster


true, the term 'genius' is often tossed all over, as i just did... so... i looked it up!

According to Merriam-Webster: there's a few uses for it, the ones relevant to us:

"a: a single strongly marked capacity or aptitude <had a genius for getting along with boys — Mary Ross> b: extraordinary intellectual power especially as manifested in creative activity c: a person endowed with transcendent mental superiority; especially : a person with a very high IQ"

Well i have no clue what Mr. Kane's or anyone else i've mentioned aboves IQ's are....but do they have extraordinary intllectual power in a creative activity? i think the debate is on that "extraordinary" word (ironically enough while we talk about comic book superhero writers).

There are numerous ways writers and critics bestow on themselves that moniker... the Nobel, Pulitzer, Man Booker, Pen/Faulkner, Quill, Phillip K Dick award, Hugo, Nebulla, the list is pretty endless... within the comic world, miller, gaiman and alan moore pretty much sweep most of the critical awards. (chris claremont i threw in there for my own personal childhood memories of him heading the X-Men and making the ridiculously fun Phoenix Saga/ Soap Opera, i'll concede he's a genius only in my own mind). so are they extraordinary?

i think so. someone else may not, it's a subjective analysis and all within everyone's own personal context especially when dealing in an artistic medium. it's not a verifiable fact like, for example, in football. can you say someone has "extraordinary" speed? yep. clock a kid at a 4.2 40 and that is sure fire dadgum extraordinary!

write a future story about Batman coming out of retirement and finally putting an epilogue on to his own career, write a definitive 'origin' story about the first year of batman coming into his own as a crime fighter, write a story about the blind superhero daredevil being completely destroyed mentally, physically, emotionally and then clawing his way back... are these 'extraordinary' stories? i certainly think they are. someone else may not.

i also read most nobel, pulitzer, and man-booker winners. I've read several that i would be hard pressed to be called 'good' let alone 'extraordinary'. and yet others would, quite vehemenantly, disagree. who's right? it's art, everyone's right. :) i've read plenty of comic books that suck too. the one's that stand out, imo, stand out as great stories. not great comic book stories. but great stories. i don't limit myself to think of comic books as childish things and fail to see a great story for what it is, just as i don't accept the bestowing of nobel, pulitzer, or man-booker to turn off my own judgement and accept a book as extraordinary even when my own tastes tell me it sucks. :D

k2

BradH
07-25-2008, 02:48 PM
Given the fleeting nature of fame and fortune in this world, I find anything still relevent some 70 plus years after its inception to be brilliant. For that alone Mr. Kane gets my kudos but his character would've been dead long ago if not for the life breathed into him by subsequent writer/artist teams.

Don't get too uptight about the word "genius". It's not like there really ever was a true genius in the world of comics, unlike music (Bach), so what the hell, we might as well give the award to somebody. But it's true that in the world of the arts it's the artist who creates a "work of genius", so to speak, rather than a genius mind who plans everything out. In most cases, the work is a result of instinct, accident and luck with many things converging and falling into place naturally. Subsequent writers definitely breathed new life into Kane's characters but they chose Kane's characters for a reason. Like I said, there are tons of characters from the 30's through the 50's who disappeared because nobody wanted to bother reviving or reinterprating them. And yeah, the marketplace plays into these decisions but you have to ask why these Kane characters have always been popular. Of course, Kane's not the only one who did this - and this probably belongs in the other superhero thread - but most of the comic superheroes of the 30's were created by Jewish Americans who were reinterprating the folk myth of the Golem, a powerful hero created from mud who would rescue the Jewish people. At least, that's the theory I've read. For my money, Kane's Batman is distinctly American, an uban vigilante without superpowers that replaced the lone gunman about 30+ years after the West was closed but serving the same purpose in a more modern setting. He protects society by working outside the system as opposed to the Golem/Superman who is more like the aspirations of society itself. Ultimately, Miller nailed it when Wayne called Clark Kent a Boy Scout.

So, Kane didn't invent the lone gunman or the Scarlet Pimpernel or The Bat or the Shadow or Zorro but he pulled elements of all those together when others could have but didn't. Add the colorful bad guy to fight the evil looking good guy, throw in the Catwoman based on Kane's girlfriend and think of the other great characters and you have an ensemble that makes me think the word "genius", while technically wrong, is not as far off the mark as it is in most cases.

