The Dark Knight [SPOILER THREAD]

[Bertuzzied]

Originally Posted by Hack&Lube

Or how about Talia Al Ghul to tie it back with Batman Begins? It would also wipe away the nasty need to get some sort of female role or love interest.

I can't remember which site but Nolan pretty much confirmed she was going to be the villain in the 3rd movie.

[Russic]

[Bobblehead]

I hate the way movies are ranked based on how much money it brought in.

Movie tickets are more expensive than they were when Titanic, Star Wars, or any other blockbuter was in theatres. I wish they would rank by tickets sold.

But I know they bet better "buzz" but trotting out the dollar figures, and with inflation they will always be able to infer that movie X is great since it is now in the top 50 of all box office. But that doesn't mean I like it.

[J pold]

Originally Posted by Bobblehead

I hate the way movies are ranked based on how much money it brought in.

Movie tickets are more expensive than they were when Titanic, Star Wars, or any other blockbuter was in theatres. I wish they would rank by tickets sold.

But I know they bet better "buzz" but trotting out the dollar figures, and with inflation they will always be able to infer that movie X is great since it is now in the top 50 of all box office. But that doesn't mean I like it.

It’s a two Way Street though…if movie tickets are more expensive people are less inclined to actually go to the theater

And back in the day of Titanic/Star Wars there wasn’t illegal downloads and Blue Ray DVD’s

I agree that it should be per tickets sold, but there is more to it than just inflation

[Bobblehead]

It has always been changing. You don't need BR-DVD; I recall when the first Pay-TV channels were released in Canada (yes, I'm old - I recall people saying they were going to stop going to the theatre when ticket prices hit $4.25, and $2 Tuesdays were popular) and the big selling point was "See Star Wars for the firs time since it was in theatres". Then VCRs and the movie rental business (and associated pirating of movies). Go back further and there were fewer theaters before multiplex theatres became common, so there were fewer movie screens and few movies that could be screened.

So I don't question that things have been changing a lot in more ways than ticket prices and inflation, but by pushing the weekly box office, the marketers are being disingenuous.

[Muta]

Originally Posted by Hack&Lube

I also think Hush would be best to bring back the series full circle back to focus on Wayne and his family and history.

Funny enough, someone also mentioned to me today that Hush would be a terrific character to bring in for the third movie. Ties in to the whole family thing and all.

Bane would be an awesome one for me, too. The Riddler I could see, but I think it's time to take this Batman a series a new direction with a much more 'updated' and 'dangerous' character.

Whether Talia Al Ghul is in the third one or not, I'd love to see a re-connection back to Bruce's family / past through the same manner the first one did. That, for me, made the first show - for people who didn't know anything about Batman, it sure just a clear window into Bruce's history and how Batman was formed.

[bluejays]

Originally Posted by Bertuzzied

I was looking at Time Warner stock about a week before the movie was released. It has done nothing at all! Still at $14.

Guess 1 movie does not have a big effect on their bottom line.

Wasn't a secret that the movie was going to be released and be a huge hit. Success was already factored into the price before the movie came out. If you want to see where it jumped, try and pinpoint the day the release date for the movie was announced. You'll probably see a bulge there.

[Itse]

Sorry for the bump, but this I think is just one of those cases where really another point of view is needed, as there's just so much of hype in this thread.

In my opinion, this movie sucked pretty bad. There were mostly two big issues:

<rant level: low>

1. The action scenes were rather boring. There was nothing original or exciting about them. I don't know what else to say. Just to compare with Wanted for example, the action was simply inferior to todays standards.

2. The plot was really stupid and boring. Okay, there's the Joker. In the first half hour we have established that he's omnipotent if he isn't fighting Batman. Everything he does will succeed perfectly. Takes 30 minutes for this to sink in. (15 for those who have seen action movies before.) Then we always learn beforehand what he's going to do. Then he does exactly that, in a rather uninteresting and unimaginative way. And since we know that everything he does will inevitably succeed, and he keeps on telling us what he's going to do, what am I supposed to get excited about?

