Chefelf.com Night Life: The Dark Knight - Chefelf.com Night Life

Jump to content

  • (9 Pages)
  • +
  • « First
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9

The Dark Knight

#91 User is offline   Otal Nimrodi Icon

  • Miracle Ghost
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 5,442
  • Joined: 26-June 05
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:I like my my little pony characters like I like my suspected criminals. Mirandized.
  • Country:United States

Posted 09 January 2009 - 10:56 PM

QUOTE
I've already said I've never read the comics. Though before you jump on me, I'd wager that a large number of people who are watching this series haven't either. I just like these movies because they're good. That's the only reason. I also love the Hellboy movies and I've never read a Hellboy comic either.


I know, I wasn't saying you needed to read the comics. I was disagreeing with your statement on the role of Robin in comic books.
Want a Tarot reading?

PM me, we'll talk.
0

#92 User is offline   Just your average movie goer Icon

  • -
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 4,140
  • Joined: 10-April 04
  • Gender:Not Telling
  • Country:Nothing Selected

Posted 10 January 2009 - 07:44 AM

That's all right. I understood. wink.gif
0

#93 User is offline   Supes Icon

  • Sunshine Superman
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1,334
  • Joined: 30-October 03
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Sydney, Australia
  • Country:Australia

Posted 20 January 2010 - 12:12 AM

[quote name='civilian_number_two' date='03 January 2009 - 06:52 PM' timestamp='1231026761' post='196591']
Some specific things about your post:

The problem with going any further with Batman is that he doesn't have any more really cool villains. Villains that haven't been done in the movies that is. Catwoman is ok (totally disagree on the aging starlet idea by the way; part of her storyline is the love/hate thing with Bats), The Riddler could make a decent movie, maybe, and then you got what? Maxie Zeuss? The Mad Hatter? Croc? Bane? Talia can't enter into it because the last movie did a hatchet job on Ra's.



Having just recently re-watched the film and also picking up the game Arkham Asylum there is one villain that I think would make a reasonable follow-up and that's Scarecrow. There would be a real risk of getting it totally wrong but I think the self proclaimed Master of Fear would have a logical place for introductions into Gotham at the darkest of times. If you had to do the two villain thing which they seem to do a little of then Catwoman would be the best choice because she could operate as a separate story arc that does not have to be fully involved with the main plot, but can help examine some of the Bruce Wayne issues further with intimacy and the sacrifices made to maintain the duel persona.

Scarecrow is in a similar league to Joker and when handled correctly could make a great villain for a third installment. I'd encourage Nolan, if he is to direct the third to make sure some of the good writers such as Paul Dini are consulted on the best ways to manage the Scarecrow character.
Luminous beings are we... not this crude matter.
Yoda
0

#94 User is offline   Just your average movie goer Icon

  • -
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 4,140
  • Joined: 10-April 04
  • Gender:Not Telling
  • Country:Nothing Selected

Posted 28 January 2010 - 04:52 AM

Hey Supes. I don't know why I missed this one but having re-watched Batman Begins recently, I think that'd be a great idea - as Jonathan Crane was really interesting and we only saw glimpses of him in Scarecrow mode. Then, he was playing second fiddle to Rhas Al Ghul but imagine what he could do if he really let himself go. Actually, he could be cooler than the Joker. I personally found him a more interesting character.

The Joker's creepiness largely comes from his appearance. Yes, a psychotic who sticks knives in people's faces without any provocation is scary... but it's no more scary than many of the ordinary thugs, hired killers and nut-cases that you get in real life. Take the guys who tried to kill Rachel Dawes at the train station in Batman Begins. They were just as scary. Or Falcone. That was one chilling performance.

I like The Dark Knight a lot more than I did when I first saw it but I think in the hype, a lot of people have forgotten how good the first movie was. Actually, some people have completely forgotten what's proceeded it entirely. For instance, I've read numerous comments comparing Heath Ledger's Joker to Jack Nicholson's, saying that Jack's Joker was just a clown and not scary at all. Now, I've watched Batman '89 recently and Jack's Joker is a lot scarier than people think. He talks to corpses, does a really nasty trick with a feather pen that makes me wince to this day (whereas despite the initial shock, none of the Joker's antics in The Dark Knight have that much impact for me now) and the scene where he comes into Vicky Vale's apartment is very scary. When Jack says "Take thy beak from out thy heart," and then turns of the music without losing a step, the scene is so tense you could hear a pin drop - and in fact the only thing you can hear are the slow footsteps Jack takes across the floor. For me, that moment is scarier than anything in the Dark Knight - especially as you have Bruce Wayne unmasked. He has no bulletproof armour to protect him here - just a thin metal tray and his fingers crossed behind his back. It's good stuff.

Then have a look at the baddies in Batman Begins. Falcone's scene with Bruce Wayne is chilling to say the least and Tom Wilkinson should be commended. If you've seen him as the gentle ex-foreman character in The Full Monty, you'll see that this is an actor who disappears completely into the characters he plays. Then take Jonathan Crane. Even without the fear inducing hallucinagenic gas, he is creepy and that scene with Falcone ("Would you like to see my mask?") is gold. I can't tell you how disappointed I was to see him used in a throwaway cameo in The Dark Knight. I was surprised and amazed when he first appeared, thinking that he was going to have a huge role in the film - and I thought to myself that Nolan had done an amazing job, keeping it secret... and then really let down when he was hauled off to jail two minutes later.