Worf101
07-26-2008, 09:08 AM
Move over Troy, you've got company...

Took the whole famn damily down to the local "art" theatre last night. They were showing the Dark Knight on two screens. Here are my impressions..

1. Toooo long - my legs were asleep by the time I left the threatre.

2. Too slow - The pacing was just a tad too slow for me and other. How do I know? The ole lady and my son were dozing off and a guy 4 rows behind me was snoring like buzzsaw.

3. Setting - Was it me or did the Gotham of Burton and Batman Begins seem a bit more "gothic" and mysterious. I guess all the modern buildings didn't help me suspend belief as in the first one.

4. Characters - Batamn was the least interesting character in the whole shebang. I felt that Dent and the Joker were far more interesting. As for the actress that played the love interest??? Sheeeeya... I found her performance marred by the fact that everytime I saw her face the plainess of her looks had me wondering what Dent or Wayne were fighting/talking about? I know the first actress turned the roll down but dayum they could've found someone a bit more alluring to fight over. Gordon's character really shown in this film as well.

5. Storyline - Intersting but not riveting. I did like the fact that "in reality" if you atttack organized crime, it fights back in the most brutal of ways. I also was struck by Batman's decision to save the comrade first and the squeeze second. To me the plot twists and revelations were superior to me.

6. Entertainment - Eh... I enjoyed "Ironman" far more as "entertainment". Batman gave me more to think about. I learned stuff watching this movie about the nature of man and choices that must be made by "doer's" instead of "watchers". I left the threatre drained like I'd gone ten with Tyson in his prime, not refreshed and exhilerated like I did say at the endo of "Star Wars" or "Raiders of the Lost Ark".

Overall I give the film a B-minus. Good film making, but not ideal summer entertainment.

Da Worfster

Woochifer
07-26-2008, 03:13 PM
But as a card carrying member of the "Merry Marvel Marching Society" I find the whole discussion/worship of Bats to be "unseemly" and vile.

Da "Make Mine Marvel" Worfster

Oh you Marvel fanboys! :cool:

When it comes to comics, I do find the Marvel storylines more interesting to follow in general (although I think the Batman graphic novels are as good as anything I've read from Marvel). But, up until this recent round of comic book movies began streaming out, the conventional wisdom was that the DC characters translated better to movies and TV.

Worf101
07-26-2008, 07:44 PM
Oh you Marvel fanboys! :cool:

When it comes to comics, I do find the Marvel storylines more interesting to follow in general (although I think the Batman graphic novels are as good as anything I've read from Marvel). But, up until this recent round of comic book movies began streaming out, the conventional wisdom was that the DC characters translated better to movies and TV.
Marvel Fanboy!!!!!!! @**)*@)(!@!@&$#@*!!!!!!!


guilty as charged......


You're either Ford or Chevy, Dem or Republican, Yankee or Met... no cuttin' round it. But I must admit I watch Batman Begins EVERY single time it's on and I've bought several Batman series, particularly Bats vs. Predator, Bats vs. Dracula and the Dark Knight Returns. Sigh... must be slippin' in my ole age.

Da Worsfter

3-LockBox
07-28-2008, 05:14 AM
3. Setting - Was it me or did the Gotham of Burton and Batman Begins seem a bit more "gothic" and mysterious. I guess all the modern buildings didn't help me suspend belief as in the first one.

4. Characters - Batamn was the least interesting character in the whole shebang. I felt that Dent and the Joker were far more interesting. As for the actress that played the love interest??? Sheeeeya... I found her performance marred by the fact that everytime I saw her face the plainess of her looks had me wondering what Dent or Wayne were fighting/talking about? I know the first actress turned the roll down but dayum they could've found someone a bit more alluring to fight over. Gordon's character really shown in this film as well.

5. Storyline - Intersting but not riveting. I did like the fact that "in reality" if you atttack organized crime, it fights back in the most brutal of ways. I also was struck by Batman's decision to save the comrade first and the squeeze second. To me the plot twists and revelations were superior to me.

