Are you fucking kidding me? They're good, but they're nothing special. The Dark Knight was a good film, but it wasn't a good "Batman film".For all the people saying Thor and X-Men were good I can't wait until this comes out so they can be reminded that Nolan's Batman series is how you should approach comic book adaptations.
"The Dark Knight Rises" Teaser Poster
@VelvetLore04 said:
@SeriouslyNow said:
@VelvetLore04 said:
@HandsomeDead said:
@VelvetLore04 said:Well, they do say third time's the charm, right? Though, after Inception, I still don't think Chris Nolan has any action chops whatsoever.Hopefully this one will be good.
Maybe this time he'll trim the fat and have a decently paced flick. Doubtful, but a man can dream.
What do you two movie critics consider good action chops? Give me a couple of examples. Also, I'd like to know where Inception and The Dark Knight fall down in terms of the action.
My problem with The Dark Knight isn't the lack of action. I mean, that's something but it's not my problem. My problem is that it is a terribly paced movie with a very loose definition of the phrase 'superhero movie in a realistic setting'. The Dark Knight was an overambitious movie that collapsed under the weight of its own premise. The script was also bland and when it wasn't ham-fistedly shoving its message down your throat it was making you cringe with its attempts at reflection or wit or character interaction. The story wasn't told very well and a lot of it was ultimately inconsequential to the overall plot. The dialogue was dreadful, as was the majority of the acting. Christian Bale is a bad Bruce Wayne but he is a worse Batman. Gary Oldman remained the shining star of the cast. The less said about Heath Ledger the better because I still maintain that he only won the Supporting Actor oscar because he died. He wasn't particularly great and he was on the border of being insufferable. The Dark Knight has serious pacing problems and it climaxes about three or four times over the course of its too long runtime. And that's not a good thing. Much of the movie felt like it could've been trimmed down and perhaps the most damning thing of all is Batman is a boring fucking character to watch. Especially Nolan's take on Batman. The best thing about The Dark Knight was watching Maggie Gyllenhaal get blown up because I don't like her. The Dark Knight is not a good movie. It is a boring mess of a film that is as dull as it is abrasive.
Inception was marginally better than The Dark Knight but it still wasn't a good movie. Largely because none of the people you are watching are remotely interesting at all. Especially Ellen Page's character. Nolan has a knack for having neat ideas but then putting in the most one dimensional characters imaginable. The Prestige being an exception and one of Nolan's only good movies. Inception is a good idea but its execution was anything but. A heist movie that takes place in dreams? Sounds great. And it could've been except for the fact that it got so caught up in its own mythos and ideas that the whole concept of plot fell by the wayside. If it spent half as much time making the characters interesting as it did setting up its world Inception would be an infinitely rewatchable movie. The fact that none of the characters were likable or memorable made the whole ending sequences a chore to watch since there was no tension for these high stakes that they found themselves in. I get that it is Nolan's shtick to toy with the art of movie making, but making a cool looking movie only gets you so far. Sure it's fun to look at and some of the action scenes were well shot, but who cares when your movie is so fucking bland. Memento was at least fun to watch. Inception was not. It does nothing to enthrall the viewer. And it wasn't even a good heist movie anyway.
But really, neither The Dark Knight or Inception are action movies.
You didn't answer my question. You just expounded on your opinion with more opinion.
Batman is totally a superhero. One need not have superpowers to be a superhero. It depends on how you define a superhero.
Kane is also the most interesting person in that movie, by the way. He, Susan, and Jedediah were the most interesting characters in the movie, But then again Citizen Kane is not praised for its characters.
@SeriouslyNow said:
@VelvetLore04 said:
@SeriouslyNow said:
@VelvetLore04 said:
@HandsomeDead said:
@VelvetLore04 said:Well, they do say third time's the charm, right? Though, after Inception, I still don't think Chris Nolan has any action chops whatsoever.Hopefully this one will be good.
Maybe this time he'll trim the fat and have a decently paced flick. Doubtful, but a man can dream.
What do you two movie critics consider good action chops? Give me a couple of examples. Also, I'd like to know where Inception and The Dark Knight fall down in terms of the action.
