The Dark Knight

Bomby · #41

But what about cineastes?

Valigarmander · #42

Bomby, don't knock it until you see it.

Bomby · #43

I never once knocked it. I'm saying that it's too early to compare it to The Godfather.

Valigarmander · #44

I agree, but still... you'll understand all the hype once you see it for yourself.

Calamity Panfan · #45

^^ you could easily compare it to the godfather

because it is better than citizen kane

#46

It's warming the cynisist hearts of VGF.

What more do you need?

Brandon2390 · #47

Honestly, Heath did an incredible job as the Joker, and I applaud him for it. It was far and away the best performance of the movie. However, I can't listen to all of the hype he's getting anymore. He did an incredible job, but I feel people are saying too much too early.

#48

I don't like the Godfather movies, so I'd definitely say this was better.

Lurch1982 · #49

Bomby wrote:I'm sure it's an excellent movie, and I do want to see it, but the facts are:

1. It's way too new to be compared to The Godfather
2. It's a summer blockbuster.
3. What's the likeliness that we'll still be talking about it 35 years from now?

Also, I'd say it's still too early in the year to be calling Oscar nominations.

People who compare it to the Godfather really don't know WTH they're talking about.

It's worth seeing though.

Ledger will probably get a supporting actor nomination.

Hard to tell if people will still be talking about it in 10 years, let alone 30. The 1989 Batman (yeah I'm old enough to remember its release) picked up similar praise as Batman Begins and the Dark Knight, but that isn't exactly regarded as well in 2008 as it was in 1989.

whoever]Batman fans will talk about it 35 years from now. [/quote wrote: Yeah, but comic characters all depend on the interpretation. Batman fans still talk about the campy-as-hell-but-reflected-the-comic version with Adam West and Burt Ward, but they're not still praising it as great (if they ever did). What's to say that there isn't a backlash in the comic industry in the next 10 years that completely reverses course on "darker" titles like Batman and brings them back to things similar to the stuff seen in the 60s?

#50

Darunia00 wrote:Every time I see Bale dressed up as Bruce Wayne, all I can think of is Patrick Bateman. I half expect him to put on a raincoat and kill yuppie scum.

There's one part that AI and I are pretty sure is a reference to the "chainsaw scene" from American Psycho, because Batman watched the car drive round and round, then jumped down to it.

Marilink · #51

btw

Spoiler.

Lurch1982 · #52

Tad Venture wrote:btw

Spoiler.
Dick Grayson is totally going to be in the next one.

Yeah I freakin hope not. Just say no to obnoxious kid sidekicks, especially if you're trying to stick with the theme set in the first two.

villain speculation]blahblah[/quote] Same goes for the 85% or so of lame Batman villains out there. God they're terrible wrote:List of Batman Family enemies - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/url]
How many are actually not terrible? Like 4 tops.

United Nations · #53

Spoiler.

Calamity Panfan · #54

Tad Venture wrote:btw

Spoiler.
Dick Grayson is totally going to be in the next one.

Spoiler.

Lurch1982 · #55

User Name wrote:
Spoiler.
I think they could introduce Dick and it would be okay. But it's a little too early for him. Batman needs to become complete guardian first. Like with the fortresses in the city and the new mansion and stuff.

And I wouldn't say DC characters are bad. I mean, there are plenty that are complicated, deep, and kickbutt. But I won't get into that. But I would agree that the majority of Batman villains could not hold up a movie by themselves.

I'd easily say DC characters are bad once you get past the top layer of heroes. Almost all of their villains are terrible once you get past the primary villain for the hero (if that far with most of the heroes). Much of DC's entire lineup is at least 50 years out of date in terms of how characters have been done, and it took them decades to even remotely catch up with Marvel. Batman got insanely better when they started doing the graphic novels, one-shots and miniserieses by Alan Moore and Frank Miller.

Their arguably best published work is the Watchmen, and that isn't even connected to the DC Universe.

Plus it doesn't help that even post-crisis DC is beyond retarded. The concept of "ret-con" never occurred to DC, so they developed god knows how many continuums and borked the attempt to clean it up (here's a hint guys: just do a universal reboot).

Gumchum · #56

PF believes in H. Dent wrote:
Spoiler.
Only if they get Chris O'Donnel. Nobody else can play Robin.

You stop talking and you do it now.

