Slashdot Mirror
Batman Discussion
I won't be reading it because I haven't been able to go yet, but I suspect a goodly number of you have already partaken in the latest Batman flick that taunts me. Mocks me. And knows that I don't have time today or probably any time this week (unless there is a movie theater near the OSCON venue?) Anyway -- here is the official place to talk about the biggest geek movie out until the X-Files comes out next week, and I have similar frustrations.
AMAZING!
I see some Academy Awards in this movie's future.
Because Heath Ledger deserves one.
End of story.
I live in constant fear of the Coming of the Red Spiders.
lets just say the Joker has the best "magic trick" to be played on the bigscreen.
It's the latest Joker flick, Batman is just a secondary character.
It didn't disappoint me. I enjoyed the portrayal of The Joker. I'm sure there'll be much debate about Ledger vs. Nicholson (as well as endless Batman/Alternate Universe Joker-on-Joker slashfic).
I also enjoyed that there wasn't any silly microwave/waterborn silliness. I know, I know, comic book movie. But still...
UTF-8: There and Back Again
Great action scenes, good story, interesting twists. I loved it!
Bats are mammals not birds.
Intentionally Missing the Point,
mylongnickname
See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
Bruce Willis really dead the entire film. That's why the kid can see him and everyone else ignores him!
What? Oh, sorry. Wrong film.
Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
Oh noes, I've no mod points!
I'd have modded you informative!
I think this movie is going to start a new Holywood curse - if you play a villian in a superhero movie you better make sure they kill your character off at the end, or you'll end up dead in RL. Definitely lives up to the hype. I just wish Bale's batman voice was a little less forced.
I'll go ahead and comment here but keep it short and sweet. Pros - Heath Ledger was the epitome of psychosis. BRILLIANT acting. In the original Batman movie (think '60s) and later in the Burton films the Joker was more or less a silly villain. He was out for revenge or just doing it for the kicks but he wasn't crazy. He had his fun and went home. The Dark Knight's Joker was fantastically evil. I will see this movie again just to re-watch Ledger's performance. Cons - Some cheesey dialogue. The Bat-Bike was so-so. Scarecrow and Two Face seemed under used. All in all I'd give this movie a nine out of ten. Ten out of ten for acting and sheer awesome. Eight out of ten for cheese and missed opportunities.
In all fairness, it probably was the explosion that got her, and not the fire.
UTF-8: There and Back Again
The movie was brilliant overall, and Ledger's performance was particularly noteworthy. But the editing? Yes, we know Batman gets around and appears/disappears suddenly and without warning. But there are ways of communicating that while still enabling the audience to know what the hell is going on. Sometimes I was so confused that I wasn't sure whether or not I was supposed to be confused. Instead of "Oh, I wonder what happened there, they must explain it soon," a lot of the time the experience was more like "Okay, what just happened?"
Did anyone else share this perception?
Obviously Cmdr T won't be reading this, but the Lloyd Center cinemas are very close to the OSCON venue - two stops on the MAX, or about half a mile if he feels like walking.
http://www.fandango.com/regallloydmall8cinema_aaapq/theaterpage
Dunx
Converting caffeine into code since 1982
I haven't seen it. Two old men living alone trying to groom a younger man who wears tight body fitting latex while he chases after another man who wears makeup - sounds way to gay for me!
I'm watching Mamma Mia instead - it was gurls! ;)
If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
I mean, don't get me wrong, Christian Bale is a good actor; but to be honest, when it comes to movies about the Black Knight, I don't really think that anybody can top Martin Lawrence's performance.
If I remember correctly, the Lloyd Center Cinema is not to far away from the Oregon Convention Center (maybe a couple of blocks).
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0096895/
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
That's about the reaction I had, which seems to be unusual -- most people I know thought it was fantastically amazingly wonderful, with a small minority who thought it sucked. Very much like Batman Begins: I may be the only person I know who thought it was ... well, pretty good. Not bad, not great, a decent way to spend a couple of hours and munch some popcorn.
The editing was better than in BB, which pleased me; the abrupt jumps of that movie really irritated me. Bale is, as before, good but not great. Ledger's Joker performance deserves all the praise that's been heaped on it -- it's not just the glamor of a Star Tragically Dead Before His Time(tm). He's genuinely scary, and he pretty much owns every scene he's in. (As opposed to whatsisname who played the Scarecrow in BB, and makes a brief cameo appearance in TDK, who I thought was one of the least interesting and charismatic bat-antagonists of all time.) Everyone else is, again, pretty good.
[shrug] The 1989 version remains the definitive Batman film adaptation for me, but this will do for now. If they keep the franchise going, Bond-style, maybe they can bring Bale back in a generation or so to do TDK Returns. That would be cool.
The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
I think in the end the pace of the movie became so fast it was almost impossible for me to absorb what was going on. I also think it was kind of difficult for me to figure out the cause-and-effect relationship between all the things that were happenings out there.Still trying to figure out how one thing led to another.
Fact #1 Bats=bugs!
Degaussing scares the bad magnetism out of the monitor and fills it with good karma.
Seems to follow hollywood's classic "Heros journey" storyline...
I believe that far predates Hollywood. Or the United States. Or the English language. It was just given the name "Hero's Journey" or "Monomyth" recently.
He must be new here, this CmdrTaco.
Swedish plasma phys. PhD student; MSc EE; knows maths, programming, electronics; finance interest; seeks opportunities
I have to see this Movie! XD
Loved the movie, loved the portrayal of the Joker, just one question. Who is the next Batman Villian? Since Ledger presumably rendered the Joker unportrayable (literally, I can't imagine anyone being able to even come close), I imagine they'll use someone else from the Batman universe, but who? My guess is the Riddler.
The ethical dilemma on the two ferries toward the end of the flick was excellent. The Joker's rants are enough to make you think (if you haven't already) but that one line was really, truly excellent:
"Well, we're still here, which means they haven't pushed the button."
Above all else, the best thing about this movie was the trip into the different aspects of the human condition. Whether it's the chaotic Joker, fair Two-Face, pure Fox, kind Alfred, or incorruptible Batman, or any of the others, we get, as The New Yorker paraphrased, a rare glimpse into the abyss.
I live in constant fear of the Coming of the Red Spiders.
Feel free to mod me down, but at what point did Slashdot become a run of the mill message board where we discuss the latest movies and TV?
I'll admit I was slightly frustrated when we received two headline articles that were slightly masked advertisement for this movie. However, this article doesn't even attempt to well... be an article, or create a veneer of providing useful information.
Yes, I'm sure the movie is amazing, but is it really necessary to have a few articles about it followed by a straight-out discussion?
Oh, and get off my lawn.
If you think seeing Batman on some shitty ass laptop is even remotely comparable to seeing it on a giant IMAX screen, I have a pencil trick I'd like to show you ...
Disappearing Pencil Trick!
First I want to say I loved it, easily the best movie I've seen this year. Nolan did a great job at keeping it dark and gritty, and I can be satisfied with that alone. Some of the aspects of the movie really did seem forced though. For one thing it seemed like Harvey made the transition to Two Face very quickly. Yes, there he went through a lot, but his character never gave off a sense that it affected him all that much until the end. There was only one scene to really show that he might've been unhinged somewhat before becoming Two Face, and even then he seemed to be very much in control. It just seemed like there wasn't enough foreshadowing that he was capable of being a true monster. Aaron Eckhart gave a great performance, but I think if Harvey had been given more a backstory (such as how they introduced him in Batman: TAS, talking to a shrink) the overall effect would've been more profound.
God, schmod. I want my monkey man!
Anybody else catch that?
Anybody else think of Bush when they caught it?
We must be alert to the danger that public policy could become captive to a scientific-technological elite. - Eisenhower
Heath Ledger has been by far the best Joker he lived up to the comic book character. Jack Nickelson was good in Batman, but he was Jack Nickelson playing the Joker. However Heath Ledger wasn't the Heath Ledger playing the Joker he was the Joker.
Just because you are wrong and I called you out on it doesn't mean I am a Troll.
>
True , but likely meaningless to the average batman movie goer.
Since discussion without debate is boring, and I think the vast majority of us agree that 'Dark Knight' was a great movie, I'll throw this out there:
It's good, but it's not even close to this good. Feel free to respond with a fist to the face.
I came here for a good argument
While I believe everyone's entitled to an opinion of the film...comments such as those come off as trollish because there's less speciifc discussion and more just blanket statements.
"Poor writing", "poor editing"...where was this most obvious? Care to pinpoint issues rather than blanketing them across the entire movie?
It's the same thing as with Spider-Man 3. Personally I agree it was "rushed", but I can be more specific than that generic complaint. For example:
Peter confronting Sand-Man - "You killed Uncle Ben." "No I didn't." "Okay bye." Or the contrived amnesia that made the 2nd Green Goblin an awkwardly good guy for a while.
Can you provide some examples like that vs. throwing a common complaint at the entire film? It makes it tough to open up a discussion about potential issues.
Now that you mention it -- no. Be very careful about getting your phiolosophy and history from fictional sources. Sometimes a movie is just a movie.
I'm not a human, but I play one on T.V.
Don't get me wrong, he's good - very good - but it's not Academy Award level acting. If he had lived, nobody would be discussing an award.
Certainly, it will get nominations for cinematography for Pfister (who will win), writing for the brothers Nolan, and production design for Crowley (who will also win), but that's it.
If the Academy chose to recognise the efforts of the only people who actually knowingly risk their lives for film, stunt people, then this would win as well. But, the Academy is blind to this irony, so they won't.
Have you actually seen it?
You don't need to call it a "geek" movie. It's easily the best comic-book adaptation thus far, though that might not be saying much. This movie aspires to be something more than that.
Even if it's a rehash of an old story, it's a rehash of an old story that was performed abysmally the first time around. Plenty of artistic license was used by Christopher Nolan, when he "rebooted" the Batman series, and I think that most will agree that it was overwhelmingly for the better that he did so.
Heath Ledger would also very very likely have been given the same praise for his character, were he still alive today. I went into the movie with rather low expectations, given the ridiculous hype that surrounded it. Needless to say, the hype was justified, especially that which surrounded Ledger's part. Simply put, he's the best movie villain I've come across.
The movie's excellent, but not perfect. Ledger's role, however, was flawless.
-- If you try to fail and succeed, which have you done? - Uli's moose
that you are being insulting by asserting your completely arbitrary and subjective standards of what constitutes being a geek as canon and law
but then it occured to me that it is entirely geeky to be so emotionally caustic on such a trivial and pointless matter
(like arguing about whether batman would beat superman or visa versa? hint hint, wink wink)
so carry on then, oh self-appointed geek adequacy arbiter. its very geeky of you
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
One thing I noticed, and liked, was the fairly obvious nod to the old comics when it came to how they handled Two-Face's disfigurement.
The bit with the back side of the mouth, looking like he's going "grrrr!", and the eyeball floating in the socket - that look is pretty much lifted straight from some of the old Batman comics, as far as how Two-Face looked.
It kinda sent a chill up my back - when he first turns his head, I had a flashback to my youth when I was big into comics, remembering how Two-Face was illustrated back then.
"People" using "unnecessary" quotes should be "shot".
Batman shot first.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
To be sure, Heath Ledger stole the show. I still enjoyed Christian Bale's Batman (though he needs a throat lozenge while in the suit) and thought the rest of the cast did a bang-up job, but Ledger perfectly captured both the madness and the "hilarity" of the Joker. Nicholson doesn't hold a candle to this.
I say with the utmost sincerity that his was a performance to die for.