My problem with The Dark Knight isn't the lack of action. I mean, that's something but it's not my problem. My problem is that it is a terribly paced movie with a very loose definition of the phrase 'superhero movie in a realistic setting'. The Dark Knight was an overambitious movie that collapsed under the weight of its own premise. The script was also bland and when it wasn't ham-fistedly shoving its message down your throat it was making you cringe with its attempts at reflection or wit or character interaction. The story wasn't told very well and a lot of it was ultimately inconsequential to the overall plot. The dialogue was dreadful, as was the majority of the acting. Christian Bale is a bad Bruce Wayne but he is a worse Batman. Gary Oldman remained the shining star of the cast. The less said about Heath Ledger the better because I still maintain that he only won the Supporting Actor oscar because he died. He wasn't particularly great and he was on the border of being insufferable. The Dark Knight has serious pacing problems and it climaxes about three or four times over the course of its too long runtime. And that's not a good thing. Much of the movie felt like it could've been trimmed down and perhaps the most damning thing of all is Batman is a boring fucking character to watch. Especially Nolan's take on Batman. The best thing about The Dark Knight was watching Maggie Gyllenhaal get blown up because I don't like her. The Dark Knight is not a good movie. It is a boring mess of a film that is as dull as it is abrasive.
Inception was marginally better than The Dark Knight but it still wasn't a good movie. Largely because none of the people you are watching are remotely interesting at all. Especially Ellen Page's character. Nolan has a knack for having neat ideas but then putting in the most one dimensional characters imaginable. The Prestige being an exception and one of Nolan's only good movies. Inception is a good idea but its execution was anything but. A heist movie that takes place in dreams? Sounds great. And it could've been except for the fact that it got so caught up in its own mythos and ideas that the whole concept of plot fell by the wayside. If it spent half as much time making the characters interesting as it did setting up its world Inception would be an infinitely rewatchable movie. The fact that none of the characters were likable or memorable made the whole ending sequences a chore to watch since there was no tension for these high stakes that they found themselves in. I get that it is Nolan's shtick to toy with the art of movie making, but making a cool looking movie only gets you so far. Sure it's fun to look at and some of the action scenes were well shot, but who cares when your movie is so fucking bland. Memento was at least fun to watch. Inception was not. It does nothing to enthrall the viewer. And it wasn't even a good heist movie anyway.
But really, neither The Dark Knight or Inception are action movies.
You didn't answer my question. You just expounded on your opinion with more opinion.
You shouldn't be asking me about 'action chops' since I didn't even bring it up and it's not why I don't like the movie. There's little to no action in either movie and to call them action movies are an insult to the genre. But if you want a director who has action chops you've got John Woo for starters. Ridley Scott. John McTiernan. Akra Kurosawa. Michael Mann. Robert Rodriguez. Even the much reviled Michael Bay at least has the chops to shoot a good action sequence. And then Renny Harlin comes to mind. All directors with more 'action chops' than Nolan.
Can't wait
Cool.
Lots of super hero movies lately, but whatever. I don't care much about that, only that it's good.
I have decided I will not see another Batman movie until they come to their senses and cast Paul Walker as Batman.
Guys, quit complaining about how in your opinion Inception and Dark Knight weren't good, and instead talk about the teaser poster. No reason to have arguments in a thread about an image.
@EpicSteve said:
Has a villain been confirmed, yet? I haven't been following this movie as much as I should have.
Bane and Catwoman are both comfirmed. Not sure if Catwoman will play a villain role or not however.
@SeriouslyNow said:
But fine, he's not a "super"-hero. He's just comic-book hero who associates constantly with other heroes of the Super variety, while fighting off super-villains. Green Lantern isn't one either, as he gets his power from a ring (alien gadget), and super-man isn't cause he's just an alien who jives well with our yellow sun. Mutants aren't super, just mutants. And Spider-Man and the Fantastic Four, well, they're just the results of straight up science, yo! Etcetera. Etcetera.
But fuck semantics!