Lurch]Same goes for the 85% or so of lame Batman villains out there. God they're terrible wrote:
What about the Riddler from Batman: The Animated Series? I always liked how they avoided the caffeine-fueled Frank Gorshin from the '66 series and turned him into a villain that was clever, intelligent, and relatively calm. Besides that, I'll agree with you: Every other Riddler (Batman Forever, The Batman) drove me up the ****ing wall.

Lurch1982 · #57

Dylan wrote:What about the Riddler from Batman: The Animated Series? I always liked how they avoided the caffeine-fueled Frank Gorshin from the '66 series and turned him into a villain that was clever, intelligent, and relatively calm. Besides that, I'll agree with you: Every other Riddler (Batman Forever, The Batman) drove me up the ****ing wall.

He also wasn't used nearly as much. I think two of my favorite "2nd tier" batman villains off of BtAS were Clayface and Mr. Freeze. I liked the sympathetic angle they took with freeze and clayface's earlier appearances were great. Not sure that either would really fit in with the type of universe Nolan's put into place though.

Bomby · #58

Tazy_10 wrote:It's warming the cynisist hearts of VGF.

What more do you need?

If I go to the theater today and come back believing that The Dark Knight is the greatest film ever made, I will gouge both my eyes out and mail them to you.

PF believes in H. Dent wrote:^^ you could easily compare it to the godfather

because it is better than citizen kane

Just like how Terence Trent D'arby's debut album was better than Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band.

I think we've found this decade's Titanic.

Lurch1982 · #59

Bomby wrote:If I go to the theater today and come back believing that The Dark Knight is the greatest film ever made, I will gouge both my eyes out and mail them to you.

It isn't the greatest film ever made by a longshot, but it's still good. Come on, in 6 months all these tools are going to be saying something else is the greatest film ever, then in the spring the Watchmen is going to be the greatest film ever.

I think we've found this decade's Titanic.

Not even close. First off, teenage girls aren't going to see the Dark Knight 15 times like they did with that piece of **** movie. Second, I don't think the Academy is going to dump like 25 nominations on the Dark Knight either (I could see a supporting actor nod, maybe a writing nod, and probably some form of art direction nod; certainly no best picture/director/etc unless 2008 really turns out to be weak as hell).

What you do have is a movie that continues in the line of changing how "comic book movies" are handled in modern adaptations. It falls in place with Iron Man and Batman Begins. They're figuring out that you don't really need to make the movie for a 10 year old's level in terms of both violence and plot devices (though they still retained a PG-13 rating, though I think DK was probably close to bordering to the R rating).

I mean, look, this isn't Citizen Kane (or the Godfather, or Metropolis, or Modern Times, or whatever you want to say is the best movie). But it certainly is worth seeing. You're not really ever going to get Godfather material out of a comic book storyline in a film adaptation because the odds are that the rights holders (marvel/DC) or the company (WB, Sony, anyone but Marvel Studios) is likely going to do something to tard it up and/or prevent you from using the really good storylines (Like, say, Batman: The Killing Joke, Batman: The Dark Knight, or Batman: Knightfall). Then you're dealing with a whole ****load of people that think of Batman as basically the 60's TV show with some bouncing fruit in makeup floating around the set and are horrified to see the Joker as a full-fledged unrepentant psychopath. That's the problem: you have to make comic book characters accessible to the people that haven't read them in 40 years (from a large studio point anyway) as well as accessible to the hardcore nerds that know more than they ever should about the subject. If you sit on the line too much, you get something that's basically incoherant (Daredevil), something that trashes a storyline just for a BOOM effect (Spiderman 3) or something that is just absolutely awful (X-3).

#60

Lurch1982 wrote:
If you sit on the line too much, you get something that's basically incoherant (Daredevil), something that trashes a storyline just for a BOOM effect (Spiderman 3) or something that is just absolutely awful (X-3).

.....

Don't get angry, I read it, I read it. It's just that I don'r really get into books and comics....

But, I understand. Comic Book Movies are good publicity for a Comic Book, but that doesn't mean you can start anywhere. You have to start at the beginning with an established villian (Because it's against the rules to use one of the early villains, god forbid) and sometimes movie business runs the comic book movies through the ringer. If anything, this is going to put more interest in Batman than alot of other things.

I also notice no one has said that there shouldn't be a sequal yet. :/