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.
Because Heath Ledger deserves one.
End of story.
I live in constant fear of the Coming of the Red Spiders.
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
I second that.
Best "Knight" movie Heath Ledger was in! He really did the Joker perfect.
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.
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.
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.
Never has a simple writing implement, been used to set the tone of a movie so effectively.
You mad
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.
Fact #1 Bats=bugs!
Degaussing scares the bad magnetism out of the monitor and fills it with good karma.
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.
Yes. This is also a flaw in Batman Begins. However, if you think about it, the pacing and framing of each scene is akin to what you would see in a comic book. In essence, each scene is a frame. Am I the only one who thinks this?
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!
Racy... I do not think that word means what you think it means.
As best I can tell, he gave him purpose. Dent was crushed by the loss of his love, his loss of control, and his disfigurement. The Joker gave him purpose (revenge on those who gave up Dawes and Dent) combining it with his sense of justice (they were corrupt cops he'd wanted to bust before). Now with nothing left to lose, he could go after them on his own terms. The change (or revealing of his true nature) began with his interrogation of Scarecrow.
Degaussing scares the bad magnetism out of the monitor and fills it with good karma.
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
I think that's totally intentional. Obviously the man is trying to disguise his voice so no one can figure out his true identity.
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.
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".
That wasn't his true nature, though (also, I don't think that was Scarecrow, though I could be wrong. I thought it was just some random punk the Joker recruited).
Remember, until it got burnt, his coin was double-headed, so when he said "Heads I don't shoot you, tails I do," it was a total bluff and he never would have actually shot the guy.
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.
"Geek" doesn't mean being into the latest gadgets and computers.
Comic books and tabletop gaming are, and always have bee, geek.
Personally I thought that was part of it's brilliance... the director didn't feel the need to explain everything. I hate it when movies try to wrap everything up in neat little bows so the audience doesn't have to think (a little.. not like the independent films where the entire story is a brain puzzle).
A fool throws a stone into a well and a thousand sages can not remove it.
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?"
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.
Indeed- Harvey always struggled between his good side and his bad side. His nature was good, he wanted the good guys to win. His bad side was just willing to do what it took to accomplish his goals, something he had always considered, but never acted on until now- now that he has this vice, a scapegoat, even.
Interestingly, this dynamic that exists in Harvey in TDK, as well as in the comics, gives Two-Face much more depth than the one-dimensional characters in the original movies (Batman-Forever). So the real question is- did they seriously do all that build up for him to just die at the end?
My theory is that the next villain will be a combination of some new villain such as the riddler or the penguin, and a little more two face mixed in, as batman tries to convince harvey not to lose his good side and to do the right thing.
This, of course, requires harvey not to be dead. So maybe he's just sleeping?
Belief? Hope? Preference?The Existential Vortex
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)
True, but he was ready to consider it and threaten it, which tied the two major themes of the film together. What is an appropriate response to attacks on the nature of society and the justaposition of the white knight of Gotham with the dark knight of Gotham.
I saw the interrogation as him peering into the abyss and realizing that his previously relied upon tools were incapable of dealing with what he found there. The Joker showed him he had always had tool that allowed him to not be slowed by limitations (similar to Batman), but lacking Batman's singular devotion to remeding injustice he devolved to a killer. I agree it was a change to his nature, but wanted to allow room for others to say it had been there all along and revealed.
Degaussing scares the bad magnetism out of the monitor and fills it with good karma.
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.
Obviously Cmdr T is new around here otherwise he would have seen the movie already. :P
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
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
Too True... I think it really serves as a metaphor for the way the joker thinks through the rest of the film: Do something that will illicit a reaction... use that reaction to your advantage... shock and awe everyone with the outcome.
Collector's Edition
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.
He really did. I can't imagine that it's possible for anyone to ever play the Joker better. I was expecting a good movie, but frankly it surprised me by how much it exceeded my expectations. He should certainly win an Oscar for that. Easily the best supporting actor role of the year, even without seeing the films from the last half of the year.
There is no -1 Disagree mod. Slashdot.org/faq defines mod options. USE IT.
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
I fully expected that guy to push the button and then have a few frames to look shocked as their boat blew up. In every choice the Joker gave he provided the wrong information (Dawes and Dent were at the opposite locations, the guards/hostages).
Degaussing scares the bad magnetism out of the monitor and fills it with good karma.
I'd argue that the Joker was the real 'star' of this film. I suppose he was a supporting actor, but he stole the show.
Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
Well... at least Heath *didn't* play a guy who was missing half of his face (and therefore half of his lips) but was somehow mystically able to pronounce "m"s, "p"s, and "b"s just like he did *before* his accident.
Proud neuron in the Slashdot hivemind since 2002.
I think the movie did fantastic by hiding just about every single drop of blood.
It made the scenes scarier when your mind filled in the details for you.
If you can read this, I forgot to post anonymously.
I thought of his rant more as an abstract, Joker had plans, but no Plan. If one plan failed, he just switched to another, nothing phased him, and no result was actually a bad one.
Liberte, Egalite, Fraternite (TM)
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'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.
Well, yeah. It kind of loses something if Two Fathe would be thtanding aroung going "stwike him, centuwion, vewy woughwy".