The movie was well written, too. I kept expecting things to happen, and they didn't; what did far surpassed what I expected. The dialog was witty, nicely worded, and delivered well. There were two or three points during the movie that I was sure it was over, that they would just wrap things up and do something in the next film. But they never let that happen.
I don't believe that any minute of the two-and-a-half hour film was wasted. I thought Batman Begins was good, and was expecting a lot from The Dark Knight, but I had no idea that this is what I would be watching.
If I had to sum it up in a word? Epic.
"Why so serious?"
What makes it a big geek movie is that Batman attains (some of) his powers through use of technology. He doesn't have any super-powers like Superman or Spider-Man; he uses way cool kit to beat the bad guys. Plus a healthy dose of martial-arts training. Oh, and lets not forget the anger - lots of anger. But it's a geek movie in a way that Spider-Man will never be because of the gear.
The Joker simply took advantage of Dent's vulnerability after having lost the love of his life. He explained to Dent that this happened due to the corrupt elements within the police force; that the "good guys" weren't all good.
The Joker also explained himself as little more than a "dog chasing cars" that "wouldn't know what to do once he caught one." He has no motivation for the destruction of Gotham other than sheer nihilism. As others have explained: he is a force of nature.
So, in that moment it was laid out for Harvey. The good weren't all good, and the bad not all bad.
Dent decided that this applied to himself as well. He then went on a vendetta, using his "lucky" coin as judge and jury, since sheer fate was the only form of justice left to him.
--
For as we all know: money can't buy knives.
Yes, I thought it was an interesting parallel. I appreciated the ending to the story about the jewel thief, as well.
Degaussing scares the bad magnetism out of the monitor and fills it with good karma.
"Geek" doesn't mean being into the latest gadgets and computers.
Comic books and tabletop gaming are, and always have bee, geek.
Or maybe I just don't like it when a character's actor changes between movies (same with Dumbledore in Harry Potter, I liked the first guy better; he has a much better voice).
Maybe it's the supercomputer that Bruce builds that hacks every mobile phone in Gotham. Then he uses the data to make a sonar image of the entire city and track down the Joker.
Typical Hollywood action flick. Looks like a video game. No script to speak of. No story to speak of. So yes, most people would consider it a "good" movie.
I don't respond to AC's.
Technically, they never showed her dead body or her funeral like they did for Two-Face. Just sayin..
The greatest experience we can have is the mysterious.
- Albert Einstein
Stop the "farewell karma" BS, people.
It was a good film, but not great. There was no cohesion, just an intense series of obstacles for Batman to overcome or not. The intensity is a major strength, along with Ledger's acting, but that's about it. Sadly, we never got to learn the Joker's motivation. We knew what he wanted, chaos and twisting people, but we never knew why.
Neither. It's a retelling of the basic foundation of the Batman story but approached with an unprecedented level of realism and introspection. It's one of the most successful applications of serious issues that really matter to the concept of a costumed vigilante in the modern world. And yes, he has cool gadgets and asskicking prowess.
Here's the only plot point I didn't get - You know the part where the sleezeball lawyer wants to reveal Batman's identity, and the Joker threatens to blow up a hospital if nobody kills him? Why didn't they just kill the lawyer? You have to figure that evacuating every hospital in Gotham would kill untold numbers of people who were on life support or otherwise in critical condition. I'd imagine definitely in the thousands. All for what, to save the life of this one guy? Call me Spock, but I think this would definitely be a situation of "the good of the many versus the good of the one." Plus, that was one loose end that was never tied up. What happens to the lawyer at the end of the movie? Surely people will remember him, and remember that he knows Batman's identity. "So hey, remember that guy we sacrificed thousands of patients in order to save? Didn't he know the identity of Batman or something? Gee, that would come in handy now that we hate Batman. Where is that guy, anyway?"
Katie Holmes did the innocent girl-next-door thing in the last movie that Gyllenhaal would not have pulled off. But Gyllenhaal has the stronger personality and presence (like in the courtroom) that Holmes would not have done well.
So while I also don't like changing actors between movies, each was probably better suited to their role.
Developers: We can use your help.
This is not a kids movie, if you are going to bring your kids be prepared for some of disturbing scenes.
I left the theater totally blown away. The movie was way more than I thought it would be. I don't say that for many movies.
James Bond in Casino Royal was another one where I was blown away by the adult dialog and edginess of the film.
All the hype around Heath Ledgers performance is absolutely mesmerizing.
The sad part is who will play the Joker now? The person who fills in for that part will have to live up to that standard.
Maybe Hollywood is starting to understand that they need to be making adult movies and let the family movies be.
I don't mean gratuitous violence but movies that are not so predictable in their direction.
/ * is nearly worthless....
"Poor writing", "poor editing"...where was this most obvious? Care to pinpoint issues rather than blanketing them across the entire movie?
Well, ultimately a film is a story. So the entire thing is couched within the vehicle of...the writing, direction, and editing. Those are the primary elements that translate a story onto film. If you have a bad story to start with, and then give it to a bad storyteller, and then give that to someone who can't tell the difference between a good story and a bad story...what kind of results do you get? Well, movies like this film.
Let me put it this way, there were about 10 seconds of genuine heart in this film. It was the moment Bruce Wayne met Harvey Dent in person, heard his philosophy on confronting crime, and then complimented him on his views. Now, again, the writing was nothing spectacular there...but it was one of the very few moments in the film when Bale was actually allowed to act. His genius saved that scence. And luckily (probably accidentally) the director had a moment of clarity (or took a cigarette break) and allowed an actor of Bale's caliber to show what he can do when given the stage. Not made to growl and skulk about like some kind of grumpy idealist gone bad.
When every other line in the film is tacky, rushed, clumsy, and just flat out cliche it's hard to pick a 'favorite' amongst so much trash. So I apologize for not being able to deliver specifics here.
It's the same thing as with Spider-Man 3. Personally I agree it was "rushed", but I can be more specific than that generic complaint. For example:
Peter confronting Sand-Man - "You killed Uncle Ben." "No I didn't." "Okay bye." Or the contrived amnesia that made the 2nd Green Goblin an awkwardly good guy for a while.
I agree completely. Which is why I think the 1st Spider-Man film was great, the 2nd was impotent, and the 3rd was just plain insulting to the intelligence of the audience. Your parallel between these franchises means you understand my point. I've been so busy trying to forget 'The Dark Knight' that I don't have much to draw on due to my success. A very forgettable film to say the least.
The government has a defect: it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect: they're pure tyrannies. -Chomsky
I agree the X-Files was a particularly non-geeky TV show (excepting those geeks that appeared in a few episodes)
Oh wait, you were talking about Batman? Hmmm i think maybe the use of the entire city's cellphone collection as a giant sonar array and referenced against the Joker's voice pattern to both find him and visualize his location, might just qualify.
A fool throws a stone into a well and a thousand sages can not remove it.
Spoiler alert: I enjoyed the movie overall. Loved the action and joker was great. However there were some major plot holes. 1. When batman rescued what's her name in the Fund Raising scene ... wasn't joker still at the top of the building with all of the people? What happened with that?
2. Who put Harvy Dent and what's her name in the oil barrel rooms? Joker said he didn't do it. (This one's an interesting plothole and I think the hint "What time is it?" might have given it away ...) Maybe I'm reading more into it than there is. Possible villain for 3rd movie?
I also felt that the fall of Harvy Dent to Two-Face wasn't that believable. I believe the movie needed more attention to detail there. The scenes with him felt kind of rushed.
I would much rather have seen Katie Holmes DIAF. She's a scientologist...? And married to Tom Cruise...?
But you're right about the continuity. It'll unfortunately have to happen again with Heath Ledger.
Karma: -2147483648 (Mostly affected by integer overflow)
The best movie villain you've come across... Were you that guy masturbating in the theatre?
Do you even lift?
These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.
But this incarnation of the series has had a real problem portraying female characters as anything other than weak. In the first one, Rachel, the up and coming brilliant lawyer and assistant district attorney... carries papers. In this one, she... almost gets to speak in court, but doesn't get to. Considering she's the third leg of the Bruce-Harvey-Rachel love triangle, she should be a bit stronger of a character, instead of just a piece of fluff.
This one also turned Alfred and Lucius into minor characters, too, in spite of the depth they added in the first one.
Still, the fight scenes, with the exception of the last one in the tower with the SWAT teams coming in, were much better than the first. The director finally got away from the nauseating "only way I can show excitement is if each fight is really 100 1/3 second camera shots". I'm glad that we actually get to see Batman throw a punch and have it land from the same camera angle.
Ah. You're one of those. Gotta go against the grain to make yourself seem... what? Smart? Negative?
Posts like this criticizing things that are obviously good only make you look like a heartless, uninteresting person that nobody would ever actually want to be around.
P.S. If you don't think comic books and comic book movies are a part of geek culture, you must get out even less often than the rest of the Slashdot crowd.
...about the jewel thief, as well.
I don't specifically remember that. Could you refresh my memory? Thanks.
We must be alert to the danger that public policy could become captive to a scientific-technological elite. - Eisenhower
Yup.. a block away from the DoubleTree. (A couple of the guys on my crew producing the event saw it 2 nights ago there) Regal Lloyd Center 10 http://preview.tinyurl.com/5mf2xu
Also, I must have misheard it during the movie, but when the Joker tells Batman where Harvey Dent and Rachel Dawes are each being held, I thought Batman said he was going for Rachel. But then he shows up for Harvey and saves him instead of Rachel.
I agree about the actor switching... I understand that you can't make actors come back for a part but it ruins the continuity of the series. As for Rachel... I actually enjoyed that part because of how the other characters changed in response to it. Also, there's the whole "finally, the bad guys did something right" thing. I get so tired of the cliche "you must choose between your two friends." "I choose BOTH - oh look I saved them both I m amazing! yay!" In this case he *did* choose, he was just deceived.
You are using English. Please learn the difference between loose and lose; they're, there, and their; your and you're.
Batman is first-rate, imperial propaganda. It soothes our conscience. It makes us feel good about the dark work of empire. We are so misunderstood. We must be hated for righteousness' sake. Our virtue is hidden. We're the real victim. Augustus would be so proud of us.
I didn't know Alex Jones posted on slashdot.
really, whats the reason for it ? isnt wall-e, for example, a major geek title in itself ? robots, full animation ? hello ? or hellboy 2 ? what separates batman from others ?
Read radical news here
If it said Bush sucks, it wouldn't be just a movie though, would it?
We must be alert to the danger that public policy could become captive to a scientific-technological elite. - Eisenhower
So the insane killer guy tells you that the detonator will blow up the OTHER boat. That you would be SAFE?!?
And you fucking BELIEVED him?
THAT was the problem I saw with that scene. Wouldn't the Joker do something more ... Joker'ish? Like have the detonator blow up YOUR boat? Or BOTH boats?
alfred worked for the burmese government?!!
seriously wtf.
( ok they were a democracy between 1948 and 1962, still...)
First off, Pencil Trick FTW. Not only did the movie live up to all the Hype, not only was it a riveting and thrilling movie; but the dialog was spectacular. Christan Bale acted Bruce Wayne as if he was Patrick Bateman from American Psycho. Which made me laugh so many times. The Joker was perfect. He is a mass-murdering psychopathic terrorist who , "...wants to watch the world burn." (Alfred) He has several lines that make you really think. Like, "Why is it that nobody panics when everything goes to plan? Even if the plan is horrible?". Harvey Dent. I personally think he was the only weak spot in the movie. I don't think he did Two-Face justice. BUT! He had some really good parts. And another quote that still hits hard, "Ok so fine. Either you die a hero, or live long enough to become a villain." I believe that The Dark Knight is one of the best movies made in a very, very long time.