Dude, Batman wears capes and tights all the time. He fights crime with young boys, girls, and once in a while a Bat-Mite as sidekicks... all also in capes and tights. He fights crime from a space-station. He has a collection of completely impractical gadgets and automobiles. He fights villains made of clay, and others who are half bat, ice, plant, etc. He's kept his identity secret even though several of his enemies and ex-girlfriends have known his identity (and at most points he is the only dude in Gotham who could possibly be Batman while maintaining a very public image as Bruce Wayne). He often single-handedly defends an entire city filled with the worst psychopaths (many of which are super-villains) while never killing anyone (what happened to the gun?). He once amalgamated with Wolverine. He has fought and beaten Predators among thousands of other space creatures, on and off world. And he is CALLED BATMAN AND DRESSES LIKE A FUCKING BAT!
He's the epitome of gritty realism. Not a super hero at all.
"People who don't get TDK don't get Batman." What a thing to say! Frank Miller is not the end all be all of Batman, and Bob Kane certainly wasn't either, otherwise we wouldn't be talking about this as Batman would be a ghost. Or should I say a Phantom... or maybe spirit?
In TDK, I'd argue he is no kind of hero whatsoever :P@Loose said:
@Damian said:I kind of have to agree with you here actually. I think TDK's biggest shortcoming was its lead character and, regardless of whether or not its a super hero film, truly classic films aren't those that too heavily rely on their supporting cast. A strong lead character is probably one of the, if not the, most important aspects of a film.@RE_Player92: I respect that. It just scares me to imagine everyone else following suit. It's like all games being brown to be more "gritty" or "realistic". I'm just not feeling it.
To me, super hero comics are just as much escapism as video games. Nolan is trying to portray them in as realistic a manner as possible, and that really could only be applied to a "Dark Knight" character. Doing that to Supes, Spidey or most other heroes wouldn't help him at all.
Begins was fine by me, 'cause no one had gone that direction before. So even though I didn't love it, I was all for it (and hey, at least it was proof that Shoemacher didn't kill the Batman momentum completely). But everyone's overwhelming adoration for TDK has been pretty baffling for me. Heath played a great villain, and Oldman is always subtly amazing. But when I go to see a super hero movie, I want to see a SUPER hero. Not a plot device for a villain to dance around. I think I'd be more into it if it were called The Clown Prince. Honestly. But please, share your thoughts on why I'm wrong. I've really only heard "I love TDK" and a bunch of Joker quotes by the lovers of the films. I'd appreciate hearing what makes it the penultimate comic book movie to you.^ Not sarcasm. Honestly curious as I obviously don't get it.The best films historically are those with a rather weak lead character who meets and interacts an ensemble cast of deeper, far more interesting characters. Star Wars original trilogy, Citizen Kane, Jaws and countless others where the central lead is often a cypher/everyman or even a thing which has no dialogue at all (as is the case with Jaws).
Batman isn't a Superhero, he's never meant to be portrayed that way, especially if you take The Dark Knight Returns and Killing Joke comics as the tipping point for the modern Batman movies (Burton refers to The Killing Joke as one his strongest influences). He doesn't have superpowers. It's really that simple. He's a man on a mission and that mission is to clean up crime and he'll do that in any way possible, often by working outside the law and via violent means - he's gritty by design. He started as a fucking Private Detective with a gun for fuck's sake. Detective Comics. Just because some TV producer in the 60s made him accessible to the general public don't confuse that with what Batman is meant to be. He's not a tights wearing wisecracking genius. He's a hardened, armour wearing, psychotic madman who dresses as a bat to incite fear in the criminal scum he has to beat the living shit out of because he can't cope with the loss of his parents and the childhood innocence which left with them. Burton and Nolan are the only two guys in terms of movies who actually bothered to respect his person and while their takes differ wildly from each other what they share is a respect for the psychological makeup and darkness of the Batman mythology. Joel Schumacher's take is just a lazy fucking reinterpretation of the 60s TV Show starring Adam West and it did indeed almost kill the Batman movie franchise. Begins was entirely a reboot of the franchise because Nolan wanted and needed to distance himself and his work from Joel-the-rubber-nipple-salesman's take.
People who don't get TDK don't get Batman. He's not a superhero.
