They show Nite Owl doing a jump kick to some prisoners face. Nite Owl is supposed to be a pudgy, middle aged loser at this point in his life.
The action looks to be from the highly stylized school of superhero movie violence, which might look dated after seeing Dark Knight.
It looks like the coloring has been played with a lot, making it look more surreal. If anything, making it look like one of those 70s cop movies would fit the comic better.
This is not a "No" vote or anything. I'm going to reserve judgment on whether or not to see it after the story trailers come out. This was just some of the stuff that occurred to me while I was watching the trailer.
Of course, I could just be hyper-paranoid that they will make a crappy movie out of an outstanding comic book.
I think a big problem most of these sorts of movies have (action/crime/superhero) is that the villain is the driving force of the action. Everyone else must react to him rather than be proactive themselves.
Does this mean I get some Kryptonite so I can kick Superman's ass?
Re:Can Oscar's be given posthumously?
on
Batman Discussion
·
· Score: 1
I'm glad one person on planet Earth agrees with me. While I don't see Miller's Joker as behaving like Ledger's in many ways, the core character and the kinds of things he does to others for the kinds of "reasons" he does them I find very similar.
Re:Can Oscar's be given posthumously?
on
Batman Discussion
·
· Score: 1
Robert DeNiro has been nominated several times for acting like a crazy Robert DeNiro...
"If my wife or (hypothetical) kids were on the boat with me, I'd have blown up the prisoners in a heartbeat."
In my estimation, both courses of possible action are rationally justifiable. There is no imperative to allow yourself to probably die so total strangers whose only known attributes are that they are criminals (not known for their altruism), who will be the ones who will probably kill you, might live. Even more so when you have others who have claims on you to act for their protection as your wife and your hypothetical kids (might want to have a doctor take a look at that) would have on you.
The moral blame would be on the Joker as he is the intentional cause which sets the chain of events off which force such a decision.
I do think that neither group turning the key is unlikely, I don't find it implausible.
Re:I wonder who will play Aunt Madge
on
Batman Discussion
·
· Score: 1
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.
"it's not that interesting to just nod in agreement"
Fair enough.
1) Skyhook stuff has been used, as another poster mentioned.
The penthouse jump, I am pretty sure, was supposed to have been slowed down by the cape, but that was not obvious.
2) At some point, the Joker says that he actually thought that Dent was Batman. While he could have been referring to the point at which Dent claims to be Batman, it well could have been Batman's reaction to the Joker threatening Rachel.
3) I'll agree, to a point. Holmes would have been cast, but she opted out of Dark Knight for that classic of our time, Mad Money. If the character was not Rachel Dawes, then they'd have to have spent time getting the new character into a love triangle with Wayne and Dent. On top of that Dawes would have to be in the movie too in some capacity. All of this would have eaten up a lot of time. Simpler to have the love triangle girl as Rachel.
And you are right in Gyllenhaal not being beautiful.
4) Batman is the #3 martial artist in the DC universe behind Shiva and Batgirl III. I will agree that Nolan is not a great director of hand to hand combat.
5) "The public sees Batman as a force of good as well." That's not quite true. The only place where the public's feelings toward Batman are openly voiced is at the press conference and those voices are not supportive.
Batman is in no way meaningful, victorious. He is in a far worse position than he was at the beginning of the film or the end of the last film, for that matter. All he has done is stop the Joker from inflicting more harm. Those things which Bruce Wayne hoped for at the beginning of the film have been dashed by the Joker.
6) That's comic book science for you. I think the theory would be that the cell phones listen for noise (and GPS data for location?), which is transmitted to a cluster (which runs Linux?) which creates a realtime 3d imaging of the city. So, comic book science.
As others have pointed out, this is just something that happens. As time goes on, more reviews are added. Initially, the biggest fans of the movie chime in. After that come the haters, honest and trollish. Finally, after everyone has calmed down and ever after, the level headed prevail.
On the one hand, Ledger's Joker was so good, I do want to see the Joker again.
On the other hand, there is no possibility of a Ledger Joker.
Plus, the Joker would have to up the stakes between himself and Batman. The only thing I can think that would suffice is if Batgirl and Robin are both established AND liked, then the Joker pulls a Killing Joke on Batgirl and a Death in the Family on Robin. That would throw Batman over the edge.