We'll save you the trouble of asking and just get off your lawn.
mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
Batman wasn't expecting to find Harvy there, the Joker had tricked him. He knew batman would go after the girl, so the Joker gave him the wrong address. Joker had already observed Batmans reaction to Rachel, during the penthouse scene, so he knew there was something going on between them.
It also had the double effect of pushing Dent twords jokers plans for him.
He did say he was going for Rachel. He thought he was going for Rachel. The joker lied, get it?
If fate makes you a motorcycle, you become a motorcycle.
Shouldn't the voices in your head be able to answer that?
I'm not a human, but I play one on T.V.
A Deus ex machine gun blasting the audience into stupified dazed submission. Utter Shock n' Awe MTV sweatshop excrement.
Perhaps you should have waited for the movie to be released in your native language.
And they seem to have thought so, also.
Which is why they had Alfred go on about Burma and the jewels and the bandit. Seeing as how we aren't going to waste back-story on Joker ... here's back-story on someone who isn't even appearing in the movie.
On the plus side, I really liked how Joker kept changing the story on how he got the scars. I just wish they had given him a few more BELIEVABLE stories about it.
True story.
Anyway, I agree and disagree with just about every competent post here.
I thought this movie was good, but not great. I felt Nolan was going for something epic, something beyond what any action film had done before, but he probably felt the constraints of the genre hemming him in.
I mean some great debates in the film about the role of the hero and the villain in society, but then the BatPod does an about-face against a building? Cheesy stunt.
True, some of the dialogue made me cringe as well.
Contrary to a prior poster, I thought this was the first believable portrayal of Harvey Dent's transformation in to Two-Face, and I've read them all. Having an actor of Eckhart's abilities in that role brought the drama to life in a way that none of the comic portrayal's ever have. And I've never really liked Aaron Eckhart that much.
Ledger was great, blah blah blah. Not Oscar-worthy by a damn sight, but this would certainly have been one of the defining roles of his career. Amazing.
I tried watching Tim Burton's original again recently, and all I can say is that it's near unwatchable anymore. Jack Nicholson owes more to Caesar Romero than any of the comics, and the art direction and cinematography seem amateurish by comparison. Sorry guys, Tim Burton's Batman, once cherished, is dead to me now.
I will say this to wrap things up (finally): I was thinking about the movie all afternoon, then had some weird-ass dreams last night, and I've been thinking about it all morning. Not just the performances or the plot but the concepts and themes explored. That's why I was moved to (finally) create a slashdot account when I saw this topic. Someone felt my need and answered it.
I'll probably go back and see it again soon, but in the meantime, I'll keep an eye out here on the discussion.
I freely admit I didn't see "Batman Begins" so some of the references didn't make sense to me. (No Stately Wayne Manor? No Batcave? Alfred having been some kind of commando?) But overall they weren't important enough to detract.
CB as Batman was .. meh. There just wasn't anything there to engage me. He was, both as Batman and Bruce Wayne, more background than anything. And since technically the movie is about him that's rather sad.
Heath Ledger was good, as he has been in pretty much anything he's done. I like him as an actor. But honestly the Joker wasn't that hard of a character to 'get into'. He was impulse-driven and had no real long-term plan.
I've read reviews how Joker said he didn't have a plan but then everything he wanted to do worked out just fine. Well, what about things he set up that didn't work out and were still waiting? Hopefully that was something they were going to explore in what is now the sequel that can never be.
Adding in Harvey Dent's transformation into Two Face was rushed and didn't do the actor or the character justice. They could have done better by setting him up as "The White Knight" and taking the character into his own movie in the next one. But obviously the sequel was going to be more Joker.
The editing gave me a headache. I can't stand movies where they just cut back and forth for no real reason. Heck, at least use Steadicam for Spaghetti's sake! Some of us do have an attention span, you know.
I'll conclude with saying that had Heath Ledger not died this movie still would have done well but not nearly as well as it did. The press so pumped up his performance that there was no way this movie wasn't going to the top of the box office. Let's see if it has legs, tho.
The Joker didn't tell the truth - very realistic for that character
My posts are definitive. Reality is frequently inaccurate.
Why the hell does Patrick Bateman grunt like that? Can't Batman afford to purchase a voice modulator or something. Most annoying thing ever, and terribly distracting to me.
Never argue with a man carrying a water buffalo
Not me, but then again I don't watch movies actively wondering how I can draw parallels between plot elements or a character's lines and the real world. That's not my idea of entertainment.
With respect to Dumbledore, the second guy (Michael Gambon) had a MUCH better voice that the first guy (Richard Harris) after he DIED. Not much of a friggin option at that point.
Coding with assembly is like playing with Legos. Coding an application in assembly is like building a car with Legos.
Every damn movie that comes out is a 9/11 feel good film. Cloverfield? OBVIOUSLY the burning building was to remind us all of 9/11. Spiderman 3? Oh lordy, a building is nearly destroyed in the film, let's pull the 9/11 card out.
Let's stop this right now. 9/11 happened nearly 7 years ago and you're not doing any of the victims any justice by continuing to pull this crap. Cut it out, grow up, grieve if you must still, and move on.
When Bruce asked him if they ever captured the thief he said, yes. To this Bruce asks how, and the reply was a quip of, we burnt the forest down.
Degaussing scares the bad magnetism out of the monitor and fills it with good karma.
You know the part where the sleezeball lawyer wants to reveal Batman's identity, and the Joker threatens to blow up a hospital if nobody kills him? Why didn't they just kill the lawyer?
Yeah. You go ahead and trust that maniac. The rest of us will be over here in Rational-Land where we don't give someone whatever they want when they say they're going to blow up a hospital.
I have a more general question. How did the Batman movies get the very high levels of popularity like it had for the 1989 movies or more recent Spider-Man movies?
The 2005 film was popular but not incredibly so.
My guesses are the following:
1) A lot of people caught the 2005 movie after it was in the theaters and were surprised by it.
2) Heath Ledger's death gave it a big spotlight, unfortunately.
3) really good reviews from the critics
Except for ending slavery, the Nazis, communism, & securing American independence, war has never solved anything.
That's because there was no body left to show. . .
I seriously doubt they will be bring her back. It would be really bad for the series.
you didn't mishear anything... the Joker LIED.
Collector's Edition
Exactly... and the same thing played out on the boats.
They showed Harvey Dent's funeral... not Two-Face's... there's a difference. They never qualified Two-Face's death.
Collector's Edition
Ah, that's right.
Morgan is great in that role.
We must be alert to the danger that public policy could become captive to a scientific-technological elite. - Eisenhower
You call yourself geek and haven't built an IMAX-in-the-box for your apartment yet?
Shame on you!
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
In comics there's a saying -- and maybe it extends to comic-book movies, too: No one ever stays dead except for Bucky, Jason Todd, and Uncle Ben.
(And even that might no longer hold true. I think I remember someone saying that they brought back Bucky a couple of years ago.)
It seems the Joker switched the addresses
Yeah. Would you choose a neurosurgeon who pokes around people's brains in his spare time? I wouldn't.
Not seeing this movie would be a supreme mistake. Also, it lacks product placement as far as I can remember. . . Go and watch it, you will see. Don't bring your kid.
Or maybe I just don't like it when a character's actor changes between movies (same with Dumbledore in Harry Potter, I liked the first guy better; he has a much better voice).
You do realize that the second Dumbledore actor, Michael Gambon was only brought in because the first, Richard Harris died, right?
Maybe you should pick and choose the filmmakers you support instead of just generalizing that Hollywood = bad
There are still quite a few US filmmakers who hold the integrity of their vision above that of the studio's greed for profit.
Collector's Edition
Who or what is Batman?
I think you mean "Where is the Batman?"
He's at home - Washing his tights!
He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
However, the people of Gotham City on the ferries--even the criminals--had just shown themselves to be brave and moral enough not to give in to the Joker even at the expected cost of their own lives.
While I enjoyed the movie, this left me not really buying the need for Batman to become a real outlaw at the end.
The post I copied was about Imperialism. Empire is fixed in 7 years? Don't the victim families actually need a solution rather than your "move on" irreverence?
//de ~ 9cimi
Cramming in as many villans a possibly without ever using them. This isnt a comment specifically about the Dark Knight (as ive not seen it yet), but im thinking more the general trend in comic book adaptaions these days, obviously venom in spidy3 immediatly jumps to mind. From what ive herd about TDK its good and the joker is awesome but two face and scarecrow are pretty one dimensional. If you have a story that deals with multiply heros/villans please let it be more than a marketing excersise. (personally id love to see Maximum Carnage get the movie treatment, Super hero battle royal FTW) Yes i know it will never happen to many split rights, even if that was sorted its just to long to turn into a watchable film without gutting it.
Well, Bart, your uncle Arthur used to have a saying: "Shoot 'em all and let God sort 'em out."
They could explain how he got those scars. . .
Any movie with Prince doing the Bat Dance will surely be remembered for 50 years. So true.
Good to know my hearing isn't messed up. How come Batman didn't mention this fact to Twoface when he was holding a gun to James Gordon and his family?
When every other line in the film is tacky, rushed, clumsy, and just flat out cliche it's hard to pick a 'favorite' amongst so much trash. So I apologize for not being able to deliver specifics here.
You're entitled to your opinion. I just don't think you "get" the movie, particularly when you (unfavorably) compare it to that extended TV show Burton put out two decades ago (which was not even equal to the POW!s and BIFF!s of the Cesar Romero/Adam West campiness.)
The Dark Knight is the definitive Batman film. The Joker is actually scary for once (as he was always meant to be!), and he is a truly worthy adversary to Batman--one that seemingly cannot be coped with because he is the true opposite of Batman, one that is beyond reason; he is most definitely not some camped-up clown like Nicholson or Romero. This Joker BELIEVES he is an Agent of Chaos, a Bringer of Disorder, and THAT is all the motivation he needs. When you add Nolan's words about society's gossamer veneer to Ledger's incredible performance, you have something that few other films will touch--this year or any other. (For what it's worth, this Joker is the equivalent of The Killing Joke and The Dark Knight Returns Jokers, and an obvious homage to both of them.)
The last good year of American film was the turn of the century when The Matrix, American Beauty and Fight Club all came out within 12 months. We can only hope that The Dark Knight is the beginning of a similar stretch of cinema, though I have my doubts. Even so, it is a film in the same class as those films, and just as important, men in tights or not.
"The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws."--Tacitus, The Histories
WARNING: Spoiler alert. Stop reading if you don't want to know stuff. I really enjoyed this film. The dialogue and acting was phenomanal. But the plotting was incredibally stupid. It gets an A++ for dialogue and acting, but an F for plot. It was in line with the campy tv shot villain plot. Luckily the dialogue and acting wereso good that it made one of the best movies despite the Plot. I will mention the two gigantic things I felt were so incredibally stupid, they had to be mentioned. 1. In real life, someone would have shot the Joker. I mean, really. At least show someone shoot him and have him survive by wearing a bullet proof vest. Are the cops freakin pansies? 2. It is just possible that, in a hurray, they MIGHT not fill the ferries to the limit with people, including the lower hold where the bombs are. They even might not even look in the hold of the civilians boat. But to stand there and say that a ferry being used to pick up a boat load of criminals would not be thoroughly checked, ESPECIALLY the hold, is just plain incredibally stupid. Note, I am willing to let the joker get away with placing his lovely bombs all over the hospital with no one noticing. I am willing to let no one notice whenever the Joker sneaks his agents in as 'officials'. But a boat being used to pick up criminals? No. Not even pansy cops would do that. Not even if the joker snuck his men on board. Too many people would check that hold WAY too many times.
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
I used to think that Keaton/Nicholson was THE Batman movie - then I watched it again.