6. Entertainment - Eh... I enjoyed "Ironman" far more as "entertainment". Batman gave me more to think about. I learned stuff watching this movie about the nature of man and choices that must be made by "doer's" instead of "watchers". I left the threatre drained like I'd gone ten with Tyson in his prime, not refreshed and exhilerated like I did say at the endo of "Star Wars" or "Raiders of the Lost Ark".



Saw it this weekend too.

I agree with all these points. I'm not chomping at the bit to see the next Batman movie. It would have been ideal to have the Joker escape, which would segue into the next sequel, but now that's not going to happen. And as for Ledger's Joker; his was superior to Nicholson's, by a mile. But if he doesn't die, we're not talking Oscar nod at all. One needs to suspend disbelief on two fronts, the fact that its a comic book character, and the hype.

I think I liked the fantasy deco noire of Burton's Gotham over the use of Chicago, but I think that this film is written better than any of Burton's Batmen. Sure, I appreciated Burton's warped sense of humor in the first two Batman movies, but they haven't endured.

This would have been an outstanding storyline, without the Batman main character. Why does our super heroes' always have to wear a mask? James Bond doesn't. Batman reminds me of James Bond in a way, except James Bond's character has chosen his path knowing that he must live a reclusive, dangerous life, out in the open, without the so-called normal life as a front by which to hide or take refuge. Bond has clearly made an all-or-nothing choice, Bruce Wayne has not, even though Wayne, like Bond, has no real family unit to consider. Hell, Gordon makes more of a sacrifice for cause in that manner than Bruce does.

Sure, superheroes are usually a one man show, but why? As this film pointed out, even Batman is no match for organized crime. This film was very good at exposing the flaws in the masked vigilante/loner persona, if that's what it was intending to do. Batman seemed helpless to an extent, and to a certain extent, he seemed very selfish and deluded, thinking he can go all badassed on organized crime and not endanger even more people. OK, so he took on all of Dent's stuff on himself for the greater good, but again, he gets to take off the mask when he wants too. The Gordons of the world don't get too.

So yes, a lot more to think about, but I look forward to the next series of Marvel movies, but am not wondering what the next Batman will be like. Marvel still holds an air of wonder for me, but Batman made me question the very notion of superheroes, which I guess, in of itself, is an accomplishment. But when you explode the myth, what's left...some rich a$$hole in a bat suit? Bond would mop the floor with him.

kexodusc
07-28-2008, 05:44 AM
Finally saw it - my 2 cents...arguably the best Batman movie. It felt less like a comic book story and more like Mission Impossible or James Bond...This was soooo much better than the Zorro/Counte of Monte Cristo rip-off that was Batman Begins.

But I did grow a bit tired of the dark-and-gloomy-for-the-sake-of-dark-and-gloomy theme throughout the movie. Dammit...today's pop-culture has continued to be obsessed with black, dark, brooding, gothic themes...it's getting boring. Though I understand that's the modern interpretation of the Bat-world...but geez...we need to bring back color. There's only so much doom and gloom a guy can take artistically...but once again, art immitates life and I guess life has that predictably dark,ugly side we're all drawn too...that's a discussion for another day though.

The characters were pretty good in this flick - and definitely less comic booky than most other modern comic book adaptations.
I think people have been too quick to dismiss Batman's character this time around. This movie was all about making you feel sorry for Batman. The hero is the victim...the savior. Same thing the Spidey movies tried to do - except I think Bale sells it better than Mcguire who just comes across as a whiny little suckhole. Bale doesn't feel sorry for himself. He mans up and accepts it. Finally. Every hero gets to be "thanked", but not Batman, he's feared and considered a bad guy. No reward for the effort. You also get a real sense that Batman can be in danger, not so with most of the Marvel movies. I liked the Batman character this time - for the first time ever we see something new in a comic book story super hero's character - awareness of symbolism, a sense of burden, and a long-term career plan/goal. That's more substance than almost every other super hero's character put together.

To me, Iron Man was a better movie because there was more to it - better comedy, better action, and for an origin-story, a fairly decent plot. TDK had better antagonists, but that's it. Iron Man had more style.