But fine, he's not a "super"-hero. He's just comic-book hero who associates constantly with other heroes of the Super variety, while fighting off super-villains. Green Lantern isn't one either, as he gets his power from a ring (alien gadget), and super-man isn't cause he's just an alien who jives well with our yellow sun. Mutants aren't super, just mutants. And Spider-Man and the Fantastic Four, well, they're just the results of straight up science, yo! Etcetera. Etcetera.
But fuck semantics!
Dude, Batman wears capes and tights all the time. He fights crime with young boys, girls, and once in a while a Bat-Mite as sidekicks... all also in capes and tights. He fights crime from a space-station. He has a collection of completely impractical gadgets and automobiles. He fights villains made of clay, and others who are half bat, ice, plant, etc. He's kept his identity secret even though several of his enemies and ex-girlfriends have known his identity (and at most points he is the only dude in Gotham who could possibly be Batman while maintaining a very public image as Bruce Wayne). He often single-handedly defends an entire city filled with the worst psychopaths (many of which are super-villains) while never killing anyone (what happened to the gun?). He once amalgamated with Wolverine. He has fought and beaten Predators among thousands of other space creatures, on and off world. And he is CALLED BATMAN AND DRESSES LIKE A FUCKING BAT!
He's the epitome of gritty realism. Not a super hero at all.
"People who don't get TDK don't get Batman." What a thing to say! Frank Miller is not the end all be all of Batman, and Bob Kane certainly wasn't either, otherwise we wouldn't be talking about this as Batman would be a ghost. Or should I say a Phantom... or maybe spirit?
@the_OFFICIAL_jAPanese_teaBAG said:
surprised no one has posted the youtube link of the Inception horn.
http://inception.davepedu.com/
I have this on stand by for just such an occasion!
Can't wait to sit in the cinema and watch the batman kicking some ass once again.
Actually, Bane is not the main villian, he's only the musle used my Titanya, Ras Alguls duaghter. The main villian hasnt been announced but I have an idea. Also cat woman is in the movie.
@Damian said:
@SeriouslyNow said:In TDK, I'd argue he is no kind of hero whatsoever :P@Loose said:
@Damian said:I kind of have to agree with you here actually. I think TDK's biggest shortcoming was its lead character and, regardless of whether or not its a super hero film, truly classic films aren't those that too heavily rely on their supporting cast. A strong lead character is probably one of the, if not the, most important aspects of a film.@RE_Player92: I respect that. It just scares me to imagine everyone else following suit. It's like all games being brown to be more "gritty" or "realistic". I'm just not feeling it.
To me, super hero comics are just as much escapism as video games. Nolan is trying to portray them in as realistic a manner as possible, and that really could only be applied to a "Dark Knight" character. Doing that to Supes, Spidey or most other heroes wouldn't help him at all.
Begins was fine by me, 'cause no one had gone that direction before. So even though I didn't love it, I was all for it (and hey, at least it was proof that Shoemacher didn't kill the Batman momentum completely). But everyone's overwhelming adoration for TDK has been pretty baffling for me. Heath played a great villain, and Oldman is always subtly amazing. But when I go to see a super hero movie, I want to see a SUPER hero. Not a plot device for a villain to dance around. I think I'd be more into it if it were called The Clown Prince. Honestly. But please, share your thoughts on why I'm wrong. I've really only heard "I love TDK" and a bunch of Joker quotes by the lovers of the films. I'd appreciate hearing what makes it the penultimate comic book movie to you.^ Not sarcasm. Honestly curious as I obviously don't get it.The best films historically are those with a rather weak lead character who meets and interacts an ensemble cast of deeper, far more interesting characters. Star Wars original trilogy, Citizen Kane, Jaws and countless others where the central lead is often a cypher/everyman or even a thing which has no dialogue at all (as is the case with Jaws).