My posts are definitive. Reality is frequently inaccurate.
This is the end of the Batman movie franchise. You can't have Batman without the Joker, and you can't have a better Joker than Heath Ledger, and he's dead.
Don't piss off The Angry Economist
Well, ultimately a film is a story.
I disagree with this, most often a film is a story, but I would say instead that ultimately a film is an experience. I look at movies like No Country For Old Men, Lost In Translation, and Once as examples of movies where it's not really the story that makes the movie enjoyable, but the portrayal of something, the presentation of an aspect of life.
Take the scene in No Country For Old Men when the antagonist is in the gas station and flips a coin to decide whether to let the station attendant live. That's the story in that scene, but that statement doesn't come close to doing justice to the intensity of that scene, the skill with which that scene was portrayed, etc.
Personally, I found myself riveted by the Joker and everyone's attempt to deal with/understand him. That alone made the film for me. You obviously didn't have the same reaction, but to each there own.
I think people ask for examples of tackiness, rushing, and clumsiness because they never felt it, and genuinely want to know what set off those flags for you. I thought that batman's snarling was a bit over the top and distracting, for example, but for me and as others have pointed out, this was more of a joker movie then a batman movie, and I enjoyed it thoroughly.
"'The Dark Knight' was a mess of loose ends."
Are you kidding? They killed almost anyone who could have been a loose end. What loose ends are you talking about?
I thought one of the most ridiculous parts of the movie was the bat sonar at the end. I can buy that they developed a special cell phone that can do that, but when Batman turned every cell phone in the city into bat sonar they lost me.
Chris Nolan does not know how to shoot a fight scene.
It was really telling the first movie. Here in TDK, there was a little improvement, but still not enough. Still a chaotic mess(disco fight, near-end sequence swat/hostage fight)
Shame shame. Really detracted from the experience. It wasn't terrible, it was just more of "Meh, it's okay", which is such a letdown given the budget and production value of the movie.
I mean c'mon: Kung Fu Panda had better fight choreography. Tsk tsk.
http://www.object404.com
Maybe you should pick and choose the filmmakers you support instead of just generalizing that Hollywood = bad There are still quite a few US filmmakers who hold the integrity of their vision above that of the studio's greed for profit.
I don't believe that to be true, and I won't waste my money hoping not to be forced to suffer through it any further. I don't really care if people think I'm trolling or not. I'm still not giving those fuckers any money. Only reason I'm posting this at all is so those who might be tempted to follow this product placement money train will know that there are some real people out there who will reject their offering with prejudice should they make that choice.
-1 Uncomfortable Truth
Great Movie. Completely entertaining for a two and a half to three hour forray into the world of Gotham City. Batman's growl/deep/devil voice really was a sore point for me. I just don't ever remember bruce wayne's voice changing when he's Batman to Hellraiser's...Anyways Bruce Wayne was crafty/scientific/methodical about his missions. A true crime solver as well as crime fighter. I'd go as far as to say a stud Ninja MacGuyver. Not using yacht boats with russian dance girls, or flying into his parties with 3 women on his arm. I love CB as an actor (American Psycho, Harsh Times) it just seems they made Bruce Wayne a bad Tony Stark(Iron Man).
it was one of the very few moments in the film when Bale was actually allowed to act
growl and skulk about like some kind of grumpy idealist gone bad.
The character of Batman is not one where an actor gets to flex his acting skills like you seem to pine for. Hate to break it to ya, but Batman is a grumpy idealist, and he's supposed to growl and sulk. Just because the director didn't give Bale a chance to do a sililoque doesn't mean the movie was written badly. You're asking the movie to be something it's not supposed to be.
"Computers are useless. They can only give you answers." - Pablo Picasso
Yeah, I've never seen that name on here before. Maybe he's a troll.
Although I think he (and the other responders to your comment, especially the one who said you were trolling) completely missed your (and Dawson's) point, I see no difference between the 3,000 victims of Bin Laden and the thousands upon thousands of other murder victims and their survivors.
The difference is, the other victims and survivors weren't exploited for political gain nearly as much.
Why were we able to catch and kill Saddam Hussein, who never attacked the USA, but we can't bring Bin Laden to justice? Someone is terribly incompetent, and I think it's the entire government of the US.
mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
For those of you who don't seem to realize just how many villains there are that they could chose from, here is a list http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Batman_villains (Hint: You're right. The next movie won't be catwoman, freeze, riddler, or penguin. Please stop posting about them. I bet you never would have guessed scarecrow either until you saw him the first time)
No movie is worth the $50+ it costs to go see a movie these days...
I watched the first 6 minutes of this film on my friends 52" HD television (it's a special feature on the BB blue-ray disk) and it was definitely higher resolution than the version I saw in theaters (you can see the individual pieces of glass when the mob-guy shoots out the window in the bank). I would love to see this film in IMAX, but I haven't been able to get a ticket.
So for all you people out there talking about how dark it was, and lordie it certainly was, (I haven't enjoyed a movie that much since young Alex went cavorting with his droogs, but I'm a twisted sort who's digressing) how about the fact that this movie and Indiana Jones had the same rating? Seriously, how completely misleading and worthless is a system that ranks those two levels of intensity as comparable?
You need more psychedelic art in your life. rhesusmonkey.deviantart.com
Hang on a second there with that IMAX comment. I honestly think that people want to like IMAX so much that they don't objectively evaluate it. IMAX is great for nature movies. It's downright awful for regular feature films. The screen is simply too big and it is so uncomfortable to watch. One can hardly tell what is going on during action sequences because it's too hard to get the whole screen in one's field of vision. Regular stadium seating theaters are probably the best format for a feature film. It's what the film was meant to be shown on. It's a bad idea to shoehorn one technology into another because they don't play as well as one might imagine at first.
Sky hook!
Faith is a willingness to accept something w/o complete proof and to act on it. Reason allows you to correct that faith.
Right, but the Joker's a liar. Two mutually exclusive stories for the scars on his cheeks... probably neither of them close to the truth.
Not a schemer, my foot. As a friend of mine said, he's the schemiest of the lot - and they're all pretty schemey.
If you thought there were only ten seconds of genuine heart in the film, you must've been taking a long washroom break after downing the bladder-buster cola.
:P
What of the comparison between the Burmese bandit and the Joker, when they were trying to figure out the Joker's motivations?
Or "the girl" saying Bruce Wayne was the only person someone could trust in Gotham?
Or the confrontation between Batman and the Joker in the holding cell?
Lots of heart, decent writing. And there were lots of other scenes I could point out too.
A mess of loose ends, hmm? Sounds like the Joker wins even as he loses.
Julie Moult is an idiot.
FYI: Jason's back, too.
Ceci n'est pas un post.
And that's the Joker, through and through.
The cops and Batman and Dent were all trying to figure out who the heck the Joker was, where he came from, what was his background, what does he want...
SURPRISE! You get nothing. Chaos personified as people turn themselves inside out and backwards to try to get one step ahead of the Joker.
Even Batman got tricked with the ol' switch-er-roo... not once, but twice.
Julie Moult is an idiot.
This is hardly the first movie that has terrorism in it. The movie is more of a discussion of these issues than a case for any particular viewpoint. I thought the Joker made a pretty good case for anarchy. Do you remember the part where the talked about the "Plan"?
Perhaps he might read it if the subject was more obvious. Lloyd Center is 2 stops EAST on the MAX. Only about 9 (short) blocks from the Oregon Convention Center. It's a nice 2-story mall, with a decent food court and an ice skating rink. I've not been to the theater.
Software sucks. Open Source sucks less.
Does anybody but me feel that The Joker had done a similar thing with the ferries as he did with rachel and dent and their locations? He knew that batman would go for rachel, so he swapped the locations, I'm betting that in some interview down the line it will come out that the detonators on each of the ferries would have blown up their OWN ship, as part of jokers proving that the city was beyond saving, and to prove to people how morally depraved they are and give them what they deserve. Anybody else see what im saying/agree?
Am I the only one who picked up on an underlying terrorist theme? When Alfred was outlining the Joker and how he worked, he pointed out that money isn't important to all people and some people just want to destroy the lives of others.
Now seeing the Joker burn all of that cash just for the fun of it, it makes me think of the ultra wealthy in the middle East funding terrorism. It has nothing to do with money, but wanting to destroy the lives of others.
You don't strap a bomb on your chest because you want 20 grand. You do it to DESTROY others. The Joker was a terrorist, he used fear to rule the city quite effectively.
Hamas has been doing this for years.
A capable movie does not need an 8 story tall movie screen to show us how large its penis is. A great movie is better on imax, but still good as a grainey cam in the lower right hand of your laptop screen while you do an instance raid.
Interesting. I found that scene with Bruce meeting Harvey to be completely forgettable, existing merely as a device to move forward the story. I'm pretty sure that scene's sole purpose was to demonstrate that Harvey wasn't corrupt, in answer to Gordon's earlier uncertainty. Sounds like we saw the movie from two different perspectives. I saw a brilliantly performed theatrical production on film about a homicidal anarchist getting hunted down by a notoriously tight-lipped vigilante hero. You appear to have been expecting something far more serious and deep, though I, and likely many others, would argue that you completely missed the depth that was present. No point in arguing, really. Sorry you didn't like it. I loved it. I can't heap enough praise on it and specifically Ledger's Joker. It was a brilliant movie. I hope you're able to find something else that you do like because your standards appear to be at odds with the vast majority of viewers who happens to be the target audience of the movie industry. Oh, and did you see it in IMAX? If not, too bad.
Raging nihilism, intense, disturbing images, anarchy, mutilation, and you call foul if Batman drinks sprite? That's the line? I'm flabbergasted. By all means, I'm sure there's a million better things to do than to see a movie, go run in a park or something... but product placement? Really? Wow.
You need more psychedelic art in your life. rhesusmonkey.deviantart.com
For years, I tried to explain to people that the novels, Return, that made these new movies possible was what should be put on film. Jack Palance should not have been a villian; he should have played Batman. Of course, doing so in a successful movie would require that the public know the background of the character, something Miller's book could assume but that would be quite erroneous in the real world.
After seeing TDK at a 6:15AM IMAX screening yesterday, I'm again pondering the same sort of thing. This time, though, with the background of BB and TDK in the public consciousness, I can fantasize that it might be do-able.
TDK jumped ahead a year. For the next movie, jump ahead a quarter-century. Bring the Batguy out of the shadows one last time and get him killed while, amidst the absolutely destroyed background of a failed Gotham, we find our hearts touched by the notion of children rising up, growing up to build a better world from the debris their foolish, selfish elders left to them. I would pay money to see that. I'd buy the boxed trilogy. And if they were done right, I'd say that the Batman movies were then, at least until sometime after I've shuffled off this mortal coil, done.
So where are we going to find a Jack Palance these days?
I mostly agree. I'd say it was very good but not excellent. As for Ledger, he gave a great performance but hardly one matching all the fawning and hype. If he'd not died there would be no Oscar rumors and far less focus on his performance. Don't get me wrong; he did a great job but it was hardly a 'stunning, stellar' performance as most critics are saying. People would not be heaping on the praise like they are had Ledger not died.
For me, there was really only one point in the film where I wish the writing had been better
During the "social experiment" with the ferries, you'd think there would have been a livelier debate amongst the "normal" passengers over the fates of the "criminal" passengers. Surely there would have been someone to stand up and make the point that, just because the other ferry was full of criminals, they ["normal" society] had no right to condemn them to death.
That could have been a much livelier and more interesting sociological debate than just the collection of votes. I would have loved to have seen that explored more thoroughly.
As an aside though, how many of you were thinking the remotes were actually for the ships they were on?