<rant level: medium>

Minor points:
3. Scary? At what point? This is a family film frankly. Nobody REALLY dies. Oh sure, lot's of people get blown up or poisoned, but we never really see it, and apart for the massively predictable "the girls gonna get it", no-one who dies is what you'd call a real person. Except of course for Gordon, but hey, he doesn't REALLY die. (That would've been the one interesting thing in the movie.)

4. The confused moralism of Joker. The Joker states he's an agent of chaos, and goes on to specify how he likes to blow up all the plans everyone else is making. Yet actually, he's pretty much the only guy in the whole movie who HAS a plan (and he ALWAYS has a plan, which mostly consists of blowing something), and also really the only guy who freaks out when his plan doesn't work. The Joker tries to make this point of "people are all really just animals when pushed to extremes", but he never really succeeds in pushing anyone. "Deciding which of two persons lives after I put you in a situation where you can only save one is the same as murder" That's not whacko scary, that's just plain dumb.

5. Grim? This is grim? Batman wants out because he knows that vigilantism isn't the answer in the long run. Batman heroically takes the blame. People aren't really ready to kill each other, even when it could mean their own lives. (The ferry scene.) The "bad cop" has a sick mother. So on, so forth, oh dear. Milk and cookies are served at halftime.

6. Oh lord, the scene with the ferry's simply couldn't have sucked more. The balding middle-aged white guy representing the "normal people", the big intimidating black guy representing the criminals (just a _touch_ of racism there)... I mean c'mon, if you didn't see how that was going to play out from the first moment, you propably don't watch many Hollywood films. Every actor in that scene sucked, the writing sucked, it was filmed so bad it looked like a 70's studio disaster movie...

<rant off>

Good stuff:
Heath Ledger was good.

<rant level: high>

Unfortunately, there was about one really well written and directed scene in the movie, which was the magic trick scene. And even in that scene, the mobsters were such a bunch of caricatures I wouldn't have thought of seeing them in a top-budget movie these days, and really, haven't we seen the "main bad guy meets the backdrop baddies, makes an outrageous suggestion, kills someone (which is instantly ignored) and thus gains their attention/respect" about a million times already? Just the last film I watched (Showdown in Little Tokyo) had the same scene. So does Kill Bill (although it isn't the main bad guy of the whole movie who does it there.) I could name a dozen movies with that exact same scene. I'm tired of it. It was stupid the first time, it's stupid still.

<rant level: low>

But yeah, Ledger was good, all things considered. Maggie Gyllenthaal was good, given how little she had to work with. I never get bored of watching Michael Caine. Nestor Carbonell's mayor was pretty good, even though the mascara was a bit much. The magic trick was funny, so was the scene with the extortion suggestion. Turning the bike against the wall was kind of funny and cool. Joker-the-Nurse washing his hands was kind of funny in a disturbing way.

<rant off>

And that was about it. Two stars out of five. As someone said, not even the best superhero movie of this year. (Ironman was much superior.)

[kevman]

Originally Posted by Itse

rant

So it wasn't just me eh?

I thought the movie was entertaining and I enjoyed watching it but by no means did it live up to the hype. It had it's moments but in the end it was just another action film with a soft plot and predictable action scenes.

[Cliche]

Originally Posted by Itse

<rant off>

And that was about it. Two stars out of five. As someone said, not even the best superhero movie of this year. (Ironman was much superior.)

So in comparison to Batman Begins, is this the superior movie?

[Thunderball]

Itse makes some good points. Dark Knight was a great movie, but I think the blatant overhype on the grounds of Heath Ledger's untimely demise sucked some enjoyment out of a film I was eagerly awaiting. The bar got set too high.

Plotwise, I think Batman Begins was stronger and had less holes and head scratching moments. Dark Knight had a better presentation though. Personally, I would have rewrote the last Joker scene to have more of a Killing Joke ending... Batman has to break his one rule because the Joker is simply too dangerous to be kept alive... or better yet, have Two-Face kill him, or a disgruntled GCPD cop. Especially seeing as Heath won't be able to play the role again. Yes, Batman and the Joker are like yin and yang, and play off eachother... but in comics, the animated series and the previous movie, they all got it... the Joker has to die... directly or indirectly from Batman's hand... leaving him with that torture... the Joker's last joke... Batman loses the Joker's sadistic game and is forced to break his morals.