Batman isn't a Superhero, he's never meant to be portrayed that way, especially if you take The Dark Knight Returns and Killing Joke comics as the tipping point for the modern Batman movies (Burton refers to The Killing Joke as one his strongest influences). He doesn't have superpowers. It's really that simple. He's a man on a mission and that mission is to clean up crime and he'll do that in any way possible, often by working outside the law and via violent means - he's gritty by design. He started as a fucking Private Detective with a gun for fuck's sake. Detective Comics. Just because some TV producer in the 60s made him accessible to the general public don't confuse that with what Batman is meant to be. He's not a tights wearing wisecracking genius. He's a hardened, armour wearing, psychotic madman who dresses as a bat to incite fear in the criminal scum he has to beat the living shit out of because he can't cope with the loss of his parents and the childhood innocence which left with them. Burton and Nolan are the only two guys in terms of movies who actually bothered to respect his person and while their takes differ wildly from each other what they share is a respect for the psychological makeup and darkness of the Batman mythology. Joel Schumacher's take is just a lazy fucking reinterpretation of the 60s TV Show starring Adam West and it did indeed almost kill the Batman movie franchise. Begins was entirely a reboot of the franchise because Nolan wanted and needed to distance himself and his work from Joel-the-rubber-nipple-salesman's take.
People who don't get TDK don't get Batman. He's not a superhero.
But fine, he's not a "super"-hero. He's just comic-book hero who associates constantly with other heroes of the Super variety, while fighting off super-villains. Green Lantern isn't one either, as he gets his power from a ring (alien gadget), and super-man isn't cause he's just an alien who jives well with our yellow sun. Mutants aren't super, just mutants. And Spider-Man and the Fantastic Four, well, they're just the results of straight up science, yo! Etcetera. Etcetera.
But fuck semantics!
Dude, Batman wears capes and tights all the time. He fights crime with young boys, girls, and once in a while a Bat-Mite as sidekicks... all also in capes and tights. He fights crime from a space-station. He has a collection of completely impractical gadgets and automobiles. He fights villains made of clay, and others who are half bat, ice, plant, etc. He's kept his identity secret even though several of his enemies and ex-girlfriends have known his identity (and at most points he is the only dude in Gotham who could possibly be Batman while maintaining a very public image as Bruce Wayne). He often single-handedly defends an entire city filled with the worst psychopaths (many of which are super-villains) while never killing anyone (what happened to the gun?). He once amalgamated with Wolverine. He has fought and beaten Predators among thousands of other space creatures, on and off world. And he is CALLED BATMAN AND DRESSES LIKE A FUCKING BAT!
He's the epitome of gritty realism. Not a super hero at all.
"People who don't get TDK don't get Batman." What a thing to say! Frank Miller is not the end all be all of Batman, and Bob Kane certainly wasn't either, otherwise we wouldn't be talking about this as Batman would be a ghost. Or should I say a Phantom... or maybe spirit?
He is a hero, just not the hero anyone wants. People want criminals caught but most people won't do anything to aid in their capture. I never said he was realistic, I said he was gritty - he's a comic book hero, they don't exist in reality for the most part. What people have done with him in what-ifs (you didn't even mention the best one ever when he joined up with Judge Dredd and took on the Dark Judges) has absolutely no bearing on The Dark Knight's Batman and whether he's a Super Hero. He's not a Super hero. He doesn't have powers, the others you mentioned do - regardless of how they were attained. The delineation is super powers and Batman is only a man aided by gadgets. Is James Bond a superhero? No, he's a well trained spy with gadgets. They are men, surely more athletic and skilled than most but still men. This isn't about semantics at all. Not every hero in comics is a superhero.
As to Nolan's directorial stylings in this movie, yes, he very clearly is going for a gritty context but to call it realism really isn't correct at all. It isn't realism, it's a fucking comic book movie about a dude in a bat-styled costume who is crazy who fights other dudes in other costumes who are equally crazy and lots of shit blows up a lot.
And yes people don't get Batman if they attack TDK on the grounds of The Joker being the star protagonist or the fact that it's gritty or the fact that it's a slow burn and that the action takes a back seat to the dialogue or the nature of dialogue being moral lecture and quip heavy or the fact that Batman is a reasonably boring, inaccessible character. All of that stuff is part and parcel of the Batman context and TDK is one of the most authentic Batman movies ever made. People don't get Batman and that's a reality because even this thread there's someone defending Joel Schumacher's travesty.