I'm not tense. I'm just terribly, terribly, alert.
An interesting idea but its a house of cards (yuck yuck)
Thats a pretty twisted view on the Batman Begins. The IPO was initiated by Earle and Wayne was told he could not stop it. Earle's comments to the young Wayne about taking care of the company until he was old enough combined with his reference to Alfred of a large number of shares being given to the butler upon Wayne being declared dead suggest that Wayne retained majority control of the company all along and that his machinations merely prevented Earle from taking control away.
The actual scene involves a threat to blackmail the corporation (a felony), not to be a whistle blower. Wayne's use of corporate funds is questionable, but not on its face illegal... especially in a R&D department. Its entirely possible and even likely that the Batman related research could yield gains in other fields (and it is suggested at the start of tDK that this is the case).
And of course, a "better class of criminal" the Joker refers to would not be one that stole money, but just the opposite.
I would have to agree with this.
It really is the best villain I've seen.
And that in particular.
Unfortunately I've already posted to this thread and can't mod your post up further.
There is no -1 Disagree mod. Slashdot.org/faq defines mod options. USE IT.
Uncle Ben is the only one that stays dead. Bucky came back ages ago as Winter Soldier, I think he's filling Cap's shoes now. Jason Todd is the new Red Hood.
When the seemingly invulnerable to low-yield nuclear weapons monster kept coming back back back coming back coming back.
A villain with a past provides depth to the character. Otherwise, you end up with a two-dimensional caricature.
And that was what this movie skirted dangerously close to. The omniscient villain who exists only to give the hero someone to defeat.
Which was fine for the Halloween series. The Friday the 13th series. The Nightmare on Elm Street series. Etc.
And writing them takes no skill.
Assuming you meant Caine....
I know I'm not on topic, but mentioning how one dimensional the villains were reminded me that Billy Dee Williams was Harvey Dent in the first Batman movie (the Tim Burton one) and was so horribly mangled that he became one half Tommy Lee Jones and one half that purple thing.
What could have been... Billy Dee Williams as Two Face. He'll always be the best in my heart!
And for all the talk about being "not a schemer," the setup with the bomb-in-stomach in the police office, as well as the two ferries, obviously took a fair bit of forethought and planning.
The point is that if you give in to a terrorist, your life gets harder, not easier.
Patrick Doyle
I mod down every jackass who puts his moderation policy in his sig. Oh, wait a sec....
Ummm ... what exactly is this right thing that Bush is doing? Taking away Constitutional Rights? Power grabs? Invading countries that insulted his father? Not seeing your Bush hero worshiping in the same light as this movie. In the movie, even the FISA sonar cell phone equipment was destroyed. I took that as them saying that even though they wanted to do good with it, they knew it would only corrupt them. Bush gets no same parallel, he is no hero and should be held accountable for his actual crimes.
Pretty much the whole point of the movie is to explore the question of how far it's acceptable to go in defense of law and order. Batman sees what he does as a necessary evil; the system doesn't work, so he appoints himself defender of Gotham. The conversation Bruce Wayne has with Harvey Dent at dinner, in which Batman is likened to a Roman tyrant, makes this pretty obvious. Later on, Batman's wiretapping project is again seen as a threat to liberty (thanks to heavy handed moralizing by Morgan Freeman).
Ultimately in the film, these measures are seen as acceptable or maybe even positive, because they do save lives. But I think most superheroes are inherently sort of facist, so the fact that this movie is even willing to pose the question of whether what Batman does is right or not puts it ahead of your typical mindless actioner.
Did you see it in IMAX?
Its not like every other DMR movie... a bunch of the movie is shot, and presented in full frame 15-perf IMAX.
There's a whole aspect of the experience you'd miss not having that jolting sensation when the movie goes from widescreen to "zomg, I'm flying through gotham" fullscreen.
Its used extremely effectively IMO.
Disclaimer: I haven't seen the movie yet, but I suspect I will find it quite entertaining as my requirements for action blockbusters are not that high.
What I find interesting is the mass hysteria following this movie. This mix of massive direct and guerrilla marketing, dead lead, and actual excitement of fans have driving the hype meter into the red zone.
How much do you think the crowd effect modifies people's opinions? If all the critics came out panning this movie, what would the average punter be saying about it?
Some supporting evidence that something is awry is here: IMDB's user comments. If you go to the last 10 pages of comments or so, you'll see hundreds of reviewers that universally loathed the movie, then a gradual rise in ratings until virtually every reviewer gives the movie a 10.
Any explanation for this?
LS
There is a fine line between being a cultivated citizen and being someone else's crop. - A. J. Patrick Liszkie
Slate's review touches upon this a bit, as well as pointing out some other parallel's to the state of the US.
The word "geek" has changed shape over the years and obviously doesn't mean what it used to.
Nowadays "geek" means just more than comic books and gaming and has been transformed into someone who is into the latest gadgets and technology. But, it doesn't stop there, a geek is so much more than just Mr. Technology, gaming, and comic books: Geeks actually get laid nowadays and can actually make a social setting work for them. A "geek" does all of the old stereotypical geek things, but geeks try to be well-rounded in all aspects of life. They party it up, they play sports, they have girlfriends, they travel, but on the opposite end of the spectrum they can still hack the planet, watch anime', play crazy hours of WoW & AoC, have their entire house networked and play with all of the new technology, etc..
On the other hand, the word "nerd" has been shaped to take over a lot of the negative aspects of the word "geek". Nerds are your basic pocket-protector, comic books, tabletop gaming, and pretty much anti-social type of people. Nerds are the ones who don't get laid and are terrified of social settings. "Nerds" are the ones who are scared of girls, who live in their parent's basement, are usually overweight or really skinny, live in their imaginary tabletop gaming worlds, and who are the epitome of your old stereoptyical "geek" and "nerd" labels.
I'm surprised how many people haven't been keeping track on how these words have been changing over the past few years.
It's good to be a geek.
Not so good to be a nerd, though.
Tabletop gaming has never been geek. Just pathetic.
That is a backronym. The word Geek predates the "computer/technology" thing by quite a bit.
See:
http://www.bartleby.com/61/0/G0070000.html
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=geek
No.
Morgan Freeman recounted the tale of the jewelry thief who stole them only to throw them away.
We must be alert to the danger that public policy could become captive to a scientific-technological elite. - Eisenhower
Since I'm sure most people will cover the *good* parts of the movie, I'll touch on the *bad* ones exclusively since it's not that interesting to just nod in agreement on stuff like Heath Ledger's fantastic Joker.
(BTW holy spoiler alert, Batman!)
1) Implausible SuperBatman action.
Ok we know Batman is pretty badass and is expected to be able to do things that 99.99999% of people could never even hope to do. But the whole airplane hook business? And jumping out of Wayne's penthouse to catch Rachel and, without really slowing down the fall, land on top of a car? It just looked silly.
2) Forgetting to finish filming certain scenes.
So, after Batman and Rachel crashed onto a car roof from a 30+ story building without suffering so much as a concussion, did Joker and his goons just leave the rest of the guests at the fundraiser some parting words and split? Weren't they after Harvey Dent, who Wayne simply locked up/barricaded in a random room? Maybe Alfred unleashed his ninja skills on them and sent them all running. I don't know, but that's not the kind of scene you want to just forget about without resolving it.
3) Lucius Fox giving away Batman's identity.
The accountant says "hey Wayne Enterprises is spending an AWFUL lot of money on R&D, and there's these Batmobile schematics I found also...." Lucius is like "OMG YOU NOW KNOW THAT BRUCE WAYNE IS BATMAN!" Holy jumping to conclusions, Batman! Couldn't he say something like "Wayne Enterprises has a lot of clients, and they may or may not include someone associated with Bruce Way.. err.. I mean, Batman. Whoops! You didn't hear that! I'm an idiot."
3) Rachel Dawes... why, again?
Diffrent actress. Different personality. Different kind of role. So, why the same character? It does more to kill continuity than to preserve it, honestly. Besides that, I'll echo what some people have said about Maggie Gyllenhaal not being nearly attractive enough to warrant the Joker calling her beautiful in the scene where he crashes the fundraiser. When he said it I was like "whoa, looks like *someone* forgot Katie Holmes was replaced!"
4) Nolan can't film fight scenes to save his life.
I could crap better camera placement than what Nolan and his crew came up with. Yes, it's better than the complete mess we were treated to in Batman Begins, where you literally couldn't see a single move Batman did while fighting thugs. But it's still pretty abysmal. I mean, of all comic book characters, Batman is supposed to have the most impressive combat sequences. Not the *least* impressive, like what Nolan managed. Freaking hire Jackie Chan or something, someone who knows where the camera needs to be to capture the choreography. With a $180,000,000 budget on a Batman movie, there's no excuse for the rubbish fight scenes they managed.
5) The ending makes no sense
Batman wants to show that Joker didn't corrupt Harvey Dent. So instead he opts to show that Joker corrupted Batman??? The public sees Batman as a force of good as well. He's not demonized by the public in this movie. So why would Batman want to be demonized? Isn't that the opposite of what he's fighting for? (Yes, it is the opposite.) The whole "Batman's not a hero, so he can be whatever the city needs him to be" line might sound cool on the surface, but honestly the LAST thing the city needs him to be is a serial killer that the cops are all after, and that's what he is at the end of TDK. So effectively, this is how the movie ends: Harvey Dent is dead (I think; he certainly looked dead), Joker has managed to turn Batman from a force of good in the eyes of the public to a murderer, the police are busy chasing Batman instead of doing useful stuff like fight crime, Batman is running from the police instead of doing useful stuff like fight crime, and there's a douchebag out there who knows Batman's identity because Lucius is a senile fool. Fantastic. Maybe the douchebag will be nice to Batman since Bruce Wayne saved his life by crashing his Murcielago into the pickup that was going to ram th
I like basketball!!1!
In the words of Darth Vader, "NOooooooooooooooo!!!"
seriously, what you describe is almost exactly what Palpatine does with Anakin.
-- Sig under construction...
Then he's a shell of a villain. Colorful, clever, but empty and shallow.
But you're right about the continuity. It'll unfortunately have to happen again with Heath Ledger.
Can this really happen>
It is certainly a character that can be physically replaced since you could barely tell it was Heath Ledger, but after that stirring performance and the tragic death, who would _want_ to try to be the next Joker? They would have to have balls of steel (no, that's a different superhero) to set themselves up to comparison to Heath's Joker.
"You see I had to save them both. Because I am both Bruce Wayne and Batman."
- Batman Forever
Can't argue with that logic, mate :)
Completely agree, however I don't mind when the change is for reasons beyond their control, ie, not money or scheduling issues. The Dumbledore change was because the original died :(. The Katied Holmes change is rumored to be because hubby Tom didn't want her to do the role. Maggie did a great job on the role IMO, but I agree, I hate when the actors get changed.
Personally, I thought each remote was wired to both ships.
Cynical Idealist
I saw it last night. I distinctly remember a couple instances of product placement, though they were few and far between.
The movie was about 30 minutes too long. But good.
Absurdity: A statement or belief manifestly inconsistent with one's own opinion. -- Ambrose Bierce
Nokia phones were in it (Lucius Fox's mobile).
Degaussing scares the bad magnetism out of the monitor and fills it with good karma.
Let me put it this way, there were about 10 seconds of genuine heart in this film. It was the moment Bruce Wayne met Harvey Dent in person, heard his philosophy on confronting crime, and then complimented him on his views...it was one of the very few moments in the film when Bale was allowed to act. His genius saved that scene.
I'm a firm believer that taste for these types of things are not universal, and I completely respect your opinion. I personally feel very much differently though.