The other thing about Batman Begins is that it is polished and it has a solid story. A lot of people think that the finale lends itself too much to standard superhero fare but whatever else you can say about it, the groundwork was put in place for the finale all throughout the movie - the movie built up to it. However, there was no such build-up to the end of the Dark Knight. The second half of the film was a string of set pieces - and that one with the bombs on the ferries should not have been introduced so late in the film as they should have been wrapping things up at that point, not introducing new problems. In fact, everything the Joker did after escaping from prison did little to serve the story. In the events leading up to his capture, he was a mysterious villain who used the underhanded method of psychological warfare to break Batman down and it was interesting. His best scene was in the interrogation room in the police station and everything he did from that point forward was standard villain fare - including the stupid prison breakout. Why was he left with an unarmed cop in an unlocked room? Why didn't all the other cops who remained behind in the MCU take him back to his cell? What happened to all those guys who were standing around him after the explosion? One minute, he's surrounded by twenty cops with guns. Then the place explodes and everyone falls down - yet the Joker seems to get up completely unscathed and the rest of the cops seem to just vanish into thin air.

In and of itself, it's not a problem but The Dark Knight by the tone that it itself sets demands to be taken seriously and makes a big deal about being grounded in realism. So the problem is that it tries to have it both ways. Nolan wants to have his cake and eat it too. Fortunately for him, legions of forgiving fans all around the world let him. I don't. The first act of The Dark Knight is wonderful. The second act falls apart with the mayor holding that very public funeral for Commissioner Lobe right after he's been targeted by the Joker and that utterly pointless stuff with Gordon's fake death and the fingerprints from the bullet. After going to all that trouble of tracing the bullet and finding the police officers that the Joker's men tied up, Batman is unable to stop the Joker from taking his shot at the mayor... so what was the point? Batman isn't successful all the time? Got it - but in a movie as long as The Dark Knight, the director should really cut off anything that doesn't contribute to the overall story. The end of the second act however with the Joker's capture and the dilemma with Harvey Dent is strong stuff but there it really ends. The third act, like I said, is just a string of set pieces. There are good scenes scattered throughout it and Harvey Dent's scenes with Wurtz, Maroni and Ramirez are very strong. Bruce Wayne saving Coleman Reece is fun as well. However, there's very little cohesion between all this and the Joker's antics, invariably all involving bombs, become very tiresome and repetitive.

In fact, because of this last point, I really hope they are done with the Joker. The fact that they ran out of good ideas with him before his first movie was even up really doesn't bode well for future appearances. Now, I'm not saying this because I'm against recasting the part. Not at all. I think the family of Heath Ledger wouldn't object and I don't think his performance couldn't be matched. There are a lot of good actors out there. However, I just don't think there'd be any point.

I've also familiarised myself with the comics a bit, having read a few of the more famous graphic novels - The Dark Knight Returns (cool but with aggravating artwork and it suffers from its eighties-ness), Batman - Year One (brilliant), The Long Halloween (a really great story - and I can see that Nolan mined this one a bit for The Dark Knight), Dark Victory (cool but not as good as its predecessor) and Hush (not as interesting as the others but my god, the artwork is beautiful). I also read Strange Apparitions, a collection of Englehart's seventies run. I enjoyed all of these a lot actually so I'm a bit of a convert to the comics. I actually found The Long Halloween's take on Harvey Dent to be much more interesting than The Dark Knight. However, on the otherhand, I also found after reading it that it makes one of the early scenes in The Dark Knight more enjoyable as I now realise that Nolan was toying with people's expectations as to how Harvey Dent would be disfigured. Very clever.

However, I didn't find the Joker all that interesting for the most part - oh, I also read The Killing Joke (but I didn't buy that one - for which I am very grateful) but that seemed rather sick and pointless to me. Also, while the Joker was cruel in that one, he didn't seem scary. Anyway, from everything I read, it seemed that even in the comics, the Joker's best work is behind him. I personally liked him best in the Englehart comics because he was actually nuts enough then to be scary. In everything else, it seemed that he was pretty powerless - breaking out of Arkham for short stints of crime before receiving his obligatory beating from Batman and getting sent back again.

So where am I going with all this? I think the Joker's been done to death and it's time for something new and different. The scarecrow fits that bill. Yes, he was in Batman Begins but we only got glimpses then of what the character is capable of. I agree with you, Supes. I'd like to see this character unleashed. Gotham deserves a better class of criminal.

However, if Nolan were to have a side-plot involving Catwoman as well, I think a lot of movie goers would be very grateful.

This post has been edited by Just your average movie goer: 28 January 2010 - 05:01 AM

0

#95 User is offline   Mr Pye Icon

  • Henchman
  • Pip
  • Group: Junior Members
  • Posts: 85
  • Joined: 28-April 08
  • Country:Nothing Selected

Posted 28 January 2010 - 08:11 AM

View PostJust your average movie goer, on 28 January 2010 - 04:52 AM, said:

but The Dark Knight by the tone that it itself sets demands to be taken seriously and makes a big deal about being grounded in realism.


This possibly one of the main reasons I prefer Tim Burtons take on Batman over the new movies. Batman is an exeptional character, a traditional superhero in a way, and really in my mind only seem to fit in an exceptional world. And that feeling of otherness is what I got from Burtons Gotham City. Perhaps Nolan as well should have considered making the style of Gotham more like the thirties or fourties.