And yeah, I went in to the movie trying to be a bit contrarian, defending myself against the hype machine, and doing my best to be snob and not a fanboy...but the Joker was pretty freakin' awesome.

Worf101
07-29-2008, 05:29 AM
Good, fair and balanced reviews there 3LB and Kex. You, like most here, have given me things to think about in this flick. I actually might have to see this thing again thanks to the in depth discussion here...

Thanks...

Da Worfster

Worf101
07-30-2008, 10:24 AM
Unhh...

"whiney little suckhole"?

ROTFLMBBAO chit man I work for that guy, and his brother, and his sister too.

God... best laugh I've had in a week of few laughs.

Da Worfster

Ajani
07-31-2008, 05:28 AM
My 2 Cents:

So I finally saw the film... and to be honest, I loved it... Though I can see why many people would have various issues with it... the dark realistic tone is not what many people expect and not what some people want... The best and worst thing about the film is that it would be an excellent film with or without the Superhero premise... 2face was played like a real person rather than a comic book villain... Even the Joker was played realistically (yes, I know what I just wrote)... and as a result, the film becomes more of an intelectual excercise than the typical shoot-em-up, blow them up, beat them up comic book movie/action film... Yes there is a lot of action in the film... but you don't feel like you're watching an action movie... the action seems secondary to the overall darker theme of the film...

If you want light, fluffy, fun and inspiring... then The Dark Knight is not the movie for you... if you want to be beaten with the led pipe of reality (hmmm... I probably should have made that sound more appealing) and have your views of life and comic book heroes challenged, then The Dark Knight is a must see...


I found Harvey Dent to be a very convincing character... they explain his transformation very well IMO... and at the same time they don't make the mistake of trying to give some convoluted back story for the Joker... they really just explain his motivations and leave some real mystery around the character...

Even the fact that Batman/Bruce Wayne played a secondary role to 2Face/Harvey Dent & the Joker, made sense given what they were trying to show in terms of the direction Gotham was going and needed to go...

and SPOILER ALERT (somewhat)





The fact that The Joker wins... he actually accomplished what he set out to do... at the end all Batman and Gordon could do was cover it up... really that is not what you expect to see in a comic book film... but it is more like real life...



My Verdict: 2 Thumbs and a Toe up

Groundbeef
08-04-2008, 06:12 AM
Wife and I went to see it on Saturday. Theater was PACKED.

I (and the wife) loved the film. Just what Batman should be. Dark, moody, and angry. For all those that think "comic books" are just kids fare, you owe it to yourself to stop thinking comics are the same they were in 1950.

Ledger was awesome. The Joker was scary, but not overacted.

I liked the special effects, and the fact that they didn't seem overly in your face.

I did think that when Batman took out the semi it had a bit of the Jedi Vs. The AT-AT feel though.

And I laughed out loud when the Joker told Two Face that he "completes me".

I don't know enough of the Batman series (comic book) to know who the next villians are. But the direction of these films has only gone for the better!

All in all, great film. Can't wait to see it again!

JSE
08-04-2008, 06:58 AM
Saw it on IMAX last night. Man, all action movies should be on IMAX. Just an amazing format.

Movie = A-
Bruce = B
Batman = B-
Joker = A+
Gordan = B+
Rachel = C-
Dent = B+
Two Face = B

Really like the movie as a whole and love they still stuck with the "dark" feel. I think the Joker was clearly the best performace by a mile and Ledger did an outstanding job. He would have been the last person I would have picked for the role but he did an outstanding job.

SPOLIER ALERT.....

My biggest gripe was Maggie (jake's sister) Gulie......I don't have a clue has to spell her last name. I think they really choose the wrong person for this role and really had her in the movie as filler. By the time she got off'd, I was happy she was gone. She was horrible. In Batman Begins, you felt to relationship between she and Bruce. In this film, it was just an afterthought. It was not convincing at all Is it just me or is she just not that good looking or talented?

Anyway, just an awesome movie. IMO it was not as good as Begins but a very good movie and a nice followup. Like many others, I really liked the backstory in Begins and it had a more "ominous" feel to it.

If you have not seen this movie on IMAX, find it somewhere and go see it again if you can. You won't be sorry.