I also wasn't big on Batman taking the blame for Two-Face... THAT seemed hackneyed to me. Surely, the world's greatest detective and a cunning Police Commissioner could have hatched a greater scheme to keep Dent as the White Knight of Gotham... this Batman doesn't even do what it takes... he left the Joker alive, yet he gleefully takes the blame for Harvey's murderous temper tantrum? I didn't buy it.

[VANFLAMESFAN]

Originally Posted by Itse

1. The action scenes were rather boring. There was nothing original or exciting about them. I don't know what else to say. Just to compare with Wanted for example, the action was simply inferior to todays standards.

Sorry bud, you're out to lunch on this point. Wanted's action, while it was visually amazing, is non comparable to Dark Knight's as it's a totally different context. Wanted was over the top of over the top, and the director did this on purpose. Lot of fun?? Yes, realisitc?? NOT A CHANCE

Chris Nolan's action sequences were grittier, more real. Sure, the bat cycle, truck flippin and other parts were silly, but you also got the feeling of the metal hitting metal, or fist hitting body. In Wanted, it was stylized CGI, and it was done very effectively, but it's really not fair to compare the action in these two movies.

[Got Miikka?]

Saw this movie last night in the IMAX here in Toronto. Glad I waited to see it that way; the IMAX sequences - the chase scene that ends with the semi-truck turning over and the hospital explosion sequence in particular are mindblowing. A lot of nitpicking going on in this thread but I suppose that's to be expected when a movie comes along with this kind of hype - people wants to be 'bigger' than the event by finding ways to debunk it. Granted, I'll agree this movie is not without its share of flaws but when I think of other uberhyped cinematic experiences - all of 3 Star Wars prequels, a fourth Indiana Jones installment, two ghastly Matrix sequels, et cetera et cetera - I think the Dark Knight, despite its shortcomings, comes a lot closer to meeting expectations than its peers. Holes aside at least there is sense to be made of an exceedingly convoluted plot - you can even extract thematic depth beyond that which slaps you in the face. Overwrought performances - the showdown between Gordon and Dent at the end for example - are lost in light of some fine acting; Ledger's turn is being put on a higher pedestal than necessary, sure, but when the dust settles it's still a mighty fine show. I haven't seen this Wanted movie but I would venture its special effects are likely almost entirely CG-based; TDK is refreshing for its use of actual locations and - gasp - real action set pieces. Remember, this is a comic-book movie - taking nothing away from the genre keep in mind it's not one typically known for a great deal of substance; even where it falls short in this regard it's still a pretty good movie. I was entertained, weren't you?

A No. 1 overall ranking on imdb.com will gradually fall, don't worry...

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Bobblehead

I hate the way movies are ranked based on how much money it brought in.

Movie tickets are more expensive than they were when Titanic, Star Wars, or any other blockbuter was in theatres. I wish they would rank by tickets sold.

But I know they bet better "buzz" but trotting out the dollar figures, and with inflation they will always be able to infer that movie X is great since it is now in the top 50 of all box office. But that doesn't mean I like it.

There are sites that rank movies based on dollars that take into account inflation. This is IMO the best way to judge a movie's success.

If you take into account inflation, Gone With the Wind is the most successful movie ever in terms of domestic box office. Titanic surprisingly falls to number 6 just ahead of Jaws.

http://boxofficemojo.com/alltime/adj...yr=2008&p=.htm

Titanic is still number one in terms of international box office, and that will probably not be beat anytime in the near future.

[Itse]

Originally Posted by VANFLAMESFAN

Sorry bud, you're out to lunch on this point. Wanted's action, while it was visually amazing, is non comparable to Dark Knight's as it's a totally different context.

Partly different, yes, but I wouldn't exactly call Batman realistic. The car-chase scene was just silly from beginning to end. Mostly it was pretty dumbly written. "We have to take the lower whatever, that roads blocked". Umm, excuse me, I can see right there on the screen that you could JUST GO AROUND THE DAMNED ROADBLOCK. Sheesh.