Can't say that I particulalry look forward to a new Batman movies today. Neither Batman Begins or The Dark Knight caught my fancy. They were preferable to Schumachers neon vomiting spectacles, but then what isn't? And I think the Dark Knight in particular has a lack of hope that makes it difficult to accept it as Batman.

If they do a new movie I imagine Catwoman, Riddler and Scarecrow are the only villains that are high profile enough to be considered. Unless they wish to introduce a completely new one. Apparently there is a really old comic where Batman fights a villain called Monk who turns out to be a vampire. Vampires seem popular these days, maybe they'll hop on that train.
0

#96 User is offline   Just your average movie goer Icon

  • -
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 4,140
  • Joined: 10-April 04
  • Gender:Not Telling
  • Country:Nothing Selected

Posted 29 January 2010 - 12:14 PM

Yeah, Burton's Batman movies, by not grounding themselves in realism, offer more escapist entertainment. I recently found the Batman Anthology quite cheap and I rewatched the first three movies (I can't watch Batman and Robin again yet, not without some serious reinforcements to help me mock it) and it was quite a refreshing experience. I was particularly surprised by Batman Returns, which I hadn't seen since I was a kid. I actually ended up liking that one the most - which is weird because I really didn't like it when I watched it as a young boy in the cinema. In fact, sometime ago, I wrote a very scathing review of it - and you can probably find that review floating around the back pages of this sub-forum.

A lot of the stuff with the Penguin was kind of gross and unwelcome still but there was a lot of good stuff there as well, especially the Catwoman subplot. Also, Michael Keaton had more interesting Bruce Wayne scenes this time around. Great stuff.

Anyway, it's all very far-fetched but it works within the context of the rules it establishes. And it's fun. Sure the Batwing is the most poorly conceived urban combat vehicle ever created - but within the movie, it works. And Selina Kyle couldn't have gained all that athletic prowess overnight, becoming an expert in somersaults and fancy backflips - but hey, this is in a movie where an abandoned baby is raised by penguins. Also, there's lots of humour in the movies as well.

Yeah, they're more Burton films than classic representations of Batman as he is in the comics - but they're fun.

Although, on the subject of the comics, the Joker's schemes using toxins to disfigure people and turn them into grinning corpses comes from the very first Joker story - and his own disfigurement through falling into a vat of chemicals is straight out of The Killing Joke. So in that way, he's more like the Joker from the comics than Heath Ledger's character.

And as for Batman killing in the films, which I hear a lot of so-called purists go on about, I've read a few articles about early Batman comics and they say he definitely killed in some of the earliest ones... which leads me to believe that there isn't really one way of doing Batman that's better than another, only ways that are preferred.*

*There are however ways of NOT doing Batman, which were largely covered in Batman and Robin.

Anyway, where am I going with all this? There's more in the old Batman movies than people think and I quite agree with you that they offer more escapist entertainment than the new ones... because whatever else you can say about The Dark Knight, it's not exactly 'fun'.

Also, all the realism in the new franchise limits what can be done with future stories, villains and all the rest of it.


Oh - vampires. Hopefully, they wouldn't do something like that but let's keep our fingers crossed that they don't... just to be sure.

This post has been edited by Just your average movie goer: 29 January 2010 - 12:16 PM

0

#97 User is offline   Gobbler Icon

  • God damn it, Nappa.
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 4,560
  • Joined: 26-December 05
  • Gender:Not Telling
  • Location:Three octaves down to your left.
  • Interests:Thermonuclear warfare and other pleasantries.
  • Country:Nothing Selected

Posted 29 January 2010 - 01:40 PM

Did they make a film out of Mad Love yet? I seem to recall some people mentioning Miss Quinzel somewhere... eh - wait, yeah, I just remembered again that Ledger died. Guess that rules that episode out then...

Quote

Pop quiz, hotshot. Garry Kasparov is coming to kill you, and the only way to change his mind is for you to beat him at chess. What do you do, what do you do?
0

#98 User is offline   civilian_number_two Icon

  • Canada's Next Top Model.
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Head Moderator
  • Posts: 3,382
  • Joined: 01-November 03
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:In Your Dreams
  • Interests:I like stuff.
  • Country:Canada

Posted 31 January 2010 - 09:53 PM

Movie-Goer! OMG, and Madam Corvax the same day! You two must be living together or something, because this isn't the first time this has happened.

Well, I agree that there is stuff in the first Tim Burton BATMAN that is "fun," in ways different from the "fun" of DARK KNIGHT. There are a number of answers to give to this: not all action films are supposed to be mere escapism; the Prince-dancing Joker of Burton's film and the swaggering psychopath of Nolan's effort are two legitimate ways of approaching the same character; Nolan had a third film planned, so the darker tone of the middle film is not uncommon of trilogies (not claiming that any of this was planned from the beginning, but a third film with the Joker in it was on the filmmakers' minds). Actually there are quite a few answers, so why don't I skip Devil's Advocate and just give you mine.

I don't think an appreciation of the good Batman films of the 80s and 90s is necessarily excluded from the recent films. You may like those films and also like these. I do. I like DARK KNIGHT however a lot more than BATMAN BEGINS, and we've gone into this before. I thought BB was too stagy, that every line of dialogue and setting was established early on just so it could feature in the climax; I thought burning down Wayne Manor was a desperate effort to add drama to the conclusion (what does the average viewer have invested in the building, after all); I thought Liam Neeson was a terrible casting choice for an Arabic villain; I liked the Scarecrow (watch Cillian Murphy in THE WIND THAT SHAKES THE BARLEY, right now, then finish reading this run-on sentence) but thought that the word "fear" was repeated more than the phrase "just can't get enough" in that Depeche Mode song; I thought one interesting villain as the centepiece of the film would have been more interesting than three incomplete ones. I bought BB but haven't watched it nearly as much as DK, simply because it's no fun to watch.