No wonder he was so depressed... If I was Kaiser Sose and was meaninglessly employed, married to an unfaithful shrew and had an ungrateful bitch of a daughter, the opportunity to boink a pretty teen would make me happy too.
Re:I wonder who will play Aunt Madge
on
Batman Discussion
·
· Score: 1
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.
Re:Can Oscar's be given posthumously?
on
Batman Discussion
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
The only things I've ever seen Ledger in were Knight's Tale and 10 Things I Hate About You.
Those and Dark Knight.
He deserves an Oscar for the Joker.
Let me tell you how I described his performance to a friend of mine who was curious: Heath Ledger is not in this movie. The casting people traveled to Gotham City and got the Joker on a work release program.
One thing a lot of people seem to be expecting is that Ledger is totally over the top. He's not. If you see the film, try not to have preconceptions for how you think he will act the part. Go in that way and I assure you that you will be impressed.
One thing I liked about the way it ended (including the "take the blame" part) is that Batman is in a far worse position, vis a vis his role as protector, at the end of the movie than at the beginning.
He does not win in any substantial sense. All he has done by the end of the film is to prevent the Joker from doing even more grave harm. Batman has lost his love, his hope for institutional reform, his public standing and his hope that he can just be Bruce Wayne.
Some reviewer referred to Batman's willingness to take the blame for Dent's crimes as the "Noble Lie", in reference to Plato. He did not approve of it. Even though it is not something I would do, I do understand where Batman was coming from when he did it.
As he said earlier in the film, "Gotham deserves a hero with a face." Still believing that, he takes the blame so that Gothamites do not have to deal with Harvey's two faces.
Slashdot Mirror
Of those people in the audience who are not utilitarians, they will find the argument to be absurd, as does Rorschach.
Which perhaps explains Rorschach's popularity.
"Great stuff"
I am in total and complete agreement.
Possibly a first here on Slashdot :)
They show Nite Owl doing a jump kick to some prisoners face. Nite Owl is supposed to be a pudgy, middle aged loser at this point in his life.
The action looks to be from the highly stylized school of superhero movie violence, which might look dated after seeing Dark Knight.
It looks like the coloring has been played with a lot, making it look more surreal. If anything, making it look like one of those 70s cop movies would fit the comic better.
This is not a "No" vote or anything. I'm going to reserve judgment on whether or not to see it after the story trailers come out. This was just some of the stuff that occurred to me while I was watching the trailer.
Of course, I could just be hyper-paranoid that they will make a crappy movie out of an outstanding comic book.
Somebody please mod this +5 Brilliant
In its defense, it was just a teaser trailer.
D.R. and Quinch would be so funny... If they did it serially, I'd buy a ticket for a hundred bucks for the summer camp story.
I think a big problem most of these sorts of movies have (action/crime/superhero) is that the villain is the driving force of the action. Everyone else must react to him rather than be proactive themselves.
I'm not sure how it could be otherwise though.
Does this mean I get some Kryptonite so I can kick Superman's ass?
I'm glad one person on planet Earth agrees with me. While I don't see Miller's Joker as behaving like Ledger's in many ways, the core character and the kinds of things he does to others for the kinds of "reasons" he does them I find very similar.
Robert DeNiro has been nominated several times for acting like a crazy Robert DeNiro...
"If my wife or (hypothetical) kids were on the boat with me, I'd have blown up the prisoners in a heartbeat."
In my estimation, both courses of possible action are rationally justifiable. There is no imperative to allow yourself to probably die so total strangers whose only known attributes are that they are criminals (not known for their altruism), who will be the ones who will probably kill you, might live. Even more so when you have others who have claims on you to act for their protection as your wife and your hypothetical kids (might want to have a doctor take a look at that) would have on you.
The moral blame would be on the Joker as he is the intentional cause which sets the chain of events off which force such a decision.
I do think that neither group turning the key is unlikely, I don't find it implausible.
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.
"it's not that interesting to just nod in agreement"
Fair enough.
1) Skyhook stuff has been used, as another poster mentioned.
The penthouse jump, I am pretty sure, was supposed to have been slowed down by the cape, but that was not obvious.