JSE

Worf101
08-04-2008, 07:03 AM
Welp, all the regulars have seen the flickage cept mebbe F.A. and the consensus is that this was a "great" film. I put it as a "good" film but I may see it again just to make sure. JSE and GB, KEX, 3LB and everyone, thanks for rounding out the reivews.

Da Worfster

JSE, I agree with you on what's her name so bad my teeth hurt. What a complete miscasting.

3-LockBox
08-04-2008, 03:20 PM
I'm really looking forward to the follow-up




to Iron Man

Worf101
08-05-2008, 04:43 AM
I'm really looking forward to the follow-up




to Iron Man
Boy you sure know how to start em!!!! I'm going to see TDK one more time, this time with lowered expectations.

Da Worfster

Woochifer
08-10-2008, 04:37 PM
My wife and I FINALLY got to get out and see the movie last night.

All I can say is WOW! Saw it in IMAX, and the scenes filmed in IMAX were absolutely stunning in their clarity and detail. The scenes magnified from 35mm also looked pretty good, but the IMAX scenes were unbelievably vivid. It's no surprise that the IMAX screenings in my area are still selling out, with long lines well before showtime (my wife and I arrived more than half an hour before showtime, and we were stuck in the middle of the 4th row).

The only flaw that I see with the presentation (and/or production) is that the dialog is mixed way too low in certain scenes. I doesn't help that Christian Bale decided to make his Batman grizzly bear voice even more gruff in this movie.

The Dark Knight was a different movie than I expected, and actually did away with a lot of what I liked about Batman Begins. Yet, I thought it was an excellent movie in its own right. Most of the reviews are right in that The Dark Knight plays less like a comic book movie and more like a modern crime thriller. It's not so much that this movie transcends the comic book genre, but more that it bypasses much of what typifies the genre.

Batman was just a cog in a more elaborate crime story, and not the mysterious and frightening dark presence that he was in Batman Begins (which was one of the elements that I loved in that movie). Also, Gotham looks and feels an awful lot like ... uh ... Chicago? Nolan stripped away the stylized gothic city in Batman Begins, and this go round he also did away with the desperate slum island that he created in the first movie. Seemed like they were purposely trying to avoid using CGI for the flyover scenes (and my understanding is that Nolan indeed wanted to minimize the CGI effects). Unlike the other Batman movies (and the comic series), seems like Gotham was more of a bit player than a central part of the movie's overall feel. And in this way, I did not get the feeling of desperation with the citizens of Gotham like I did with the previous movie.

Yet, despite these changes, the storyline was very strong, revolving around that central theme of the hero either dying as a hero or living long enough to be seen as a villain. This is a loaded film, with a lot of overlapping themes. But, in the end I think it works incredibly well as a tragedy with multiple tragic heroes. It's very much about the hubris in both Batman/Wayne and Harvey Dent.

As expected, Heath Ledger was frightening and creepy as the Joker. And he played the Joker more subtly than I expected, which made his menace in a way more real.

One big improvement from Batman Begins is the action scenes. Seems that Nolan's gotten more adept and comfortable with filming big action scenes. The aerial scenes are simply spectacular.

Yes, it is a relentlessly grim and dark movie, but that's the world that the characters inhabit. And I think that also works well with conveying the sense of terror that the Joker was trying to create. For the citizenry, this movie is a story of an unrepentant terrorist who kills and robs, not for a cause, but simply because he enjoys it. And in a way, if Nolan tried to insert moments of levity into the movie, it might feel contrived.

The Rachel Dawes story arc was the biggest weakness in the movie. Maggie Gyllenhaal was totally underutilized here. She's a big step up from Katie Holmes, who was by far the weakest link in Batman Begins. Here, her character's just not given a lot to do.

On the whole though, this is very impactful movie and it stays with you much more than a typical summer movie. I'm not sure what direction the series will take next, but there are so may interesting directions in which it can go.


SPOILER ALERT


In the end, it was Dent whose hubris led to him becoming a villain and Batman whose hubris led him to becoming SEEN AS a villain in the end. Nolan pointed to this story arc at the end of Batman Begins when Gordon was talking about escalation, and The Dark Knight fully realizes that plot thread in a way that I did not expect to see from a comic book movie. This movie really gets into the moral ambiguity of heroism, and how a vigilante crusade can indeed provoke a criminal response with frightening and unintended consequences.