First of all, for that one particular scene, I think Eckhart was the better actor. Bale was just sitting there smiling, he barely got a word in. Eckhart on the other hand, expertly conveyed the beginning of his two-face persona. He believes in democracy and he believes in the rule of law (he's the freaking DA because he feels he can make a difference in that position), but at the same time he's not beyond letting a vigilante do the dirty work when everything else fails.
That said, it wasn't anywhere near my favorite scene.
I don't think a single one of the Joker's lines were "tacky" or cliched. Anytime he was on the screen, he seemed to pose a genuinely interesting moral dilemma. He really tested Bruce's conviction. Is it really right to go after criminals as a vigilante? If you're willing to break so many rules to do that, why do you have any left. Is there really a difference between directly killing someone versus being indirectly responsible for somebody's death? It was great stuff.
There was one scene, one single scene that I want to forget from that movie. Batman dives in after Rachel from atop a skyscraper. He catcher her. He doesn't slow down the fall at all. But she falls on top of him. Somehow, he's alright, we're to assume because of his armored suit, I guess. Somehow she's alright because she fell on top of him. Holy shit, I'm willing to overlook some disrespect for physics in superhero movies (there were plenty of others), but when it's that blatant, I really can't suspend my disbelief.
Everything else about the movie was perfect. It's without a doubt on my top 10 list. Surprisingly, another movie up there is Memento, so I guess my taste in movies just align themselves with Nolan's.
Warning: Opinions known to be heavily biased.
... but Gyllenhaal will always be sad turtle girl to me. Hard to ignore that while she's on screen.
I caught this film at the 10:10pm showing Friday night - the asshats in line behind me had a 3 year old kid with them! Then they sat in front of me. When the film got really violent, do you think they realized that they made a bad decision and took the kid out? Nope. Fuckin' idiots!
ah.clem
"Life is not magic." Dr. Ron Weiss - "If we don't play God, who will?" Dr. James Watson
You have three choices...
Lloyd Mall 8, Lloyd Center 10, or Pioneer Place Stadium 6.
To get to the Lloyd Center theatres, take Max toward Gresham to the Lloyd Center stop. (It is two stops from the Convention Center.) Cross the park. One theatre will be off to your right and the other will be inside the mall on the third floor in the center. (Look for the ice rink.)
The Pioneer Place theatre is newer and as nice as Regal offers. (All three are owned by Regal. They are pretty bad. Expect to sit through 20 minutes of commercials before the show.)
To get to Pioneer Place Stadium, take the Max train downtown to the 4th St stop. Go in the Mall in front of the stop. Go to the third floor, cross the sky bridge between the game store and the Starbucks. The theatre is one floor up.
Not certain how much time you will have. OSCON gets pretty busy. I need to head to it as soon as I am done ingesting caffeine.
"Trademarks are the heraldry of the new feudalism."
I am the Bat! ...
The night is mine.
The thing is set in Chicago, and obviously so. Great views of the Navy Pier, the Marina Towers, the Chicago Board of Trade building, and the river bridges. Seemed weird, but it worked.
The L.A. Times is now suggesting Batman move to LA.
I get the impression the director preferred to show much more gore, but was edited back due to the need to make sales with the PG-13 rating.
As a rated R movie this movie coudl have as much fear factor as teh original psyco
Rachel's not dead. There was no body, no funeral, no witness. Since this is a comic book world, that means she _will_ be back.
My take (even from the first movie): She'll be back when al Ghul comes back, and she'll explain to her "Beloved" why she was really sent to Gotham to live and work with the elite. No one woman embodies the romantic life of Bruce more than Talia (except maybe Selena, but we know Rachel's not Catwoman).
Actually, if I remember it right, Lucius totally effed up. The accountant only said that he knew that Wayne Enterprises had created the Batmobile; he hadn't necessarily concluded that Wayne was Batman! Obviously the script doesn't realize this. Or maybe I heard it wrong.
=====
I think you're forgetting that he is blackmailing WAYNE enterprises. It could be that he is referring to balckmailing bruce wayne, as he is wayne enterprises for the most part, not blackmailing batman directly. Batman is just associated with wayne via the car, but may take exception to having his sources compromised.
There's nothing Intelligent about Intelligent Design.
According to what I've read and seen, the bike was a total bitch. Yes, the design actually worked. Sort of. And they had to have that design so that it could look like it ejected from the Batmobile/Tumbler.
Apparently, though, the design was so unstable that none of the stunt riders could stay upright on the thing for more than a few seconds at a time. The takes you see in the final film are some of the longer successes at riding the bike and they had to be done slowly or not at all.
Anybody got any good links that discuss this? I'm actually pretty fascinated by that bike.
The biggest problem I saw--aside from a rambling plot line that killed franchise characters at random--is that it lacked the Batman setting. For instance, the "General Hospital" was a mediocre low-rise in some office park, not a towering black monolith drenched in the glory and decadence of a thickly urban environment. Similarly, whoever conceived of Wayne Tower as your run-of-the-mill dainty standalone bank skyscraper did not see the last movie. And when do we come closest to the Gotham ambiance? When our hero visits Hong Kong.
Other location elements--such as the bat cave and Wayne manor--were also missing. Perhaps they had some misguided idea that Batman needed to be pulled into our exact time and place (like Spiderman) instead of the shadowy parallel universe he has traditionally inhabited, because they seemed content to inject a lot of cultural and political references as well (including the new emphasis on endorsing vigilantism).
-1, Too Many Layers Of Abstraction
I dont know if anyone else felt this way.
While ledger did brilliantly, i was watching it thinking that this is exactly how I wanted the joker to be played, after seeing it done this way in Batman: Dead End brilliantly by Andrew Koenig.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hjp0I_okX0w
If you're a batman fan, or an aliens fan, you've probably already seen this. He did great though.
There's nothing Intelligent about Intelligent Design.
Regarding the Dent transformation, in all the thoughts I've seen on it, no one has mentioned that scene where Dent threatens the guy with the "Rachel Dawes" name tag. He essentially loses it for understandable reasons.
I think that was intended to let the audience know that Dent could be turned to the disfigured side.
I suppose no one alive is old enough to remember first-hand, but I hold out some hope that, someday, someone will do a Batman movie that embraces the original notion of vigilante instead of the more modern notion of super-detective. Back when he was new and carried sidearms, he never hesitated to use them. He and Robin tossed many a crook off tall buildings. Why couldn't that character be brought back? Because Frank Miller didn't do it first?
I don't buy it. A modern-day vigilante should kill people. That just seems so obvious to me.
Yea, RED!
I'm a firm believer in the philosophy of a ruling class, especially since I rule.
(okay, I'm lying...)
Please use full sentences. Parsing your subject-less rant was annoying.
It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
Raging nihilism, intense, disturbing images, anarchy, mutilation, and you call foul if Batman drinks sprite? That's the line? I'm flabbergasted. By all means, I'm sure there's a million better things to do than to see a movie, go run in a park or something... but product placement? Really? Wow.
That's the line. I call foul if Batman drinks Sprite. Game over.
-1 Uncomfortable Truth
I wondered that same thing, and came to the conclusion that a) it wouldn't have made any difference in Dent's state of mind and b) Wayne does not like to give anything away concerning his internal workings. Something as personal as that decision and subsequent consequences is not something he is likely to discuss at all.
...sometimes, in order to hurt someone very badly, you have to tell that person terrible lies. - PA
I saw the new Batman in what I'm pretty sure is a "true" IMAX theater in the Franklin Institute in Philadelphia. I saw 300 in what is I heard is not a "true" IMAX screen in King of Prussia. I just think that the screen is too big and there is too much to look at. Keep in mind that I saw both in regular theaters as well, so I have an excellent frame of reference. I'm not alone, I have heard a lot of complaints about various movies. When people left the theater, all I heard was people talking about the projection method of the movie, not the movie itself!
Here are a few examples:
- Scenes were you had two people on either side of the screen. You literally have to rotate your head about 150 degrees.
- Action sequences a hard to understand because all you see is a foot or fist flying. It's hard to get a comprehensive view of the action.
- Headshot cuts are just massive.
- One is too concerned with getting comfortable and it ruins the suspension of disbelief.
Needless to say, I think that some sort of repeat customer metric would be interesting to evaluate.
I was pretty certain the remotes were actually for the ships they were on.
I think it was a moment of brilliance when the criminal stood up and told the guy "Give me the remote, and I'll do what you should have done ten minutes ago"... and then throws the remote out the window. It was one of those "Oh shit, he really should have done that ten minutes ago, shouldn't he?"
God is dead -- Nietzsche
Nietzsche is dead -- God
Zombie Nietzsche lives! -- Zombie Nietzsche
I'm thinking of getting a group together to see it at Lloyd Center at 9:20pm tonight. That should be late enough not to conflict with Mark Shuttleworth's talk.
Note that there are two cinemas at Lloyd Center; this is the one inside the mall itself, not the one across the street. It's a free MAX ride from the convention center. Reply here if interested.
$x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
$x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
For that matter, they showed Gordon's funeral....
>lol, yeah can't argue with that. In all seriousness though, these loose ends:
>Character development(excepting Dent), character motivation(also excepting Dent),
Hmm... let's see, Bruce Wayne goes from thinking about retiring and getting back to normal life to thinking there's no one else that can do his job. He also moves from the "Batman has no limits" mindset to accepting that in the end (with the eavesdropping) that even he can't hold all of the power. Rachel goes from still loving Bruce to realizing it's time to move on. Gordon goes from arrow-straight lawman to agreeing to let Batman torture the Joker and to pinning the blame at the end on Batman for expedience. Fox realizes that there are some places he can't go for his boss, and puts his foot down.
>setting, plot, storyline,
I thought Gotham as a house of mirrors was well-done. Glass, reflections, and various degrees of transparency everywhere. Maybe it's not the cartoony Joel Schumacher city you were wanting, I dunno. If you couldn't follow the mostly straightforward plot, maybe you should go back to watching simple Event A -> Event B -> Protagonist gets the girl movies.
>cohesion with any identifiable over-arching theme besides pornographic anarchy.
Yes, the themes of civilization being an illusion, moral relativism vs absolutes, the ends justifying the means, the basic nature of man, and the protection of civil liberties in times of crisis had absolutely no place in this movie.
I'm really scratching my head, wondering how you watched The Dark Knight and came out of it thinking it was a "mishmash of compromise". Because just about everyone else who watched it came out of the theater with the opposite conclusion.
Light a fire for a man and he'll be warm for a day. Light a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.
Yeah but its fairly common sense. If your house is haunted by some evil spirits, just burn the fucker down, problem solved.
This is my sig. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
No, hell that'd be awful. Franklin Institute is an OmniMAX theater, I'm pretty sure. Dome-shaped right?
If so I'm shocked the studio allowed the movie to be shown on there.
Domed screens are awful to watch any IMAX movie on -- they're only good for OmniMAX movies that were intended to be viewed with the screen wrapped around the viewer.
The people on the ferries would have blown each other up within two minutes tops. Either a rabid inmate would have gouged his way through to get to the detonator or there would have been an equally deranged civilian who would have done the same. I don't believe in humanity enough to dismiss one of the core evolutionary traits of any living organism: self preservation.
I'm pretty sure he did. I'm pretty sure Batman and Gordon both had lines explaining that they tried to do what Dent wanted, but ran out of time and had bad information.
They didn't show a funeral. They showed a remembered ceremony. Unless you saw a coffin somewhere I'm pretty sure that was just a public display of appreciation by the city
They did.
"You can either have software quality or you can have pointer arithmetic, but you cannot have both at the same time."