2) At some point, the Joker says that he actually thought that Dent was Batman. While he could have been referring to the point at which Dent claims to be Batman, it well could have been Batman's reaction to the Joker threatening Rachel.
3) I'll agree, to a point. Holmes would have been cast, but she opted out of Dark Knight for that classic of our time, Mad Money. If the character was not Rachel Dawes, then they'd have to have spent time getting the new character into a love triangle with Wayne and Dent. On top of that Dawes would have to be in the movie too in some capacity. All of this would have eaten up a lot of time. Simpler to have the love triangle girl as Rachel.
And you are right in Gyllenhaal not being beautiful.
4) Batman is the #3 martial artist in the DC universe behind Shiva and Batgirl III. I will agree that Nolan is not a great director of hand to hand combat.
5) "The public sees Batman as a force of good as well." That's not quite true. The only place where the public's feelings toward Batman are openly voiced is at the press conference and those voices are not supportive.
Batman is in no way meaningful, victorious. He is in a far worse position than he was at the beginning of the film or the end of the last film, for that matter. All he has done is stop the Joker from inflicting more harm. Those things which Bruce Wayne hoped for at the beginning of the film have been dashed by the Joker.
6) That's comic book science for you. I think the theory would be that the cell phones listen for noise (and GPS data for location?), which is transmitted to a cluster (which runs Linux?) which creates a realtime 3d imaging of the city. So, comic book science.
Don't believe in history?
There have literally been millions who have acted from intentions which are contrary to self-preservation.
As others have pointed out, this is just something that happens. As time goes on, more reviews are added. Initially, the biggest fans of the movie chime in. After that come the haters, honest and trollish. Finally, after everyone has calmed down and ever after, the level headed prevail.
I think that most of the Burton Batman fans are Baby Boomers who can't get past the 60's TV show.
As I related in another comment to someone else, I too really liked the conclusion.
I mean, by what measure does Batman win?
He's lost his love, his hopes for the future and the public almost certainly hates him.
Doing good does not always come with a prize package.
On the one hand, Ledger's Joker was so good, I do want to see the Joker again.
On the other hand, there is no possibility of a Ledger Joker.
Plus, the Joker would have to up the stakes between himself and Batman. The only thing I can think that would suffice is if Batgirl and Robin are both established AND liked, then the Joker pulls a Killing Joke on Batgirl and a Death in the Family on Robin. That would throw Batman over the edge.
That would demystify the character, though.
No wonder he was so depressed... If I was Kaiser Sose and was meaninglessly employed, married to an unfaithful shrew and had an ungrateful bitch of a daughter, the opportunity to boink a pretty teen would make me happy too.
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.
Sshh!
You are spoiling their display of idiocy!
The only things I've ever seen Ledger in were Knight's Tale and 10 Things I Hate About You.
Those and Dark Knight.
He deserves an Oscar for the Joker.
Let me tell you how I described his performance to a friend of mine who was curious:
Heath Ledger is not in this movie. The casting people traveled to Gotham City and got the Joker on a work release program.
One thing a lot of people seem to be expecting is that Ledger is totally over the top. He's not. If you see the film, try not to have preconceptions for how you think he will act the part. Go in that way and I assure you that you will be impressed.
I can see your point.
One thing I liked about the way it ended (including the "take the blame" part) is that Batman is in a far worse position, vis a vis his role as protector, at the end of the movie than at the beginning.
He does not win in any substantial sense. All he has done by the end of the film is to prevent the Joker from doing even more grave harm. Batman has lost his love, his hope for institutional reform, his public standing and his hope that he can just be Bruce Wayne.
Some reviewer referred to Batman's willingness to take the blame for Dent's crimes as the "Noble Lie", in reference to Plato. He did not approve of it. Even though it is not something I would do, I do understand where Batman was coming from when he did it.
As he said earlier in the film, "Gotham deserves a hero with a face." Still believing that, he takes the blame so that Gothamites do not have to deal with Harvey's two faces.
Real terrorism is usually a method to achieve some end, to kill those you hate or whatever.
The Joker's terrorism is simply for the joy of inflicting terror. It is an end in itself.
One of the things that makes this Joker such a terrifying villain.