The Dark Knight: Record Breaking Midnight Showings

[Woochifer]

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?

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]

...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!

[Smokey]

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

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

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).

[Woochifer]

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

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

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.

[BradH]

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.

[Woochifer]

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!

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 ...

[BradH]

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.

[Troy]

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 ...

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.

[Woochifer]

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!

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?

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.

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.

[Troy]

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?

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.

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.

[Woochifer]

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.

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!

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 )! We "children" will happily revel in our extended adolescence!

Why so defensive then?

Why so serious?

[BradH]

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]

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]

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).

[Ajani]

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]

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]

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!!!