Well, that would probably be the reason why Batman was particularly bad to watch there! I agree that OmniMAX is great for nature films and it's totally unsuitable for a regular movie. Someone needs to tell them that. One of my coworkers said that he went to see Superman at the same theater, but walked out 10 minutes into the movie and demanded his money back. I wish I had known to do that because I had actually considered walking out. I would have done the same for sure!
Have you ever seen a 70mm print of Lawrence of Arabia? Its an entirely different experience from watching it at home. You get a whole different view of the movie, the way it was intended to be seen.
Suggesting otherwise is like suggesting that looking at the Sistine Chapel on a webpage is no different than seeing it in person. Its just ridiculous. You see the image, but not the detail.
A bunch of people have responded and said that it was Michael Caine's character who told the jewel thief story.
I distinctly remember Morgan Freeman telling it.
Am I wrong?
We must be alert to the danger that public policy could become captive to a scientific-technological elite. - Eisenhower
Why so serious?
So, being behind white collar crimes when you are a superhero at night is fine, but you don't enjoy others doing the same? Interesting take, this Batman movie thingy.
Did you miss the whole subplot about Wayne hiring a forensic accountant to make sure all of his trust fund holdings were 100% legit? And his cancelling the business deal because he found the Chinese company was making its growth numbers illegally?
You saw the movie, right?
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
What's with the imdb rating? Why is it #1? Seriously, I guess it's good but don't you think some Heath Ledger fans have gone a little overboard here?
If a train station is a place where a train stops, what's a workstation?
Boy, the way the Bee Gees played
Movies John Travolta made
Guessing how much Elvis weighed
Those were the days
And you knew where you were then
Watching shows like Gentle Ben
Mister, we could use a man like Sheriff Lobo again
"Disco Duck" and Fleetwood Mac
Coming out of my eight-track
Michael Jackson still was black
Those were the days
Bart was feeling mighty blue
It's a shame what school can do
For no reason, here's Apu
Those were the days
"All these years believing you're the signified monkey, only to find out you're just a big hunk of nobody cares."
Ya, it was Alfred, I think he was talking about his British Army unit. It definitely took place in the temporary bat cave (with the square light panels and concrete floor and rising equipment bays).
Degaussing scares the bad magnetism out of the monitor and fills it with good karma.
Thanks for reminding me. You're absolutely right - his slide downward began with Gordon taking a bullet during the mayor's attempted assassination. In the moment, he kind of took his heroism to a new level and started to act like a vigilante.
10 to 1 the detonators were actually for the ships that they were on, too. I was just waiting for the people on the regular (non-prison) ship to blow themselves up.
I don't believe that to be true, and I won't waste my money hoping not to be forced to suffer through it any further.
What you believe and what is actually true are not necessarily the same thing.
You can believe all you want that there are no more filmmakers who value their work above "big profits," but that doesn't make it true.
As for product placement...I see products all the time in real life, so I don't even notice it when its in movies unless it is blatantly obvious. In fact, the world can seem very weird without products all around us.
This film is a perfect, grim closing chapter for the Nolan Batman. I honestly don't think they should do a third film. Here's why:
(I shouldn't have to say SPOILERS at this point, but you've been warned)
1) The Joker and Harvey Dent were played to perfection. It would be a mistake to re-cast Heath Ledger, and the character Harvey is dead. So the two most important Batman villains are off the table for a third film.
2) No, they can't bring Harvey back to life. Not if they want to maintain the "real" tone they've established.
3) In the first film Bruce spoke of the importance of the "symbol". A man can be killed, but a symbol endures. It is incorruptable. Not after this film. Bruce has allowed the symbol of Batman to be destroyed for the sake of Harvey. Batman is now a cop killer. And it's only a matter of time before Harvey the symbol fails. Those symbols will never be the same to the people of Gotham.
4) Batman killed Harvey Dent. He crossed his most important line. Perhaps in a very defensable way, saving Gordon's son, but it was a line Bruce swore he would never cross. Two-face made Bruce do what even the Joker couldn't.
5) Every "good" guy compromised and betrayed what they valued most to fight the Joker. Gordon let his own family believe he was dead. Lucious Fox became the very big brother be warned Bruce against. Harvey couldn't bring in the mob as an attorney, so as Two-Face he took out their leaders with a gun. Alfred talked Bruce through the moral barrier that had kept him from lowering to Joker's level. And Bruce has destroyed the whole point of Batman. And it was all done with the best of intentions, yet in the end they all did they very thing they hated the most.
6) Bruce had hoped to step down as Batman, but with Harvey's death he never can. Batman will now be without allies of any sort. Fox is gone. Harvey is gone. Rachell is gone. Gordon cannot let on the truth or help Bruce. No new batmobiles or armor. In the Nolan universe, Batman has relied heavily on these resources, and they are all gone.
7) You cannot follow this with a "lighter, happier" movie.
8) Batman doesn't have a villian who can raise the steaks from what Joker did.
9) Gotham PD believe he is a cop killer. Bruce cannot be as effective now that he must do everything covertly. For all of Bruce's remaining days as Batman he will be hunted.
10) Nolan's Batman doesn't need a happy ending. It needs a truthful ending, as this film has given it.
This thread is already so full of words, but I thought I should mention that I saw it on IMAX on Saturday and it was magnificent. A really great film any way you look at it. Hell, if I lived in Chicago, I'd be afraid to go outside for a few days after seeing it, because it was presented in the most realistic manner I have ever seen in a superhero film. I've even seen less realistic heist films!
The Terminator Salvation got cheers as big as anything in the movie where I saw it.
"I want to show you a magic trick...."
Call me a hater, but I thought that the Dark Knight was amongst the most disappointing movies of the year. Here are my reasons (I know I'll get lynched for this):
1) Heath Ledger is NOT ALL THAT GOOD! If you disallow the cloud of his untimely demise to hover over your judgment, I think you can see how he has done every scene in the same way. If you've seen the trailer, there's not much more of his acting to see
2) EVERYBODY and I mean EVERYBODY knows the identity of Batman. That sucks majorly.
3) Too many James Bond ripoffs. The whole using an airplane with a forked structure to pull away a balloon with two human attached to it was done in Thunderball. James Bond receiving his gadgets and then doing silly stuff with it and followed by a snappy remark from Q was done in, well, almost all the 007 movies.
4) The batmobile and batcycle were horrible. Given today's technology, I would have liked to see something that didn't look so unrefined and go kart like. Neither looked stable and neither looked like they were the product of a lot of spending. The Batmobile looked like it was designed for Statham in that prisoner racing movie rather than for crime fighting.
5) Maggie Gyllenhall is UGLY! I threw up a little when Bale kissed her.
6) Bale is kinda dull as Wayne in this movie and he speaks like Shelley Marsh when he's Batman.
On the positive side, Eckhart acted really well. I like Gary Oldman and was a little disappointed that his role didn't give him much to work with. Morgan Freeman's character was fun in a cheesy kind of way.
All in all, I wouldn't say it's not worth going to, but at the same time, you almost have to go since it is the biggest movie of the year.
Here's hoping I do not get modded down for not heaping praise on Heath Ledger due to his death. I am sure he'd appreciate my candor.RIP.
Atheist: Buddhist in a Prius
The end of the movie and the demise of the Heath Ledger left me wondering about who would be in the next movie as villians. IIRC, Nolan is signed on for 3, so it'll be interesting to see what comic book foe he brings out of the woodwork to do battle with Bale. Any thoughts?
Two-Face is next ... it was a Joker movie that set up the character of Two-Face.
Except for the part about him being dead and buried? I don't think he got any resurrection skills in that fire.
Did we see the same movie?
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
No no, HANCOCK was the movie that makes parallels to bush. The forgetful drunk who can change the face of the moon if he was so inclined.
it just goes to prove that IMDB is a popularity contest, not actually about 'good movies'.
The moment you accept killing one innocent person is OK to save many more innocent people, then how do you propose we weigh their lives?
... do you watch the steven colbert show? (lol) ...
The funny part? It is true..
I've seen this critique in a few places, but while watching the scene to me it seemd that he tried to deploy his cape so he could fly away and wasn't successfull. I had assumed though with the cape flapping and partially depoyed that he'd managed to slow it down enough so that they didn't completely splat. At least that is what I saw while they were falling.
No... its no one ever dies in comic books except Captain Marvell, and he even gets guest appearances.
Don't rush me, Sonny. You rush a miracle man, you get rotten miracles.
I can see missing something when trying to remember the movie as it is pretty much non-stop. Hell, in my first viewing I didn't even catch the SUBPLOT of "Gordon got shot" because I was looking for my popcorn.
Despite how short the part was, it was revelatory of Dent's character. As I said above, the movie moves at such a pace that it can be easy to miss things the first time through. Perhaps that's what people missed when some criticize the speed of Dent's transformation.
wtf is this? Havn't we met before? ... oh wait. YES. Why don't you discuss the article (or at least something slightly relevant?)
Oh wait. Maybe its the 'rootkit' on your computer, allowing 'hackers' to 'ruin' your live journal and 'accidentally' post it on slashdot.
Don't like product placements and other assorted corporate propaganda in my fiction.
Hrm, trying to think of any in TDK... Bruce's Murcielago? It got wrecked.
If there were any they were subtle enough for me not to notice.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
What you believe and what is actually true are not necessarily the same thing.
You can believe all you want that there are no more filmmakers who value their work above "big profits," but that doesn't make it true.
As for product placement...I see products all the time in real life, so I don't even notice it when its in movies unless it is blatantly obvious. In fact, the world can seem very weird without products all around us.
What is actually true is, I don't watch voluntarily expose myself to commercials at any time, I don't trust American publishers, I don't make compromises unless the life and safety of my loved ones are in danger, and I'm not giving them any of my money ever again. Beyond that, I really don't give a rats ass.
This isn't a debate. This is me, making my intentions known. I cut my cable because of commercials, I stopped going to theaters because of them, I stopped listening to the radio because of them, and now I'm going to stop watching films entirely, in any format, if they are produced in the USA. If I see a similar pattern emerge in films made outside the USA, which I haven't yet, I'll cut them out of my life as well.
My brain is not for sale. Nor is that of my family. I play music, my girlfriend plays music and paints, my daughter is getting into making movies and I'm teaching her how to use the software. We release our stuff for free, we share it with our friends, we share it with each other. We watch Canadian, British, Australian and non-english foreign films because we haven't seen this trend penetrate those markets yet. If we do, we will boycott them as well.
Just as well in the end. American culture is grotesque anyways, and not really something I ought to be exposing myself and my family to...
-1 Uncomfortable Truth
Heath Ledger's role of the Joker is the best villain since Hannibal Lecter. They were very similar. Both were brilliant and insane at the same time, but the Joker was definitely more outwardly psychotic while Lecter was more subdued and in my opinion slightly scarier because of this.
Why were we able to catch and kill Saddam Hussein, who never attacked the USA, but we can't bring Bin Laden to justice?
That's pretty easy - many of Hussein's people hated him, whereas Bin Laden is somewhat of a folk hero and he's being hidden in a region where the US won't get involved - if he's even alive.
Someone is terribly incompetent, and I think it's the entire government of the US.
Would you settle for 97%? Those guys who put robots on Mars rock.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Yes, I absolutely did, and I wondered if anyone else did too.
Unfortunately, too many people seem to be blinded by a curious form of hate to allow anything good to be connected with Bush. When people can't consider the possibility that someone who disagrees with them might be doing the best he can to do what he thinks is right, you begin to wonder about those people and what they're projecting.
I wish Bill Watterson hadn't stopped writing. What joy he brought.
I won't join Slashcott. OTOH, If Beta goes live, I just won't be back until it's fixed. Sorry Dice.