Also, with the magic trick, the bike stunts, a guy flying in a batsuit, tons of exploding gas canisters, cell-phone bombs and so on, I really don't think your argument of "realism" hold water.

But to each his own. However, I do watch all sorts of action movies, and I really fail to see how the action in this one was in anyway special, except for the absurd length of the whole thing and the general problem of there not being much, if any, suspense in any of the action scenes.

High budget action films usually manage to draw me into the action through one trick or the other. This just left me cold.

And I must add, I always really make an effort to like superhero films, because I like superheros. But when I feeling that my times been wasted, I have to say so.

How does this compare to Batman Begins? I thought Begins was more interesting. Scarecrow was a good choice for a bad guy, and the whole thing just did better with the "suspension of disbelief thing". It was also shorter, which was a bonus. It's been a couple of years, but I think it was something like three out of five. No more for sure. But I didn't feel bored while watching it.

[VANFLAMESFAN]

Originally Posted by Itse

Partly different, yes, but I wouldn't exactly call Batman realistic. The car-chase scene was just silly from beginning to end. Mostly it was pretty dumbly written. "We have to take the lower whatever, that roads blocked". Umm, excuse me, I can see right there on the screen that you could JUST GO AROUND THE DAMNED ROADBLOCK. Sheesh.

Also, with the magic trick, the bike stunts, a guy flying in a batsuit, tons of exploding gas canisters, cell-phone bombs and so on, I really don't think your argument of "realism" hold water.

But to each his own. However, I do watch all sorts of action movies, and I really fail to see how the action in this one was in anyway special, except for the absurd length of the whole thing and the general problem of there not being much, if any, suspense in any of the action scenes.

High budget action films usually manage to draw me into the action through one trick or the other. This just left me cold.

And I must add, I always really make an effort to like superhero films, because I like superheros. But when I feeling that my times been wasted, I have to say so.

How does this compare to Batman Begins? I thought Begins was more interesting. Scarecrow was a good choice for a bad guy, and the whole thing just did better with the "suspension of disbelief thing". It was also shorter, which was a bonus. It's been a couple of years, but I think it was something like three out of five. No more for sure. But I didn't feel bored while watching it.

First off, I never said that Batman was realistic, just way more realistic than Wanted, I don't know how you could debate that. Secondly, name me an action movie that includes big chase scene in the last 10 years that wasn't absurd in its sense of realism.

As far as your nitpicking in your first paragraph, come on man....let it go, enjoy the movie, stop looking for things to be "that guy" who didn't like one of the best reviewed movies of the year.

[Phanuthier]

I had no problem with the action. Cell phone bombs, easy to do. Flying in a batsuite, ok. I thought the Hong Kong scene was awsome and could be done.

Wanted - curving bullets? I actually laughed out loud during the trailers at how ridiculous that was. I went to go see it anyways with low expectations, and it was still worse then I could have imagined.

Ironman was good when you compare it to the average film. TDK is a blockbuster.

[Sainters7]

Originally Posted by Phanuthier

I had no problem with the action. Cell phone bombs, easy to do. Flying in a batsuite, ok. I thought the Hong Kong scene was awsome and could be done.

Wanted - curving bullets? I actually laughed out loud during the trailers at how ridiculous that was. I went to go see it anyways with low expectations, and it was still worse then I could have imagined.

Ironman was good when you compare it to the average film. TDK is a blockbuster.

Really? A movie with Angelina Jolie sucked? I dont believe it...

[Phanuthier]

Originally Posted by Sainters7

Really? A movie with Angelina Jolie sucked? I dont believe it...

sucker or blew, whichever one works for ya.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Phanuthier

I had no problem with the action. Cell phone bombs, easy to do. Flying in a batsuite, ok. I thought the Hong Kong scene was awsome and could be done.

Wanted - curving bullets? I actually laughed out loud during the trailers at how ridiculous that was. I went to go see it anyways with low expectations, and it was still worse then I could have imagined.

Ironman was good when you compare it to the average film. TDK is a blockbuster.

I spent a whole weekend trying to curve bullets and all I accomplished was two murder charges and 14 dead cats.