My chief complaint is that they got the Batman character wrong. Rather than being self-driven to fight crime because of a tragedy that struck him at 12, he's a wandering suicide risk whose crime-fighting career is the result of coincidence: he accidentally bumps into a group of Ninjas who train him; he happens to own a company that makes military vehicles; even the Batsuit was experimental body armour for the army. The folks most responsible in BB for creating his superhero identity are, in order, Ra's Al-Ghul, Lucius Fox, and Rachel Dawes. If I were making a list, I'd add Alfred Pennyworth and Falcone before I'd have room for Bruce Wayne. I can't say enough about how much I hated this. Not to mention the fact that the whole ninja-training sequence, which is the heart of the film, is boring and cliched as hell. Again, I thought the movie was ok. I also thought it kinda sucked.

I get that you don't like the way the Joker plays in this one. That's fine, but I found it refreshing. It might have been interesting to delve into the latent homosexuality hinted at post-Frank Miller, but even without that (and I can do without it myself), I like a villain who's not all joy buzzers and exploding cigars. Ledger's walk and stance gave the villain a physical presence that didn't exist with any previous actor; I had no trouble accepting the fight at the end, where a pipe-wielding Joker was able to overcome, briefly, a dog-mauled and net-entangled Batman. I think the staging of that fight was excellent, because the writers went out of their way to set up conditions necessary for Joker to get the upper hand; too commonly in these superhero films the hero's and villain's strengths and weaknesses are interchangeable depending on the needs of the narrative. But even with the measures taken in this film, I wouldn't have bought Jack Nicholson wielding the pipe, not even on Michael Keaton. Ledger made the Joker a menacing thug, which was interesting, since usually he's a dandy goofball.

I disagree that the final set pieces were random and unconnected. I agree that there should have been some more setup to the ferry sequence - only two lines of dialogue explain why there's a boat with 400 maximum-security prisoners on it - but like the hospital gambit, Joker's motivation was to cause panic and to destroy law and order. He'd failed to force a public murder of a civilian, so he went on to another game. And in setting up that game, he'd also built a game where his winning play would have involved the police slaughter of several more civilians. Unexplained was how he planned to get out of that building after the SWAT teams had learned that they'd killed civilians, but maybe he was hoping that the fake hostages would have gunned them down by then. I liked that Joker's plan to destroy order involved terrorism, because that is much more interesting than "crazy gas," which had been Scarecrow's plan to reach that exact same goal. I liked too that he took the time to explain his motivations; in BB Scarecrow seems just to want to scare people for no good reason while Ra's Al Ghul just wants to destroy cities (by the way, doesn't it bother you just a little bit that the blue flower that figured in the ninja storyline is the same blue flower used to make Scarecrow's crazy gas, and that Ra's is credited with causing the economic depression that led indirectly to the death of Wayne's parents?). Anyway, all this forced chaos led to the Harvey Dent sequence, which was secretly the heart of the climax. Dent was the cost of the battle between Batman and the Joker, not Rachel Dawes. She was just a secondary character, collateral damage.

The implied death of Dent at the end is IMO the only failure in the film. Batman taking on the responsibility for Dent's crimes so that law can win makes for too tidy an ending. After all, if Dent's convictions stick, and Gordon is now Commissioner, what's the city even need Batman for? Gordon can clean up his police force and make it harder for organized crime to get so strong a grip, all with police work. Batman should move on to another town that really needs him. So I agree the conclusion is a bit too happy amid its faux-tragedy, but I am sure that their planned sequel could fix that. If Dent is dead at the end of DK, then the film is flawed. If he's still alive, and the Joker won his "battle for Gotham's heart," then the film ends properly on the dark note it wanted. So we have to wait for another film to see what they have planned.

This post has been edited by civilian_number_two: 31 January 2010 - 09:56 PM

"I had a lot of different ideas. At one point, Luke, Leia and Ben were all going to be little people, and we did screen tests to see if we could do that." -George Lucas, in STAR WARS: the Annotated Screenplays (p197).
0

#99 User is offline   Madam Corvax Icon

  • Buggy Purveyor
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 2,031
  • Joined: 15-July 04
  • Country:Nothing Selected

Posted 01 February 2010 - 06:23 AM

View Postcivilian_number_two, on 31 January 2010 - 09:53 PM, said:

Movie-Goer! OMG, and Madam Corvax the same day! You two must be living together or something, because this isn't the first time this has happened.


Nope, unfortunately haven't been in Australia since my last and only trip :( (Presuming, of course, that JYAMG still lives there and not in Europe somewhere this time).

On-topic, however - I really wish I had something to say concerning Batman films. I thing that not having been exposed from infancy to American comic-book culture left me homehow lacking the capacity to appreciate stuff like that. Something is missing in me that would allow me to grasp the references and enjoy this film rather than just going "huh?" from the very begining.
0

#100 User is offline   Just your average movie goer Icon

  • -
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 4,140
  • Joined: 10-April 04
  • Gender:Not Telling
  • Country:Nothing Selected

Posted 01 February 2010 - 07:54 AM

I think there's been a slight misunderstanding. I like both Burton's vision of Batman and Nolan's as well. What I don't like is that so many people out there seem to now completely write off the old movies, which seems a bit wrong considering how much a lot of these people enjoyed them when they were released.

It seems a bit strange actually to say that either Nolan's or Burton's films are better than the other's. They're different interpretations of the source material and they aim to do different things. So it's fairer to say that we prefer one interpretation more than the other. Personally, I'm with you, Civilian. I ask, why not enjoy both?

Burton offers us escapism and spectacle and he delivers. It would be stupid to fault his films because they fail to convincingly portray what being a vigilante would do to Bruce Wayne. That'd be like complaining that Star Wars doesn't spend enough time demonstrating the importance of Blues music in American culture.

My point in bringing up the old movies is not actually any criticism against The Dark Knight. It's criticism against the hype. It's criticism against this hive mentality that's swept across the whole internet to the point where it's almost impossible to find an honest review of the film - you know what I'm talking about. There are thousands and thousands of people saying that this movie is the best thing since sliced bread (which is rubbish - I mean, haven't these people ever tried lamb with tzatziki?). Yes, it's compelling viewing and a lot of it is very interesting - but it's not an absolutely flawless masterpiece. I don't remember if anyone here really said anything like that but it's hard to avoid when you look elsewhere on the web. Just 'Google' "The Dark Knight" and see what comes up.

Then there's all the other stupid comments that are cropping up everywhere, like how Christian Bale would kick Michael Keaton's ass for example... which is stupid because they're actors. In fact, I'd say that neither of these men would kick the crap out of anybody because such a scenario would never come up. Whatever happened to audiences using their imagination? Carey Elwes probably couldn't climb several hundred feet of rope up a cliff-face either but that never stopped me from enjoying his perfomance in The Princess Bride. I don't care that Keaton's not bulging with muscles. When he's onscreen in the cape and cowl, he's Batman. And when Christian Bale's wearing the cape, he's Batman... even when he does that stupid voice. Actually, I will say that I prefer Keaton's Batman voice over any of the other actors'. Yeah, I know they were trying to make Bale's Batman more animalistic and ferocious. It's just that with the exception of a couple of scenes, it didn't work.

Anyway, I like The Dark Knight. I also like Batman Begins - although I agree with pretty much everything you said about it (more on that later) - and I like Batman and Batman Returns too. I even think Batman Forever has a few fun moments (although it's mostly big, loud and empty). I find Jack Nicholson's Joker entertaining - he does make me laugh, even if it's at inappopriate moments - yet I equally enjoy Ledger's crazed-thug. Ledger's Joker is compelling to watch, I agree. However, I just wanted to point out that his was not the be-all and end-all on interpretations of the character.

His portrayal was well suited to the story however and you're quite right about the fight scene at the end. Actually, Batman's sonar vision coming back on just in time for him to see the Joker swinging the pipe at him (but too late to block the blow) was one of the best 'jumpy' moments in the movie. I liked the fight.

I also agree with the notion about Harvey bearing the cost of the Batman and the Joker's war with each other. That was well handled. The only thing is I think the film could have handled it without the Joker breaking out of prison. He's done his damage to Harvey. We don't need him to give Harvey the idea of introducing a little anarchy. A guy who worked really hard to clean up the city and was rewarded with his girl dying and getting half his face burned off is probably going to go nuts anyway.

Which brings me to the Joker's plots at the end. They're connected in so far as you say but there is no story being told anymore. It feels like they ran out of story for the Joker in the third act. He calls himself an agent of chaos - I call him an agent of pointlessness. "Let's burn a whole lot of cash - yes, that was fun. What shall we do now? Oh let's see if we can make ordinary people break the law or blow up a hospital if they don't. Gee, while I'm in this hospital, let's confront Harvey Dent. Now, what can I do? A social experiment with people on ferries. Oh such fun!"

That's not a story - that's just a series of mini-crises for our protagonist to deal with. What's more is that as the movie spent so much time on these things, we only got a few brief scenes of Harvey Dent as Two-Face. The first few were really good and I was looking forward to more in the next movie but then Harvey just went off the deep end. Why is he tormenting Gordon's family? That doesn't make sense. Wurtz betrayed him. Maroni played a part in the plan. Ramirez betrayed Rachel. So when Harvey goes after them, it's understandable but Gordan's family?

Then there's the terrible ending - and this is where the movie really loses points. I don't know about everyone else but endings are important and The Dark Knight really stuffed it's ending up.

Quote

The implied death of Dent at the end is IMO the only failure in the film. Batman taking on the responsibility for Dent's crimes so that law can win makes for too tidy an ending. After all, if Dent's convictions stick, and Gordon is now Commissioner, what's the city even need Batman for? Gordon can clean up his police force and make it harder for organized crime to get so strong a grip, all with police work. Batman should move on to another town that really needs him. So I agree the conclusion is a bit too happy amid its faux-tragedy, but I am sure that their planned sequel could fix that. If Dent is dead at the end of DK, then the film is flawed. If he's still alive, and the Joker won his "battle for Gotham's heart," then the film ends properly on the dark note it wanted. So we have to wait for another film to see what they have planned.


Exactly. The movie finishes with Gotham no longer needing Batman (yet with a voice-over from Gordon about how he's now their watchful protector, silent guardian, stern lamp-post, vengeful pigeon etc). Also, Harvey looked pretty dead to me. We will of course have to see how the next film pans out before we can pass a final verdict on this one. Let's just hope that it isn't Return of the Jedi.



Now, Batman Begins. What I like about this movie is that although it has a lot of really heavy coincidences, the story is at least tight and polished. The Dark Knight feels choppy to me, as though Nolan needed a few more weeks in the editing room prior its release.

However, having said that, I completely agree with you about the way they handled Bruce Wayne becoming Batman. Everyone is involved in this process except for Bruce himself, including his enemies. Actually, it's a bit strange when he's quoting the wisdom of his enemies to Alfred, isn't it?

"The symbol I shall become must be terrifying because both a mob boss and an insane zealout have taught me that fear gives people great power."

"Theatricality and deception are powerful weapons, Alfred. Believe me. The crazed leader of an evil cult told me."


Yeah, the blue flower. Couldn't it have just been a blue flower?

And the thing with the depression being caused by the league of shadows. That was stupid. It also means that Rhas Al Ghul indirectly killed Bruce's parents and so when Bruce 'doesn't save' him (ie. gets Gordon to orchestrate a situation that will result in Rhas' death), he effectively gets to avenge his parents... and the movie gets to effectively undermine what it did at the start when it pointed out that if Bruce had killed Chill, then he would have been no better than a common criminal. Yeah, that was pretty crap.

I also disliked Bruce's father being so goody-goody. It was over-the-top to the point of cheesy.

"We've built a new cheap public transportation system for the people. We also built them a hospital and did you know that your mother and I work in kitchens serving homeless people as well as doing volunteer work at youth shelters all over the city?"

I hated him talking to Bruce after he got shot - completely ruined the impact of what would have been a very strong scene.

I disliked the Tumbler chase. It went on an on, had Batman drive over a roof (old tiles can't support an armoured tank) and the constant chatter from the police was stupid:

"He's not on a street! He's flying on roof tops!"
"Who is this guy?"
"Can you at least tell me what it looks like? .... Never mind."


Dumb. Annoying. Time wasting.

And I really couldn't stand the guy in Wayne Tower at the end.

"If that pressure reaches us, the water supply right across the city is gonna blow! ... Evacuate the building. We're right on top of the main hub and it's gonna blow! .... The water's gonna blow! .... Water - blow! ... Blow! .... Water! .... Blow!" (Okay, I made some of that up but his lines were really annoying).



It's still an entertaining movie though but I take your point. Actually, one of the reasons why I think so many people like The Dark Knight better is because we don't have to worry about any of that origin stuff any more... which is raises an interesting question. Why do so many film-makers insist on making origin stories these days? They're rather overdone.


One last thing about The Dark Knight. It is fun in its way - which is a very different fun from Burton's style. However, I really think it could have had a bit more spectacle. One odd thing I've read on the net is that some people (people who say they really love the movie) say that the Hong Kong sequence should have been cut. This is really strange for me for a couple of reasons. The first is that it is the catalyst that sets everything else into motion - Harvey charging half the mobsters in Gotham - the mobsters hiring the Joker - the craziness that follows.

However, I think the scene serves another important purpose. It is only time when we see Batman doing something spectacular. For most of the film, Batman is talking to people, yelling at people, driving that stupid Batpod of his, etc. The movie really needed that scene.

Anyway, I like the fact that you're playing devil's advocate. It's good to discuss these things from different views. And it's always nice to read posts that have some thought behind them.

To sum up, I like both Nolan and Burton's Batman films but for different reasons. Nolan's are more thought-provoking and grounded in reality while Burton's are more escapist. I don't like the hype surrounding The Dark Knight however and I don't like people suddenly turning on the older films just because they're not the current thing any more. Casablanca's not a current thing either but that doesn't make it any less of a movie. Batman Begins does suck in a lot of ways but it's good solid entertainment for the most part. Finally, The Dark Knight is fun but not in the 'escapism' sense.

Good to see you again too by the way.

This post has been edited by Just your average movie goer: 01 February 2010 - 08:01 AM

0

#101 User is offline   civilian_number_two Icon

  • Canada's Next Top Model.
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Head Moderator
  • Posts: 3,382
  • Joined: 01-November 03
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:In Your Dreams
  • Interests:I like stuff.
  • Country:Canada

Posted 01 February 2010 - 05:06 PM

Dent's revenge on Gordon is justified in the film. Two-Face going after Go9rdon, in fact, only makes sense. Dent worked for Internal Affairs and he busted many Gotham cops for being on the mob payroll. Dent was insulted for this and given a hurtful nickname; basically he was the Serpico of Gotham, minus the goofball Greenwich Village lifestyle. As DA, Dent warned Gordon frequently about the poieple who worked closely with him in major crimes. Gordon did more than keep these people working; he trusted them. He vouched for these peple. Ramirez abducted Rachel and gave her to the people who killed her. Gordon vouched for Ramirez. After Dent had resolved his beef with Ramirez, he went after Gordon. There's enough there, IMO, to justify it.

Maybe I can agree that the meeting with Joker was unnecessary, but it gave Joker the opportunity to give his speech about how noone freaks out if a gang-banger or a truck full of soldiers dies. Also, it resolves the conflict between Dent and Joker: given an opportunity to take his revenge, Dent introduces the rule of the coin. And he uses the same rule with Gordon's family. He wouldn't have gone through with his plan to kill Gordon't son had the coin not told him to do so. I don't think, in terms of the story, that there was anything wrong with that. I don't need absolutely perfect psychologcal character sketches for these people. It's still just a superhero movie.

Understood, now, everything you've sad about DARK KNIGHT hype. Agreed. Can't believe the folks wanting to cut the Hong Kong bit, but I know why. These are kids drooling at the superhero stuff, who can't understand why Batman is capturing some Chinese businessman. Jeebus, these kids aren't following the story ... but that's the internet for you. I agree with everything you said; this is the one time Batman got to do something difficult and cool, and maybe he could have done stuff like this inside Gotham as well. But I won't say that the car chases weren't cinematic. I enjoyed those bits as well.

And I still disagree that the end scenes weren't in line with the narrative. The prisoner's dilemma that everyone goes on about is not an anomaly. It is the culmination of Joker's love of games. This game is established in the opening bank heist, when he offers each participant (except for the bus driver, who's out of the loop) more money if he reduces the pool by one. This is one of those games that would work best for the players if the rules were made public, but for which the rules have been told to each player in secret. Later he plays the simplistic game of "tryouts" on some gangsters. This can be regarded as a simple scene of brutality, but it shows his playfulness again. Then his public games regarding Batman's identity, first promising murder if he doesn't deliver it, then promising mayhem if another person does. He's delighted that Dent adopts an element of chance into his revenge scheme, instead of becoming a simple murderer. Rather than being out of place, when the barge dilemma was introduced, my reaction was "of course." I thought at first that it was too obvious given what we'd had already. On subsequent viewing I still think it's a bit twee, but not out of place. I wish it were better, but I don't think it doesn't belong in the film in the first place.

This post has been edited by civilian_number_two: 01 February 2010 - 05:07 PM

"I had a lot of different ideas. At one point, Luke, Leia and Ben were all going to be little people, and we did screen tests to see if we could do that." -George Lucas, in STAR WARS: the Annotated Screenplays (p197).
0

#102 User is offline   Mr Pye Icon

  • Henchman
  • Pip
  • Group: Junior Members
  • Posts: 85
  • Joined: 28-April 08
  • Country:Nothing Selected

Posted 01 February 2010 - 06:52 PM

It was now quite a while ago I saw the Dark Knight and I confess to having forgot a whole lot about it. What I do remember was that when walking out of the cinema I felt that I had seen a decent enough (if somewhat dark) movie, but not Batman.

Infact I remember thinking something like, remove the bat suit, and wipe off the Jokers make up and this is Mission Impossible 4, or even James Bond. I suspect this has something to do with me partially defining Batman through the more well known villains of the franchise. If you don't have the Joker and Catwoman and Penguin and the Riddler then you don't have the full Batman experience.

The Dark knight has both the Joker and Two-Face, though really only the Joker is his adversary in this movie. But at some level the Dark Knight is not really about Batman taking down the Joker, but more about Batman protecting society from itself. In that respect the Dark Knight is not Batman vs The Joker, it is Batman vs the chaotic nature of the world, and though this situation eventually resolves itself, it means not only is a classic ingredience, Batman vs Supervillain, reduced to second fiddle but also the story becomes immensly more complicated and layered. This is not always suitable for a Batman story, which if you ask me should be about Batman.

Another thing to notice about this is also the darkness of the movie. I remember (possibly incorrectly) the colour palette beeing almost entirely grey and dark, with one noteable exception. The Joker in his make-up shone out like a beacon whenever he was on stage. That means when the Joker was not on stage, when it was just about Batman and the world, the result was grey. And dark. And grey. And dark. Well, you get the idea.

And as if the story wasn't layered enought Nolan also introduced the Joker as the architect behind Two-Face, again sort of leaving Batman out of the picture. Batman is left fighting a difficult though not terribly interesting battle against the consequeses. That is to say, the consequenses themselves are interesting enough, but Batmans struggles with them are not. Perhaps through lack of development of the Batman character.

Not really sure about the ending. Joker of course had the ferry situation set up, but it resolves itself, so once more Batmans success is not in stopping the Jokers plan, but simply on taking the Joker out, and later on dealing with Dent, another consequence of the Jokers games, but a character with no specific ties to Batman at this point. So again a sort of Mission Impossible 4 subtitled And Batman was there too.

Then there is the set up at the very end where Batman takes the blame for Dent. I have forgotten today what that was meant to achieve except perhaps setting up a darker Batman for a possible sequel. But if that sequel doesn't materialize it will just end up seeming peculiar.


Those are the issues, right or wrong that I carry against the Dark Knight, and have done ever since my first viewing. As that is also my only viewing I must keep a somewhat open mind and think that perhaps a second viewing to refresh the memory will improve my thoughts of it, but as of yet because of it dark and depressing feel, I have not feelt inclined to do so.
0

#103 User is offline   Supes Icon

  • Sunshine Superman
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1,334
  • Joined: 30-October 03
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Sydney, Australia
  • Country:Australia

Posted 01 February 2010 - 08:08 PM

I'm also in the camp of enjoying both Burton's and Nolan's versions of Batman. As you guys have described they are each representations of a character that you can find evidence of in the comics depending upon which writer or era you decide to review.

I still feel that if the third film is to be done the Scarecrow is the best options for a villain to be used, but I'll revise my original post and say that I'd like to see him in the film with a continuation of Two-Face/Harvey Dent. Again as has been well discussed above THE DARK KNIGHT will be lessened for its ending should Two-Face actually be dead and Batman is left to be responsible for the crimes. At the very least it takes away one of the constants within the comics and that is the open relationship between Gordon and Batman. The use of he bat signal and the message that this symbol sends whenever it is activated "openly" by the Police force.

I am a big fan of Catwoman and would dearly love to see her in another film, however, I'd also like a third installment to make sense in context of the first two. Perhaps we could be treated with a nice cameo of a basic diamond heist where Bats gets his first taste of the lady yet to come. Just a little tip of the hat to tease the fans a little and leave it at that.

Regardless though, I feel the third film is warranted and necessary to properly tie up the first two films. As much as I enjoyed them they do need an ending, and I don't feel we have actually been given that with the conclusion of THE DARK KNIGHT.

Very nice to see you all out and about again also ;-)
Luminous beings are we... not this crude matter.
Yoda
0

#104 User is offline   Just your average movie goer Icon

  • -
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 4,140
  • Joined: 10-April 04
  • Gender:Not Telling
  • Country:Nothing Selected

Posted 01 February 2010 - 10:39 PM

Yeah, I get your point, Civilian, about Dent's grudge with Gordon. I guess I was being tough on Nolan because when I first saw this, I thought "Hey, Dent's being rather unreasonable here." but I suppose that's the whole point of his Two-Face persona, ie. he's gone a little nuts. I think however, it would have been better if he hadn't brought Gordon's family into it. I mean, using his family as bait to get him where he wanted him was one thing but he didn't need to point the gun at them afterwards. It kind of reminded me of Hammurabi's concept of justice - you know how for instance, under that code, if a poorly made building collapsed on some guy's daughter, the builder would be punished by having his daughter killed. But I'd rather think that someone like Dent would have a more modern outlook on justice.

I did like the part where he turned the gun on Batman and then himself. If he had then turned the gun on Gordon rather than his son, that would have given the scene a nicer sense of symmetry - but nevermind.

Also, I liked your explanation about the Joker's games. That makes the set pieces of the third act easier to understand within the context of the film's story. The ferry scenes still bother me though as they take away the focus from our main characters. The other problem is that throughout The Dark Knight, Gotham citizens are portrayed frequently as simple-minded, ungrateful, self-centred, gullible and as such, it makes it hard for the viewer to want to invest time in them. Actually, I also wondered why Batman bothered with them at some points. When they all demanded that he turned himself in, even though he had saved all of them from the League of Shadow's gas attack in Batman Begins, I was surprised that he didn't just abandon them. Actually, I wrote about this in the Hellboy II thread too. It seems to be a common affliction of sequels, this business of the general public turning on the hero. I find it very cliched and unoriginal. Also, if Bruce Wayne is going to invest all his energy into saving Gotham at the cost of his own chances of leading a happy life, then Gotham really ought to be worth saving. However, with the behaviour of numerous Gotham citizens throughout The Dark Knight, I wondered if that was the case...

... or maybe that's part of the reason for the ferry scene, ie. that the citizens of Gotham aren't just showing the Joker that they're better than he thinks but that they're also showing Batman that they don't completely suck and are therefore worth protecting.

However, that said, they still could have trimmed it somewhat. Maybe leave out some the voting and the passing of pens and paper and show snippets of the people arguing.


Mr Pye, good comment about the colour. It's interesting that in Batman's world, the villains provide the colour. However, that was the same in the Burton movies as well, especially the scene with the Joker on his party float and Batman coming out of the darkness in the batwing. Actually, I think it's rather clever actually - the idea that things are not as they appear. The Joker, while all cheerful colours and full of life, is a nasty psychotic and the Batman for all his darkness is a - well, he's kind of psychotic too but he's a psychotic who cares about people.

Also, the point you raise that characters of The Dark Knight could be replaced with non-Batman characters and you could still have the same movie is apt. However, that's all right as far I'm concerned. It basically means that the movie is able to stand on its own rather than just being an excuse to see a live-action Batman film. Actually, I'm reminded of something Harold Ramis said about comedies - that when people write comedies, if they want them to have a lasting appeal, then they need to write a story that would work just as well even if you took out all the jokes. Otherwise, you get something that has no substance and something that won't reward repeat viewing. I guess it's the same kind of thing here.

Supes, with Catwoman, I think she would be fine in a third film. I just think however that she shouldn't be a main villain because that's not really her thing. I'd have her as someone going down the wrong tracks and have Batman help her - and in doing so, have a relationship form between them (but that's pretty much a given).

Now, bringing Two-Face back... I like the idea but unfortunately I think it will look like Nolan was cheating as Harvey looked quite dead at the end of The Dark Knight. There's only one way I could see it working and that would be having Harvey kept at some secret rehabilitation place - with an arrangement that because of everything that happened to him, the city will give him a nice home and retirement package so he can live out his days in peaceful anonymity... except that Harvey won't settle for that.

This post has been edited by Just your average movie goer: 01 February 2010 - 10:43 PM

0

#105 User is offline   Supes Icon

  • Sunshine Superman
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1,334
  • Joined: 30-October 03
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Sydney, Australia
  • Country:Australia

Posted 01 February 2010 - 10:51 PM

I actually have no issue with a third film picking up almost right where THE DARK KNIGHT left off. Paramedics on the scene, Dent discovered with a faint pulse. I think you arc works in nicely following this. I also like the Catwoman inclusion idea as well.

Mr Nolan, would be good is you could drop by and soak up the gold that is being delivered to you ;-)
Luminous beings are we... not this crude matter.
Yoda
0

  • (9 Pages)
  • +
  • « First
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9


Fast Reply

  • Decrease editor size
  • Increase editor size