...
I'm gonna set the super-hero thing aside. We hold different definitions. That's fine by me. Technically, we're both wrong, as Superhero has long been diminished to a backhanded, arbitrary way to differentiate DC and Marvel heroes from all the little fish. So, fuck it. They're all heroes. What makes them "super" is a just a copyright. Batman ain't got super-powers. You'll get no argument there (unless he's wearing a GL ring, of course, then he's a super-hero). *jab*
What I'm actually concerned with is your dismissal of all other forms of Batman outside of gritty/dark ones. We all know he's got a solemn backstory, and Gotham is... gothic. But a lot of heroes have something traumatizing to kickstart their careers. They don't seem to dwell on it as much, but many of them have lost just as much as Batman did or more, and weren't left filthy rich with the best nanny ever in the process. When they constantly have Batman brooding about his history, he comes across awfully emo and far less heroic.
But you're right. He's often dark. MOSTLY dark, even. Does that invalidate other visions of who he is? Especially when said visions are officially sanctioned/created by DC (like the many cartoons, movies, and yes, even the 60's show and Shoemacher's pieces of trash)? Personally, I don't think so. You can act like there's an official Batman. But I'd say evidence points clearly to DC strongly disagreeing with you. Batman has evolved, flip-flopped and straight-up changed a lot over his 70 or so years, and should continue to do so. Being so staunch about what's canon or the "real" Batman seems shortsighted, and comes across as really uppity.
And know that I'm not attempting to invalidate Nolan's vision either. If he's pimping your favourite take on Batman, yay. He just made a movie I don't respond to, and actively dislike in some respects. To elaborate I'd have to say the action was so lame it barely could be called action. And I DO think calling it The Dark Knight is a misleading and disappointing title. But my biggest beef is that I don't think that Joker was anything close to my version of an "authentic" Joker. He was batshit crazy alright. But where's the humour? The manic laughing? HIS gadgets? His whole "being a clown" thing? I feel a lot of this stuff was thrown by the wayside because it doesn't jive with Nolan's reality-based series. It was easier for Nolan to present only his nihilism and sense of dark irony and totally drop all the many ways Joker is a 4th-wall busting cartoonish flake of a character who tells actual jokes and pulls actual pranks. Miller's Joker (and just about everyone else's I've seen) should be asking Nolan's Joker "why so serious?" The larger meta-jokes in TDK are cute and clever and all, but the Joker I know ain't that subtle. He's hysterical!
And I could be mistaken, but weren't Batman and Robin presented with a heaping dose of homoeroticism in The Killing Joke? It's been a while since I read that one. Regardless, all that could be called "true" in Batman lore somewhere in his sorted, shuffled history, and I seriously doubt very much that Nolan would go there (or use Robin at all for that matter). I think we'd agree that DC would never say Batman and Robin's homoerotic exchanges are "canon" to the lore. But lo-and-behold, those two get pretty gay on occasion, and heard from a number of Batman fans who consider it an official dynamic within the mythos.
Now there's some grit for ya! lol
Lastly (and this one's not exclusively against Nolan), why is Bruce Wayne so often romancing in these movies? Jesus! I'll admit I'm no font of knowledge on Batman, but I've never read a single issue where he's courted a woman. I'm sure he has. Certainly got busy at least once. But when I think Batman, I don't think romance for even a second. If we're working within Batman staples, and concerned with ever-lasting authenticity, why put those elements at all (if not solely to pander to a wider demographic, putting more butts in seats)?
(Oh, and I totally did forgot the Judge Dredd business... That's where I first saw Simon Bisley's work! Batman was all up in different dimensions AND tights in that one :P I forgot Spawn as well, though I don't recall anything specifically fantastical other than Spawn himself in that one).
...
Fuck, I'm long winded today. Sorry to all and to all a goodnight.
Neat poster! :)
Beyond excited.
