The Dark Knight: Record Breaking Midnight Showings

[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.

[Rich-n-Texas]

Book sales not what you expected?

[Woochifer]

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?

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]

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]

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.

[BradH]

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]

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.

[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]

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?

[Troy]

Why so serious?

Lay the pencil down, please.

[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).

[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]

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]

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]

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!!!

[Rich-n-Texas]

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.

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

Pass the taco dip there Tex. Munch, munch, munch....

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

[Kam]

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.

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

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

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. thank you! flame on!

[bobsticks]

Frank Miller is a genius. Can you imagine what kind of CGI magic could be worked with "Ronin"?

[Worf101]

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.

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

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

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]

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. 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]

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 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.

k2

[BradH]

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]

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