To a lesser extent, there were also tragic consequences for Gordon in that he's now forced to turn on Batman, the only person he works with that he can completely trust.

In a way, the movie was trying to signal some hope with the two ferry boats, and how the hostages on board wound up choosing not to sacrifice hundreds of others in order to save themselves. In that way, the Joker failed in his quest to let fear turn the citizenry against each other. But, he succeeded in turning Dent into a villian, and Batman into an outcast.

The scenes with Harvey and Rachel held captive I think were totally bungled, and were the only big misstep in the movie. Nolan did not do a good job at establishing the tension and building up to the climax. Harvey getting half his face burned off in an acid bath, and Rachel getting blown up -- those scenes should have created more of an impact than they did. For me, they just came off as inconsequential.

L.J.
08-12-2008, 07:44 AM
I saw it Sunday afternoon. We went to IMAX, got there about 20 mins. before the start time and was greeted by a lovely announcement saying that it was sold out. DANG!!!!!! :mad:

Ended up seeing it a few hours later at a regular theater :frown5:

I don't know, I though it was pretty good but I liked Begins better. I loved the Joker though. This guy was freakin' nuts and had my attention every time he was on the screen.

Woochifer
08-12-2008, 11:31 AM
I saw it Sunday afternoon. We went to IMAX, got there about 20 mins. before the start time and was greeted by a lovely announcement saying that it was sold out. DANG!!!!!! :mad:

Ended up seeing it a few hours later at a regular theater :frown5:

I don't know, I though it was pretty good but I liked Begins better. I loved the Joker though. This guy was freakin' nuts and had my attention every time he was on the screen.

Ouch! Because I was going on Saturday night and I noticed that the evening IMAX screenings were still selling out, I made sure to buy the tix online the night before. I had no idea that even Sunday afternoon shows were still selling out. Even though we got out tickets online, by the time we arrived at the theater (more than half an hour before showtime) the entire theater except the first four rows was already filled.

We're going to visit some relatives up in Washington next week ... hmmm and waddya know, there's an IMAX up there too ...

Fortunately, if you still want to see it in IMAX, looks like The Dark Knight will get a long run at the IMAX theaters since the next IMAX movies (Madagascar 2 and Harry Potter) don't come out until November.

As for comparing The Dark Knight with Batman Begins, I'm not sure. They're very different movies, and not that easy to compare. The Dark Knight has more depth with the story and better action scenes, but I also loved how Batman Begins created a mythic presence with the Batman character and a desperate Gotham City in search of a hero. The Dark Knight has definitely stayed with me a lot more, but I'm not so sure whether I like it more than Batman Begins. Both are great movies though, and will get a lot of repeat viewing.

burgmaster21
08-14-2008, 02:48 PM
The Dark Night was the best movie I have seen in a long time. A++

Worf101
08-15-2008, 07:53 AM
How the interrogation scene should've went!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w2yv8aT0UFc&eurl=http://my.wrif.com/mim/?p=426


Da Worfster

ForeverAutumn
09-06-2008, 06:38 PM
My wife fell asleep. I came close, especially in the 3rd act after Dent became 2-face.

Ledger was a blast, but that's about it for me. It was just a lot of noise and hysteria without any really engaging characters or real meaning. All the intensity and pathos felt forced and artificial. Bale's gruff Batman voice sounded silly and WAY over the top. The "shocking" plot twists were all too telegraphed and predictable. Convoluted and bloated with about 12 too many characters and superfluous scenes, the movie was at least 45 minutes too long.

I agree with Troy. I finally saw this movie tonight and was going to post about how difficult I found it to stay interested. Then I saw Troy's post and thought that he summed it up pretty well.

The only thing that kept me mildly interested was Ledger's portrayal of The Joker and some good looking actors. Otherwise, I was very disappointed.

The trailers before the movie showed some upcoming features that look pretty cool though. I'm now looking forward to Watchmen and the new Pacino/De Niro flick.