Those guys who put robots on Mars rock
Agreed.
mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
I metamoderate daily, troll, I know what's on topic and what isn't. This comment isn't, and neither is yours, although my original comment IS. I'm modding myself down with the "no karma bonus" box and if the mods want to mod it down even further I have no complaint about it. I'll let the mods take care of your offtopic flamebait. Keep it up and your comments will never see the light of day.
Just to let you know, I'm done biting. Bye bye.
mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
I completely disagree with you. I felt that Gotham and its violence was an important part to the story. The constant shyness the movie showed, (cutting away just before acts of violence like the joker cutting someone's face, showing no real consequences to getting shot except a quick shudder and a fall, utterly ignoring the horror of a man burning on top of a pile of money, explosions never harming anyone except where the plot made it unavoidable) made it all seem comic, hollow and flaccid.
The violence was fantasy violence. The city was meant to feel corrupt and chaotic - something Batman, Dent and Gordon were struggling against. Something the Joker was exploiting.
A little artistic integrity instead of self-censorship in the name of a family-friendly blockbuster would have really benefited the movie.
Yea, the performances and story both were far more nuanced than most action flicks.
For instance, you can see Dent get more and more ambitious as the Rico suit gets closer to fruition. Gordon actually looks sad when he's nominated as commissioner. Bruce almost seems to enjoy snubbing his guests at the fundraiser. And I'm pretty sure the Joker wanted to get caught up on that skyscraper, since he could count on batman to not do him in; I doubt his odds were that good with the SWAT. The movie ends with Batman as the villain.
Great stuff.
Calvin and Hobbes reference!! I GOT IT! HAHAHAHA
To Hell with the Queen of England!
Yes, without question. Ledger's Joker actually acts legitimately crazy, complete with the tongue thing. You can tell that he is rational in his own mind, and not trying to be funny, as Nickilson's Joker tried to be.
You really have to see it to understand what I mean. It really is the best villain I've seen.
You have to bear in mind the very different sensibilities of the two films, though...
I have not seen the new film and intend to give it a chance - I did like "Begins" - but I feel like they may have reached the point where they've begun to take the character too seriously... I don't think "The Joker" is really a character that works well cast in a light like that - the character is supposed to be over-the-top, the whole concept of him is basically ridiculous, but that's the whole point. But now I guess he's John Wayne Gacy crossed with Hannibal Lecter? I'm not yet convinced that The Joker benefits from this treatment - or that a real portrayal of a psychotic benefits from being fitted into the Joker mould...
What I appreciate about Nicholson's Joker (or Tim Burton's Joker, depending on your perspective) was the whole "artist" angle. It's not just the face that made him "The Joker" - he decided for himself to create the ridiculous persona, as a kind of murderous performance art.
'Course, Mark Hamill was really the best Joker. :D
Bow-ties are cool.
"Great stuff"
I am in total and complete agreement.
Possibly a first here on Slashdot :)
Oh noes, I've no mod points!
I'd have modded you informative!
Not to worry, I have some mod points, I'll mod him up on your behalf, as soon as I'm done posting this response!
What? Oh, shit...
Bow-ties are cool.
The problem with that theory is that the Joker *is* all bad. Whether he had a plan about how he was going to do it or a motivation to be bad is irrelevant. I loved the movie, but by all rights Dent should have shot the Joker and then *also* gotten revenge on the other people that hurt him.
As an aside though, how many of you were thinking the remotes were actually for the ships they were on?
Yeah, after a bit I started thinking that the Joker was fibbing again.
I believe in Harvey Dent
your links don't work. neither does your logic.
Had a much better voice. The reason he didn't come back was because he died after the second movie was made.
Space Shuttle was a program that strapped humans to an explosion and tried to stab through the sky with fire and math
I think Xfiles and Arlington Road were foreshadowing 9/11 and that downright shameful.
Yes, but Caine is the one who told that story
WHAAAAAAT? Katie Holmes? Come on....... She belongs on the WB, not on the big screen.
2. Joker's henchmen/goons.
This isn't a debate. This is me, making my intentions known. I cut my cable because of commercials, I stopped going to theaters because of them, I stopped listening to the radio because of them, and now I'm going to stop watching films entirely, in any format, if they are produced in the USA. If I see a similar pattern emerge in films made outside the USA, which I haven't yet, I'll cut them out of my life as well.
So...why are you on Slashdot? They have advertisements. (Yeah, yeah...I know. You can block them. But you could mute your cable television too.)
Cutting yourself off from a world who relies on advertisements for getting new ideas and thoughts out there seems...well...I don't have a nice word for it. But, heck...do you stop talking to your friends if they make a recommendation about a product?
Instead, why not listen to the advertisements and then use your brain to decide if they have some merit or they're full of crap?
That question goes right up there with "Was Deckard a replicant?"
Sometimes, life itself is sarcasm...
Either the guy did or didn't know Bruce is Batman.
If he does know, then it works perfectly.
And if he doesn't know, then Lucius needs to tell him so he doesn't try blackmail. If he thinks Batman is someone else, then there's no reason not to blackmail Wayne enterprises.
paintball
...it always bothers me when characters that have been portrayed as smart suddenly become especially stupid for the sake of plot.
The Joker has threatened all means of transport other than ferries - that must mean the ferries are safe!
paintball
Saw it last night. It should have wrapped up 20 minutes earlier. Also, does anyone else find it strange that the thug who pulled a gun on the District Attorney while on the stand was later picked up by Gordon and cops at the bar? So you try to murder the district attorney in the courtroom and you just get out on bail? WTF?
I find that after 12 car chase scenes, chase scenes are boring. Explosions are boring after the 60th one. Maybe I'm not the target market for these films, but I liked Iron Man better -- and I hate Tony Stark in the comics, billionaire industrialist dickhead that he is.
When people can't consider the possibility that someone who disagrees with them might be doing the best he can to do what he thinks is right, you begin to wonder about those people and what they're projecting.
I agree with this as a reason to avoid saying "Bush is a c**k" etc; however, hypothetically, should a person who is doing something "wrong" - even if they think they are doing something "right" - be running the country and have that much power? Sure, they are doing it for the benefit of the nation (they think), but they are ruining many good things about it. I can't think of one good thing the Bush administration has done, and I can think of many bad things (disclaimer: I do not live in America, nor am I a US citizen). So: they may have had the best of intentions, but in my opinion they should definitely *not* be running one of the most powerful countries in the world.
Alas, they were voted in.
Sure I loved the movie and the acting, but #1 on IMDb? Sounds suspicious to me.
Or I could be wrong and the people do like the movie very much. I guess its the "Top 250" movies and not the "Best 250" movies, but I'm not convinced.
Batman nearly lost me on that little stunt. What a complete violation of our trust and the constitution!
I feel like the rest of the cast is overlooked. The Joker certainly stole the show, but Aaron Eckhart was great as Dent. Gary Oldman especially seems to be ignored and I think, excluding Ledger, he gave the best performance in the film. He did a great job of making Gordon seem like a real person that you could run into in any police station in America.
I was once a horse.
That's what I was expecting too. And then no one believing the prison ship's claim that they didn't press the button.
I think the big black evil-looking prisoner throwing the detonator out when no one else could or would was one of the best parts of the movie.
kind Alfred
Is it just me, or was Alfred's story about hunting down that guy in Cambodia (actually I forget the country) pretty much awesome? I know Alfred isn't exactly supposed to be the center of the story, but Michael Caine is an awesome actor and I would have liked him to have a little more screen time.
Preferably including gag-reel.
In the penthouse scene where Joker has Rachel, I would have loved to see him lick her on her cheek and sing "Don't you wish your boyfriend was a freak like me".
But then again, that'd probably be more of a Jack-Joker thing than a Heath-Joker thing
We do not live in the 21st century. We live in the 20 second century.
Of course I did. It would be pretty damned irresponsible to metamoderate without reading the faq, which is linked from the page you're sent to when you metamoderate.
Inside the mind of a Slashdot Meta Moderator
mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
I test all links, troll. Anybody that clicks one will see you're a liar. Now shoo.
mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
But he's not human at all. He's just chaos with great planning skills. Without humanity, it's just inanity!
That's why Nicholson's Joker is more interesting to me. He was human in his insanity until he suffered a horrible fate, which twisted him immensely. I then understood his motivation. This whole "You can't understand the Joker" rationale is a cop out.
EXACTLY!!!
And that is the problem I have with that character. He knows TOO much and his plans work TOO perfectly.
He has limited resources (and many of those resources are hostile to him) yet he always has the exact manpower needed at the exact point it is needed with the exact equipment needed.
How many of his plans would have completely failed if just ONE person acted intelligently or even selflessly? Or, at the bare minimum, with basic suspicion about KNOWN criminals?
No. It was the 70's slasher flix all over again. No matter how slow the monster moves when chasing the victim, when the victim turns a corner, the monster will be right in front of her.
Cutting yourself off from a world who relies on advertisements for getting new ideas and thoughts out there seems...well...I don't have a nice word for it. But, heck...do you stop talking to your friends if they make a recommendation about a product?
Having had friends get involved with Amway and other MLM schemes, I can assure you, the answer to that question is yes. If my friends treat me as a captive audience and try to sell me their patrons products, I stop talking to them.
-1 Uncomfortable Truth
(This is a response to all of the siblings here...)
Here and here. Read it. Questions answered without people spouting their own biased opinions without checking the facts.
Simply put: Yes, Gotham could be considered to be modelled after Chicago, but it is not meant to specifically be that city or any other real city. (which is a good reason to deliberately leave out well known landmarks in the editing of the movie) :)
I haven't really read Batman comics since the mid-90s, but I definitely recall laughing at several issues where there would be an innocent bystander or two walking the streets of Gotham wearing a Bulls jersey, but those are mainly just the artists tipping their hat to the city they decide to get thier ideas from.
Karma: NaN
Having seen it twice through I enjoyed it almost as much as I did the first time. The movie was great and I hope they get started on the next one soon. I think Heath's acting was well done and I didn't even find Batman's voice irritating. The one problem I did have with the movie is the effort to keep it PG-13 by hiding almost all the blood. Take the scene from the cell with Batman and the Joker. Batman beats the snot out of the Joker and not a single bruise. That is not believable. When Batman smashes Joker's hand into the table, he didn't even wince. If someone was punching you in the face even without all that armor on his fist there would be some marks. That honestly, really annoys me. Unless batman's punches are really woosy or he has some serious soft padding on his fists there should have been some blood. I think back to the original where the Joker gets punched and spits out those fake teeth covered in blood. I would have liked to see a bit of realism there. There was almost no blood where I think there realistically should have been and that very much killed the immersion for me in scenes like that. Any1 else feel this way?
although my original comment IS.
which is why it has been knocked down to -1... clearly it was on topic, but the mods are clueless and are punishing your Shakespearean efforts. And yet ... my posts are un-modded.
Imagine that, you're still wrong, even after all that complaining.
Right, but the Joker's a liar.
I think you're right to pick up on that-- you can't trust his little speech. Joker is a liar... but on the other hand, he's also pretty honest, and doesn't make any real attempt to disguise himself. In a way, at least.
So I don't think it's true that he's "not a schemer", but at the same time, I think it's true that he "wouldn't know what to do once he caught one." He's trying to destroy whatever he can, but not to any particular end. It's not as though he actually particularly likes the result, but rather seems to enjoy the action of destroying things. Even more to the point, he wants people to try to stop him-- he just wants them to fail.
It seems to me that the Joker wants, to a certain extent, is to keep battling it out with Batman, and never have either side quite win. If he ever managed to destroy everything and kill the Batman, he'd probably be disappointed.