@Damian: I didn't talk about authenticity and dismiss other Batman movies based on that word, it's all a matter of context anyway - I was very clear - I talked about the fact that the criticisms of Nolan's TDK are mostly fucking utterly retarded braindead monkeyfart shitpuddles because everything in that movie makes sense in context of Batman. Everything. People who know Batman know this. Schumacher's movie isn't shit because it's not authentic or has a few somewhat homoerotic quips (who gives a shit either way - are people really that uptight?) and rubble nipple and crotch shots (those shots were actually rather funny in context). It's shit because it's shit. It's shit because it's lazy and dumb and not even slightly self aware enough to make up for the dumbness. It's just shit. Nolan's movie isn't shit. It may have issues of a technical matter - length - ending more than once in some people's minds and so on but it just isn't shit. And it's good Batman lore.
Made a 1600x900 out of the high-res version of it; http://www.nickileaks.com/images/batman.jpg
If anyone wants other sizes I'd probably do them.
@N7 said:haha... good joke...That's what came to my mind. Then I started thinking about how much better Inception is than either of the Batmens....Inception?
At first, I was like "What is with the crumbling buildings?". Then I kinda looked at the overall picture and saw the Bat Symbol and made me feel stupid I stared at it that long.
You actually make some good arguments, and perhaps I didn't phrase my problems with the character very well. You're right that the supporting cast and characters often have more depth than the lead, but I sort of felt like there wasn't a strong journey that the audience follows alongside Bruce Wayne throughout the film. I might not be phrasing my criticism particularly well; if you've ever watched the Red Letter Media reviews of the Star Wars films, there's a moment where they talk about the purpose of Luke Skywalker as a protagonist in the original trilogy that better vocalizes what I'm getting at.@Loose said:
@Damian said:
I kind of have to agree with you here actually. I think TDK's biggest shortcoming was its lead character and, regardless of whether or not its a super hero film, truly classic films aren't those that too heavily rely on their supporting cast. A strong lead character is probably one of the, if not the, most important aspects of a film.@RE_Player92: I respect that. It just scares me to imagine everyone else following suit. It's like all games being brown to be more "gritty" or "realistic". I'm just not feeling it.
To me, super hero comics are just as much escapism as video games. Nolan is trying to portray them in as realistic a manner as possible, and that really could only be applied to a "Dark Knight" character. Doing that to Supes, Spidey or most other heroes wouldn't help him at all.
Begins was fine by me, 'cause no one had gone that direction before. So even though I didn't love it, I was all for it (and hey, at least it was proof that Shoemacher didn't kill the Batman momentum completely). But everyone's overwhelming adoration for TDK has been pretty baffling for me. Heath played a great villain, and Oldman is always subtly amazing. But when I go to see a super hero movie, I want to see a SUPER hero. Not a plot device for a villain to dance around. I think I'd be more into it if it were called The Clown Prince. Honestly. But please, share your thoughts on why I'm wrong. I've really only heard "I love TDK" and a bunch of Joker quotes by the lovers of the films. I'd appreciate hearing what makes it the penultimate comic book movie to you.^ Not sarcasm. Honestly curious as I obviously don't get it.The best films historically are those with a rather weak lead character who meets and interacts an ensemble cast of deeper, far more interesting characters. Star Wars original trilogy, Citizen Kane, Jaws and countless others where the central lead is often a cypher/everyman or even a thing which has no dialogue at all (as is the case with Jaws).
Batman isn't a Superhero, he's never meant to be portrayed that way, especially if you take The Dark Knight Returns and Killing Joke comics as the tipping point for the modern Batman movies (Burton refers to The Killing Joke as one his strongest influences). He doesn't have superpowers. It's really that simple. He's a man on a mission and that mission is to clean up crime and he'll do that in any way possible, often by working outside the law and via violent means - he's gritty by design. He started as a fucking Private Detective with a gun for fuck's sake. Detective Comics. Just because some TV producer in the 60s made him accessible to the general public don't confuse that with what Batman is meant to be. He's not a tights wearing wisecracking genius. He's a hardened, armour wearing, psychotic madman who dresses as a bat to incite fear in the criminal scum he has to beat the living shit out of because he can't cope with the loss of his parents and the childhood innocence which left with them. Burton and Nolan are the only two guys in terms of movies who actually bothered to respect his person and while their takes differ wildly from each other what they share is a respect for the psychological makeup and darkness of the Batman mythology. Joel Schumacher's take is just a lazy fucking reinterpretation of the 60s TV Show starring Adam West and it did indeed almost kill the Batman movie franchise. Begins was entirely a reboot of the franchise because Nolan wanted and needed to distance himself and his work from Joel-the-rubber-nipple-salesman's take.
People who don't get TDK don't get Batman. He's not a superhero.
Or maybe my criticisms are misplaced, I'm certainly willing to admit that's a possibility. Regardless I felt like it fell somewhat short of being the cinematic-masterpiece comic-book adaptation that I'd have liked to have seen. Admittedly it's been some time since I saw the film, so perhaps I need to give it another go.
I do want to stress that I think TDK was a great film and I have no problem with the interpretation of the universe. Frankly after the campy approach that had been taken previously (and the weird dark/surreal approach of Burton's films) it was necessary for Nolan to distance himself from earlier interpretations and the dark/gritty approach was probably the best way to do it. Batman happens to be one of the few comic-book heroes that benefits from the "gritty reboot" (I guess Batman Begins technically popularized that term) given that, as far as comic book characters go, he's one of the most believable/relatable, human characters in the medium. It seems that most "super-hero films" only attempt to entertain the audience, nothing more, nothing less, whereas with TDK they at least aspired to make a legitimately great film and I appreciate that, even if I didn't feel that it reached the highest standards of the medium.
More on topic though; I'm cautiously optimistic about TDKR. I have certain expectations given the quality of the previous films and I'd like it to be even better than previous installments, I'm just not getting my hopes up too high yet.
@Kyreo said:
There NEEEDS to be Bane. Also, in all of the following "Dark Knight" movies there should not be another joker. No one can fill Ledger's shoes.
There will be Bane...
Yea, I constructed that sentence poorly. I meant to say it's hard to care about it when Two-Face isn't there.@Lukeweizer said:
Still can't get over how terrible the title is.
P.S.
If there's no Two-Face, I'm going to find it very hard to be excited for this.
Sorry to rain on your parade, but Two-Face is dead. Nolan confirmed it a while ago.
Earthquake? Hmm, I seem to recall a comic book story arc in the books a few years ago in which Gotham was hit by a mega-quake and it was sealed off from the outside. As such, the "Bat Family" (including Catwoman) had to keep the peace alongside Gotham's finest. I forget the details, I'm sure some ComicVine fan will fill in the blanks.
This next year is going to move SO SLOWLY.
yessssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss
Nolan's action direction is incredibly flat considering the budgets his films have. There is a reason why all his best films are the dramas. The shootout in the rainy street in Inception is literally shot reverse shot but with guns and throughout both Batman films, his editing and fight direction are on par with the new Transformers films for being overly choppy and far too tightly framed. Also, not to go on too much of a tangent away from the action theme but the boat scene from The Dark Knight has no place being in that kind of a film; I get that TDK is a Michael Mann homage but, during his peak years, I don't remember a scene so heavy handed and condescending to the audience in any of his films. If you didn't get the theme of the movie at that point, there is no hope.@VelvetLore04 said:
@HandsomeDead said:
@VelvetLore04 said:Well, they do say third time's the charm, right? Though, after Inception, I still don't think Chris Nolan has any action chops whatsoever.Hopefully this one will be good.
Maybe this time he'll trim the fat and have a decently paced flick. Doubtful, but a man can dream.
What do you two movie critics consider good action chops? Give me a couple of examples. Also, I'd like to know where Inception and The Dark Knight fall down in terms of the action.
When you say action chops though, thinking of modern day examples is pretty hard. The genre has pretty much fallen apart with only a handful of western examples to give over the past few years. Taken is probably the best in recent times and even then, I can't really say Pierre Morel is worth crediting because he went on to make From Paris With Love. Unless I'm missing something, I'd say the only consistent directors to get action right in the last ten years are Robert Rodriguez and The Wachowskis.
@DAFTPUNK: Yep, Tom Hardy is playing Bane and Anne Hathaway is playing Catwoman.
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment