The Nolan Batman trilogy

[gaber]

I read all the reviews of The Dark Knight and how it was so great. When I finally watched the movie I was disappointed.
Dudebro edit- Spoilers from this point on.

First, the plot was lame. The movie just kept jumping from place to place. first it was get the mobster , then the Joker , then Two-Face. It didn't flow properly. So many things were just shoved in there.

Second, the main characters were irritating. Batman had an annoying voice and you couldn't tell what he wanted. Did he want to be Batman, did he want tro quit, or was he afraid he had to quit. The Joker was the most annoying. he didn't seem to have a point, he was always smacking and repeating himself, and he was always contradicting himself. Two-face had very little backstory, and he was only there for
the last 30 minutes.

Third, there was so little action for a two and half hour movie. Most of the fight scenes were so short and there wasn't many of them. The fight between Batman and the Joker was only two minutes long. The chase was the only good bit of action there was. Batman also didn't use many of his bat-gadgets.

Finally, the end was so lame. Batman could have stopped Two-face without killing him. He could have used a batarang or stuned him.

These are my reasons and I wanted to see if anyone agrees.

[Mikman]

I completely agree with this. Here are some other things that I foud to be stupid.

There were many useless parts. The Joker had no need to attack the party, or to pursue Harvey Dent and end up being captured when his goons later caught Dent. Both the Batmobile and Two-Face were killed off for no good reason.

Most of the major fight scenes were too much in the dark. I could barely see what was happening.

[TrakMastaTom]

I think both of you guys missed the entire point of the Joker's character. He was sociopathic and liked screwing with everybody. NOTHING he did made much sense, because he is the Joker.

[Dudebro]

First let me say I am a big fan of this movie so my opinion will be bias. That being said TMT is right, you guys just didn't get the Jokers character. He even says he has no plan, he's just an instrument of chaos.
Like Alfred tells Batman, "Some men just want to watch the world burn."
YouTube - Some men just want to watch the world burn.


Remember they made a point of showing the Joker burning all that money he stole? That was to show how much he just doesn't care. There is no point, that's what makes the Joker a good bad guy.
Almost every movie nowdays has to spoonfeed people the plot with easy to identify evil characters. The Dark Knight attempted to show something different.

I do agree about Two Face though. They should've left him for the next movie, that tacked on part at the end was too much. When Joker got arrested(second time) I thought the movie was over.
I liked the actor who played him though. He did a good job of being Mr upstanding citizen and I thought he was convincing when he lost his mind towards the end. When he screamed "SAY IT!" it made me jump in my seat, I wasn't ready for it.
YouTube - The Dark Knight Say It

About the dark fight scenes I agree, but, almost every action movie does similar things. To see all the action you'd have to watch a good martial arts movie like Drunken Master. American action movies love to use that fast, close up camera so we don't see details(and they can be lazy about it).

Bottomline is this all opinion, the movie is not for everyone. Also I added spoiler to the first post just in case someone hasn't seen this movie yet. This topic has mega spoilers.

[joshofsilence]

I thought it was an amazing movie.
I think it showed batman as a multi-dimensional character. Unlike the other movies, you get a sense of his own personal struggle. And the joker?....he's just an agent of chaos.

[Neko]

joker is jack nicholson is the true joker its better than ledger (and the nicholson version its the batman for kids) dont blame me but anyone says that he is the best joker just because he is dead
http://bruehoyt.com/superheroes/DC/batman/joker/jack1.jpg
ledger one is boring empty and not psicopatic like the true joker is

dont like this film ( but the actor who made two faces did a good job) that movie was so boring

[Winnebagel]

I agree somewhat Neko, but I think Heath Ledger did a good acting job. I'm just not sure what character he was trying to play. It wasn't the Joker from the comics IMHO. To me it really felt like he was trying to emulate Brandon Lee's portrayal in The Crow. Also, in the comics Joker was never really an agent of chaos. The main character who I can recall that did this was Bane. Also, Joker wasn't a little emo child with daddy issues like in TDK. He was absolutely insane, but he was very intelligent and always had a specific masterplan that would lead to some sick homicidal joke (in this respect, I think Nicholson did a magnificent job as the Crown Prince of Crime and the story fit with something the Joker would do).

Having said that, I still like TDK as a film. I think it is very cheesy in many parts, but overall is is a decent story and the most of the actors did a good job (I can't say Christian Bale did, but he really wasn't given any good material in this one either). .

[Slime Slayer]

the movie should have been based on the comic, and i sure hope that dkr2 is gonna be, even though it probably wont. i didnt think heath ledgers performance was all that great myself, take away all the make-up, effects, lighting and lip-liscking (witch was retarded) and your left with a mediocre performance. jack nickleson all the way.

[Dudebro]

Well come on guys, it's almost impossible for anyone to compare to Jack Nicholson. Ledger said he didn't want to just copy the character, he wanted to do his different version. I appreciate that and I'm happy to see a different side.

[TrakMastaTom]

I hate Heath Ledger in everything he was ever in except Dark Knight. I also don't build up artists when they die. That said, Heath Ledger's performance of the Joker is one of the best performances in any movie as any character ever if you ask me.

[Kong]

They should have eliminated the whole 2 face part. It was like the movie kept going for an hour after it ended.
The action scenes were too dark.
Those two things ruined the movie.

The Batman voice was a bit annoying but he was trying to disguise his voice and sound intimidating so it made sense.

The rest lived up to expectation.

[Winnebagel]

I agree that Two-Face was copletely wasted in this one. He was too minor of a character for my tastes.

I preferred Batman's voice in Batman Begins. It was a more believable rasp to me than the Cancer Man voice in TDK.

I still liked the movie, but I just thought the action scenes were bad and they got the characters wrong.

As lame as it sounds, I think many of the episodes of Batman The Animated series were written at more of an adult level and got the characters more correct than TDK. This is strange to me, but I thought the same about the X-Men movies versus the original Fox X-Men Animated Series, so maybe it's just me.

[Slime Slayer]

well 2 face was my favorite part of the movie and thought the movie would have been missing something without him, plus he looked soooooo cool

[Mikman]

Jack Nicholson's character was infinitely superior to Heath Ledger's because the former was able to become a powerful threat to Gotham while the latter was just a goof. Ledger's was useless. The way he bahaved waxs horribly irritating.

Rachel Dawes was not the fantastic beauty everyone made her out to be. She wasn't good-looking at all. In addition, the tension between Bruce Wayne and Harvey Dent was never shown very well.

[Neko]

.Like Alfred tells Batman, "Some men just want to watch the world burn."
YouTube - Some men just want to watch the world burn. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5q3z4IP_nNU&feature=related)
great quote lost in the seas of translations ( ive seen the movie in spanish......... you should hear batman voice in spanish.......... or joker one..... they dont fit really)

[Dudebro]

Yeah I feel bad Neko, translations are almost always a tragedy.

[Mikman]

I think that it was all the expectations of the film, plus Heath Ledger's death, that caused the majority of people to greatly overrate this film.

[Dudebro]

Or some people actually liked it for what it was. I'm not one of those easily impressionable people and I loved it.

[Neko]

Yeah I feel bad Neko, translations are almost always a tragedy.
here hear it by you self...
YouTube - El Caballero Oscuro - Interrogatorio Joker (Español)

[Mikman]

I really did not like it. It was stupid.

[gaber]

I think it was all the hype that made people like it. heath Ledger's performance was not Oscar winning.

[Neko]

well have here it and compared... there are not so different after all

PS: other reason why i dont like TDK........ christian bale.... god such a bad actor..... i he was awfull at american pysco ( a great book)

[Mikman]

They gave him the Oscar because he died. It is obvious. Gran Torino was much better and it deserved to win at least one Oscar.

[Mugen159]

I totally agree about the Two Face thing. He would've been much better off in the next movie.

What bothered me is that people (I know, that's broad) were making it out to be the movie that showed us the dark side of the superhero. Um, no. Heck, as far back as Spiderman 2, I remember critics praising it for showing just what a sucky life Peter Parker had. It was realistic. He was just a normal guy infused with superhuman abilities who still had to live the life of a normal person. And what a petty life it was. It's been a while since I've watched it, but I'm sure Peter wasn't exactly happy with his life, either. Sure, Bruce Wayne has his inner demons, but he's not the only one.

[Mikman]

I agree.

I hope that the next Batman film is not as horrible as The Dark Knight. Who do you think the villain will be?

[zarny]

The bat cave looked like a bat garge.

[Mikman]

Do you mean bat garage? Whatever it was, it was stupid.

Why did everyone in that movie make such a big deal about Rachel Dawes. She was not very good-looking at all.

I think that the most probable villain in the next film will be the Riddler. Nolan said he wanted to use more realistic villains, so he probably won't use Man-Bat, Killer Croc or Bane anytime soon.

[zarny]

LOL, I spelled garage the wrong way.

[laserboy1134]

I agree.

I hope that the next Batman film is not as horrible as The Dark Knight. Who do you think the villain will be?

Dark knight wasn't horrible. In fact, it was good, but it had flaws that nobody mentioned. I hope the next villain is the Riddler, they could make a good serial killer character based off of him.

[jim5cents]

oh yeah...the dark knight was sooooooooooo horrible...that is why is 4th highest grossing film ever and the 4th to earn over 1 billion dollars. :rolleyes:

because it is so awful, that is why people went and saw it over and over again.

awards this, awards that, the people spoke, they loved the movie.

Who do you think the villain will be?

the penguin

[Mugen159]

Maggie is pretty awful looking. Sorry.
But I guess it's what's on the inside that counts. :)

After that killer Joker, the Riddler just seems boring to me. Again, if they woulda just waited, Two-Face could've been a killer bad guy if he was given the spotlight in his own movie. This is far fetched, but maybe the Phantasm would be cool? I'd love to see a sexy Harley Quinn too, but she wouldn't do much good without the Joker. And I've been wondering if we'll see a Robin anytime soon? :P

[Mikman]

I hope that Robin, Batgirl or any other sidekick does not appear in this series. I hope that the next movie isn't as atrocious as The Dark Knight. Also, I hope that they don't use villains like the Mad Hatter or that Roman guy. Man-Bat would be good to see.

[justinm26]

The Dark Knight is the best Batman movie to date. People that didn't like it well too bad for you, but Christopher Nolan was doing kind of a re-imagining of Batman. Personally I think the path he took the franchise in was awesome. It's dark and gritty and Heath Ledger did a fantastic job portraying the character the way he did. It's a damn shame he died tho cause I would have loved to see him do more villain parts.

[Dudebro]

I hope that the next movie isn't as atrocious as The Dark Knight.

You really think it was that bad? If so you might as well avoid the next movie and any others after that.

[TrakMastaTom]

You really think it was that bad? If so you might as well avoid the next movie and any others after that.

Or you might want to just stop watching movies. :cute:

[asher]

I hope that Robin, Batgirl or any other sidekick does not appear in this series. I hope that the next movie isn't as atrocious as The Dark Knight. Also, I hope that they don't use villains like the Mad Hatter or that Roman guy. Man-Bat would be good to see.

I think atrocious is going a bit to far, ok so the movie was bad (horrible is pushing it). You go to far.

[Dudebro]

I think saying it was bad is going too far. It's one of the most successful Batman movies to date and it spawned tons of new fans. It's a hell of a lot better than the George Clooney versions.:sick:

[OldTimer]

For my 2 cents...

I agree that it was a great film and successful but they toned down the violence so much to give it a pg-13 rating so it would be more commercially acceptable. I disagree with that because some of the shots you didn't see what was happening. ie guns fired in one scene then a dude bent over in the next. No exploding blood dye packets nothing. Even the scene when joker puts the pencil in the dude happened too quick. (also check out all the pencil holes in the table because how many times they tried that scene).

I wasn't expecting a film like pulp fiction but even with their rating it was a success. I just felt let down from some of the graphic novels i have read and just wished they would put an r rating so they would have some freedom to stay true to some of the dark knight stories.

just to stir the pot...

[Dudebro]

I agree. I hate when they make movies and worry about the younger audience. I don't think you should sacrifice artistic vision for money but that's my opinion.

[asher]

The movie cotradicted itself so many times, for instance: The Joker says a solution for the mobsters promblems is to kill the Batman, yet in the interrogation scene the Joker says he can't kill the batman becauce "he(Batman) completes him(Joker)". What is that?? Also the Joker says he wants money from the mobsters. Then he goes and burs it!! The joker was an idiot!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[JKool]

I agree with you dudebro. It could have been more violent.
Half the time batman was riding his batcylce and the joker was talking and waving his gun.
This movie disapointed me!

[Mikman]

It seems that there are some people here don't think The Dark Knight is good just because they're told to think.

Nicholson's Joker would beat Ledger's Joker.

[zarny]

[QUOTE=Mugen159;63508]Maggie is pretty awful looking. Sorry.
But I guess it's what's on the inside that counts. :)

I'd rather look at her on the outside then the inside becuase the inside has lots of blood and guts and other icky things! :sick:

[Mikman]

I know it's what's on the inside that counts. However, everyone said that she was really beautiful, when she was anything but.

[Dudebro]

The movie cotradicted itself so many times, for instance: The Joker says a solution for the mobsters promblems is to kill the Batman, yet in the interrogation scene the Joker says he can't kill the batman becauce "he(Batman) completes him(Joker)". What is that?? Also the Joker says he wants money from the mobsters. Then he goes and burs it!! The joker was an idiot!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You missed the part where Joker admits to being an instrument of chaos? He does things to disrupt the established order. That was the whole point of his character. The scene in the hospital with Two Face explains all that.

Nicholson's Joker would beat Ledger's Joker
I hear people say this all the time but I don't get why they think it. Ledgers Joker was insane and dangerous. Nicholsons Joker was campy and kinda stupid.

[asher]

But the joker was not supposed to be all out ther he was smart and methodical. Ledger's Joker was an idiot.

[Slime Slayer]

nicholson for me, however ledgers performance was closer to frank miller dark knights

[zarny]

It seems that there are some people here don't think The Dark Knight is good just because they're told to think.

Nicholson's Joker would beat Ledger's Joker.

Nicholson's Joker could eat Ledger"s Joker alive!>:D

[Winnebagel]

I'm in the same camp as far as Ledger. He was kind of a dumb thug without any real plan. Also, his impersonation of Brandon Lee's Crow kind of got old for me after awhile. His contant nervous tics of licking his own lips, just made me want to scream, "Get a Chapstick!" at the screen.

What defined the Joker in the comics (and the original movie) was that he was very intelligent and wanted to cause harm on a massive scale, but he cared so little about humanity he wanted to do something with a joke theme.

I liked Nicholson's portrayal because I think he brought the insanity of the Joker to the role. Case in point, the board room scene in the movie where he kills the dude with the joy buzzer all while having no regard whatsoever. That's classic Joker IMHO.

To me, Ledger's Joker was more or less just an angry dude with daddy issues. The chaos thing really wasn't a true Joker thing, but was more of a Bane thing.

I liked TDK okay overall (and on Blu Ray it looks really sweet!), but I liked the story of Batman Begins better. However, my favorites are still Batman and Batman Returns. I love Burton's dark gothic style in those.

[Mikman]

I agree with you, Winnebagel. Batman Begins has a better origin story. I hope that Batman 3 has a good story.

The Dark Knight is lame!!!!

[Dudebro]

If Ledger had tried to imitate Nicholsons joker people wouldn't be happy either. Just accept that this was a different version of the same character.

Also I disagree about Ledgers joker being dumb, he was just playing dumb. He's a complex character I guess some of you missed that.

[Mikman]

All I missed was the point of his existance. He had no purpose. What was he trying to accomplish?

[DrunkN]

All I missed was the point of his existance. He had no purpose. What was he trying to accomplish?
He didn't have a point, no real purpose, all he wanted was to see Gotham go down in flames.

[Mikman]

But that's not the Joker. The Joker wanted to be a leader, not an "agent of chaos." Ledger's character had nothing to do with the real Joker.

[DrunkN]

But that's not the Joker. The Joker wanted to be a leader, not an "agent of chaos." Ledger's character had nothing to do with the real Joker.
He wasn't trying to be a clone of the comic book and the tv show, I think that the director was going for a more "today" approach, more like a clever mad man than an evil genious.

[Mikman]

He wasn't clever. He was just a mad man. I didn't want to see a clone of the comics and the tv show; I just wanted to see a villain who was a true threat to the Batman. This "Joker" was not. He was competely purposeless.

[DrunkN]

He wasn't clever. He was just a mad man. I didn't want to see a clone of the comics and the tv show; I just wanted to see a villain who was a true threat to the Batman. This "Joker" was not. He was competely purposeless.
If you didn't like Ledger that's fine, but I think the other actors were pretty good.

[Winnebagel]

I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this one.

I didn't want him to try to emulate Nicholson, but I also didn't want him to try to exactly copy Brandon Lee's Crow either. IMHO, I just think it was wasted potential because Joker is a great and incredibly intelligent crazy in the comics, so to see Ledger playing him as essentially a dumb loser just got to me. I'm just not sure what was supposed to be Jokerish about his portrayal.

[Dudebro]

Have you guys heard the expression "as dumb as a fox"? That's how I saw the new joker. There is no reason to believe he was stupid or a thug. He was very clever and insane, sounds like the joker to me.

Btw I did like Nicholsons joker a lot but I think it loses points because it was too campy and corny. The new joker was more gritty and real. Too each his own but you guys really can't say his performance was terrible, it wasn't. He did an awesome job and I think he deserves more credit then people here are giving him.

[justinm26]

i have to agree. look at some movies ledger has done before if you want to doubt his performance. i think those of you that didn't like his performance are really too unintelligent to rate any actor(actresses) performance in any movie. ledger was one of the rare brilliant actors that unfortunately got caught up in hollywood bs and died way before his time. it's a shame really.

[Dudebro]

I think unintelligent is going a little overboard. Everyone has different tastes.

[Winnebagel]

I never said that Ledger was unintelligent. I think he was a fantastic actor. I just don't think the Joker character in TDK was the Joker from the comics (to me).

I still like TDK, and I put it as my fourth favorite in the Batman films (behind Batman, Batman Begins, and Batman Returns).

Definitely to each their own.

[Mikman]

I think that Ledger's performance deserves less credit thatn the critics have given him. I was very disappointed in the review of The Dark Knight in the newspaper and on the television. It seems that the corporate media is too biased and not willing to differ.

[Dudebro]

Well yeah TV and newspaper aren't known for being open and honest, there's money to be made!

[Mikman]

The media need to change. They are too old-fashioned.

[Billy Hoyle]

Maggie Gyllenhaal was trifling in this movie.

[Ryu2Cammy]

I agree.

I hope that the next Batman film is not as horrible as The Dark Knight. Who do you think the villain will be?
I didnt think it was that bad and maybe bane and poison ivy or mr. Freeze? I wouldnt mind seeing that. But something tells me that their gonna go with cat woman and the penguin or the riddler.

[Dudebro]

Pretty sure the director of The Dark Knight said he wants to stay away from the more fantasy characters, like Mr Freeze. He wants to stay with reality more. I wouldn't be surprised to see Catwoman or Penguin next.

[Ryu2Cammy]

Pretty sure the director of The Dark Knight said he wants to stay away from the more fantasy characters, like Mr Freeze. He wants to stay with reality more. I wouldn't be surprised to see Catwoman or Penguin next.

Yeah but that would only limit the movies. batman only has but so many villians to go at that would fit the bill of a real character.

[Dudebro]

Well I'm sure he'd eventually use more fantasy characters but he'll probably make them more realistic.

[JKool]

I hopes it's Catwoman or the puppet guy.

[zarny]

I hopes it's Catwoman or the puppet guy.

Why?

[Mikman]

Why would anyone want to use the Ventriloquist? He is irritating.

I believe that the Penguin or the Catwoman would not be in any movies anytime soon because they were are done well. The Riddler was not so well done, so he's more of a logical choice. They tried to redo the Joker and Two-Face, and look how bad that was.

[JKool]

Because I like those villians.

[Mikman]

I do too, but they were already done.

[Ryu2Cammy]

What about the mad hatter? would that be a good pick?

[Winnebagel]

I think the Mad Hatter could be interesting, but they would have to be careful to avoid similarities to the psychological aspects of the Scarecrow.

[DrunkN]

They tried to redo the Joker and Two-Face, and look how bad that was.
I think 1 billion dollars would disagree.

I'm hoping for Mr. Freeze, actually. Schwarzenegger wasn't that great but if they stay the hell away from anything like this
http://thecarter.files.wordpress.com/2008/04/freeze.jpg
And stick with something a little more like this
http://adrianjames.files.wordpress.com/2008/08/mrfreeze01.jpg
It could be done well.

[Dudebro]

I believe that the Penguin or the Catwoman would not be in any movies anytime soon because they were are done well.
Yeah that makes sense. Well it does if you think Jack Nicholsons joker wasn't done well.


The Riddler was not so well done, so he's more of a logical choice.

Again we disagree, I think Jim Carrey was born to play that role. Maybe if they gave him a second chance with a better director and a much less campy theme it would work.


They tried to redo the Joker and Two-Face, and look how bad that was.

Look, as much as you like to claim Joker was done poorly you're just plain wrong. I admit he got some hype from Ledgers death but that didn't make millions of people ignore his acting and everything else involved in the movie. If it really was bad then people wouldn't be so obsessed with the character.

Btw I have a few friends who are die hard comic book fans that loved the new joker. They understand the direction of the film and it didn't bother them if he wasn't 100% the same as the comics(really, was Nicholsons either?).
Btw since when are comic book characters so set in stone? Out of all media comic books alter storylines the most. I can't keep track of how many different storylines they diverge into.

I do agree that Two Face sucked. The look wasn't bad but I think they butchered the character.


Btw I read some rumors about the next batman movie. I heard they were considering Johnny Depp as the riddler(might be ok but I think his fame would hurt the character since he's so well known by pretty much everyone on earth as Cpt Jack). They also said they were thinking of Cher as an aging Catwoman and Phillip Symor Hoffman as Penguin. None of those worry me, all could be good.

[Winnebagel]

Btw I have a few friends who are die hard comic book fans that loved the new joker. They understand the direction of the film and it didn't bother them if he wasn't 100% the same as the comics(really, was Nicholsons either?).
Btw since when are comic book characters so set in stone? Out of all media comic books alter storylines the most. I can't keep track of how many different storylines they diverge into.

That's a fair point DB. The characters have changed over the years to represent and reflect the era they were written in. As horrifically awful as Batman & Robin was, it could be argued that they did represent much of the 50's/60's era Batman comics. That doesn't mean I like it, but I suppose it couldn't be considered nothing like the comic either.

I do agree that Two Face sucked. The look wasn't bad but I think they butchered the character.

I didn't mind the acting job Aaron Eckhart did. I actually think he was more Two Face than Ledger was Joker, but that's IMHO of course. The main issue I had was his character was underutilized. If they had kept him around for a sequel maybe they could have done more with the character.

Btw I read some rumors about the next batman movie. I heard they were considering Johnny Depp as the riddler(might be ok but I think his fame would hurt the character since he's so well known by pretty much everyone on earth as Cpt Jack). They also said they were thinking of Cher as an aging Catwoman and Phillip Symor Hoffman as Penguin. None of those worry me, all could be good.

If that's true, the only one I would have a problem with would be Cher. I just can't see her in the Catwoman role somehow.

[DrunkN]

All this talk about changing the villains to a more modern style makes me wonder how/if they will throw Robin in there.

[Winnebagel]

All this talk about changing the villains to a more modern style makes me wonder how/if they will throw Robin in there.

In a way, I hope they don't. I always preferred Batman as the solo avenger to Batman plus an adolescent child in a Peter Pan costume.

I don't mind seeing him team up with someone from time to time, but not all the time.

[Dudebro]

I didn't mind the acting job Aaron Eckhart did. I actually think he was more Two Face than Ledger was Joker, but that's IMHO of course. The main issue I had was his character was underutilized. If they had kept him around for a sequel maybe they could have done more with the character.

That's what I meant, they blew the character by tacking him onto this movie. He was rushed and ruined.

I heard they don't wanna include robin, something about ruining the seriousness of the movies.

[Winnebagel]

That's what I meant, they blew the character by tacking him onto this movie. He was rushed and ruined.

I heard they don't wanna include robin, something about ruining the seriousness of the movies.

I agree with that for sure. Although I still like the movie, some of the downer in TDK for me is it seemed like they tried to do too much in one movie. I had the same feeling in Spider-Man 3. It just seemed like too many villians and too much happening to be a cohesive story.

I hope that's true about Robin. I think he does have a tendency to take away from the story. Although, I must admit it might be interesting to see a story deal with the whole Nightwing storyline.

[DrunkN]

I heard they don't wanna include robin, something about ruining the seriousness of the movies.
If they can darken the clown, they can darken the boy wonder. Hell, they might have changed Robin so he murders his criminals until the direct meeting of batman who would probably change him, in order to turn the normally expected direction of his character. It all depends on how old he is, which Robin they use, and how much they change him.

[Dudebro]

I think anyway you slice it robin is a bad thing for batman.

[DrunkN]

I think anyway you slice it robin is a bad thing for batman.
It's bad for the new bat man, but that is because it is targeted for older audiences.

The little guys like Robin, obviously that's why he's generally more successful in a cartoon though, so it is also very reasonable to leave him out of a live acted series, but I would just be interested on how he could be twisted.

[Dudebro]

I think making robin anything dark or twisted would make him a different character. Imo he's supposed to balance out the darkness of batman.

[DrunkN]

I think making robin anything dark or twisted would make him a different character. Imo he's supposed to balance out the darkness of batman.
And darkening the Joker did not practically make him a different person?

But maybe I'm just arguing over the stuff in the toilet. We just might not see it, and if we do, it is what it is.

[Dudebro]

Are you saying the joker is comparable to robin in the comics? I think a murdering psychopath is pretty dark and twisted.

[Mikman]

I hope that the Batman does not acquire any sidekicks. They are very irritating. I still disagree about the Joker.

[jim5cents]

sorry for the bump

Ledger's Joker was an idiot.

why? cause he burns some money?

lets see, he plans multiple robberies and manages to manipulate every member of his crew to kill each other so he gets all of the profits.

he manipulates that mob to give him all of their money.

he manipulates to police to get him access to the chinese dude so he can spring him from jail

he manipulates harvey dent into going insane.

oh yeah...that is the mark of a real idiot.

nicholson does what? shocks a guy with a handbuzzer, paints green hair on works of art, and dances to prince songs. :talktohand:

[OldTimer]

@ jim

+1 rep

'Bout time someone set the record straight.

[Smittycal]

+1 as well

Heaths joker is the closets thing to the dark Joker in the comics.

Joker is at his best when he is pulling strings and killing people and Heath did a great job of putting that on screen.

[Mikman]

But he killed everyone for no reason. This thing about him being an "agent of chaos" has no relation to the comics. Nicholson's character was a heartless killer who aimed to take control of the mafia. He had a point. All Ledger's character did was blow people up to prove some pointless philosophy. He said he had no plan but you have proven that he did. He said he could turn anyone into a monster, but only Harvey Dent turned to the "dark side," and he was already unbalanced. The Joker just disfigured him. And why did Harvey Dent beat up others the the coin proclaimed to be innocent yet not the Joker?

[Smittycal]

Well when it comes to Harvey he just made the best out of a bad situation. He knew Harvey was weak but he didnt go over board until Racheal died. He just new that he could get to him and thats what he did.

His point was that not only could you get someone to do something totaly out of character...but that in the right scenario and situations people would go out of there way to make things happen.

Thats why he picked a hospital to blow up. He knew that the average joe would kill a stranger to try to save a loved one in the hospital.

He tried to blow up the prison fairy and other fairy to prove that people valued there own lives Vs the lives of criminals

He burned all of the money in front of the mob guy to show that not everything was about money all the time. Sometimes just the thrill of doing something was enough. And he showed that loyalty can be bought with even half of what he had (the current boss was probably paying them less then what he offerd)

I just liked the way this Joker operated and thought Vs the joker Nicholson played in the 1st movie

[Mikman]

Why did he want the money if he was going to burn it?

In real life, the mobsters would have killed him as soon as he asked for half of the money.

When I watched The Dark Knight, I was expecting to see the Joker. I was ready to accept a more violent, sadistic version. What I saw was some lunatic parading around a worthless philosophy. The only action scenes were a few overdrawn chase scenes and a few explosions. There was little fighting, and most of it was was so dark I couldn't see it. I hated it!!!!!!

The ending was the greatest offense. The Joker's ultimate plan was to blow up two boats. Al Qaeda could do better,and it did (not that that was a good thing). Why did the Batman let the Joker live if he let Ra's Al-Ghul and Two-Face die? Why couldn't he simply climb up behind Two-Face? Why did he take the blamefor the killings? I know Harvey turned to the dark side, but the Batman remained a hero. Even the convicts on the boat didn't fall. Shouldn't that count for something in their idiotic philosophy?

The Batman had throat cancer.

[DrunkN]

He had a point.
How did Heath's joker not have a point? He essentially saw the world as a set of dominoes and wanted to topple them over. His point was to destroy everything he could for his own amusement, he mostly tries to accomplish this by making the Gotham police force look powerless, making the citizens question if the police are even capable of stopping him, which would cause panic and soon enough, anarchy. The interesting thing about this is that during the movie the Joker convinces people that he just goes with the flow and that he's just an agent of chaos, but this is mainly just to increase his reputation as a less dangerous and scheme-less menace who is not very capable of very much, which of course is a ruse as he shows during the film he is quite good at planning ahead.

The way this differs from the comic Joker, is that the Joker in the comics is someone who wants power, he wants to look down upon the world with his money and laugh at the people who fear him.

Jack Nicholson's Joker is different as well; This Joker is out mostly for revenge, but he is closer to the comic book Joker in the fact that he also wants power, respect from his followers, and fear from his opponents.

I know I didn't make a lot of points on the other Jokers, but I mainly just wanted to give my view on Heath's Joker role. And no, I don't praise Heath, so I don't really care a lot that he died(though I do think it's a bummer, I liked his role as a dark individual but thought it might be better for another movie).

[Mikman]

I'm rather indifferent to his death as well (not that I mean any disrespect). However, I think that the only reason that he won the award posthumously is that he died. His acting was not oscar worthy.

My problem with Ledger's version is that it just isn't the Joker. I have nothing against change, as long as it applies. However, when I watched Ledger, I didn't feel like I was watching the Joker. He never made any jokes or used anything particular to the Joker's character. I hate gimmicks like razor-sharp playing cards or exploding chickens, but this guy was nothing like the Joker. He was just a lunatic who chewed food that wasn't there.

The movie was boring, anyway. The action was terrible.

[DrunkN]

He never made any jokes or used anything particular to the Joker's character. I hate gimmicks like razor-sharp playing cards or exploding chickens, but this guy was nothing like the Joker. He was just a lunatic who chewed food that wasn't there.
I understand you like the original Joker, but do you really think it would have been easy to make the Joker this way in the movie and still keep it as dark as the producer wanted?

[Mikman]

Yes, I do. They could have made it "funny" and dark. The original Joker was "funny" and dark, more so than Ledger's character, and he wasn't some stupid "agent of chaos."

[jim5cents]

The original Joker was "funny" and dark

that statement is entirely inaccurate. the caesar romano joker (from the tv series) was funny. the joker's original appearances in the comics have him portraited as a homicidal maniac whose crimes are illogical, whimsical, and brutal. batman said something along the lines in batman #1, that the joker's logic makes sense to him alone.

the joker stayed dark and murderous throughout the 1940's. it wasn't until the 50's that he turned into a funny practical joker.

[the_riesen]

well Marvel ain't gonna make movies like this ever cuz disney bought them. And disney don't make rated R movies.....

DC movies are sweet. Batman's villians are usually always cooler and more powerful than him(IMO), that's what makes the batman interesting. The Dark Knight was really good, and for those who didn't like it i'm sure it will grow on them someday.

[Dudebro]

well Marvel ain't gonna make movies like this ever cuz disney bought them. And disney don't make rated R movies
According to the people at Disney and Marvel there's no plans to alter either brands, it's more about Disney making more money. Btw they also own stuff like ABC and ESPN, they are huge like that.

In announcing its plans, Disney stated that current management at Marvel would remain in place to oversee its operations.Further, Disney planned to emphasize the Marvel brand instead of changing it to fit the current Disney brand.
I was worried at first but I can see it being ok, maybe even helping Marvel.

[Slime Slayer]

I was worried at first but I can see it being ok, maybe even helping Marvel.
same here, im a little more optimistic to situation than i was at first.

[DrunkN]

well Marvel ain't gonna make movies like this ever cuz disney bought them. And disney don't make rated R movies.....
Since when did Marvel make R rated movies in the first place?

[Dudebro]

Punisher is R rated but yeah they usually don't do R rated movies.

Let's not go too offtopic about Marvel though since this is about The Dark Knight. There is a topic about the disney vs marvel thing if you guys wanna continue it there.
http://retrouprising.com/other/debate/disney-buys-marvel-4-billion/t7928/

[the_riesen]

The Dark Knight is how an R rated superhero movie is saposed to be. A Deadpool movie would almost have to be rated R to be accurate at all lol.

tDK should be used as an example for the future of superhero movies.It shows how to do them dark and very good.

[Dudebro]

The Dark Knight is how an R rated superhero movie is saposed to be.It is PG-13 but I get what you mean. I hate when potentially good movies water things down to appeal to all ages.



Something I noticed while double checking the rating on wiki. Btw I realized after that I could just check the DVD in the same room as me:doh:
The members of Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic thought highly of the movie. This includes many notable critics-
Based on 263 reviews collected by Rotten Tomatoes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotten_Tomatoes), the film has an overall approval rating from critics of 94%, with an average (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weighted_mean) score of 8.5/10.[147] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Dark_Knight_%28film%29#cite_note-rt-146) Among Rotten Tomatoes' Cream of the Crop, which consists of popular and notable critics from the top newspapers, websites, television, and radio programs,[148] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Dark_Knight_%28film%29#cite_note-147) the film holds an overall approval rating of 90%.[149] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Dark_Knight_%28film%29#cite_note-148) By comparison, Metacritic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metacritic), which assigns a normalized (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normalization_%28statistics%29) rating out of 100 top reviews from mainstream critics, calculated an average score of 82, based on 39 reviews.[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Dark_Knight_%28film%29#cite_note-meta-3) CinemaScore (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CinemaScore) polls reported that the average grade cinemagoers gave the film was "A" on an A+ to F scale, and that audiences skewed slightly male and older.

Also-
Roger Ebert (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Ebert) of the Chicago Sun-Times (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_Sun-Times) describes The Dark Knight as a "haunted film that leaps beyond its origins and becomes an engrossing tragedy." He praises the performances, direction, and writing, and says the film "redefine[s] the possibilities of the comic-book movie".[152] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Dark_Knight_%28film%29#cite_note-ebert-151) He named it one of his twenty favorite films of 2008
Now I realize these are all just opinions but I think they add some credibility to the idea of The Dark Knight being awesome.

[Mikman]

When I said "funny," I didn't mean that he made me laugh. I meant that he thought what he did was funny. He wasn't some "agent of chaos." Do you see that I use "QUOTATION MARKS??!!!"

The Dark Knight is how not to make a movie. It had no plot whatsoever. To sum it all up,it was just explosions, chase scenes, bad lighting, overdrawn philosophical discussions and three main guys, one with throat cancer, one who smacked all the time, and one who was just killed off.

These old-fashioned "critics" simply gave it a good review because they were told to think that because of all the great expectations, and because Ledger died.:bad::teeth::pissed-off::at-wits-end:

[jim5cents]

what do quotation marks have to do with with anything. if anything, you are specifying that the joker is "funny" haha.

lets see, i know what the plot was, it was fairly easy to follow. i can only recall 2 fireball explosions in the entire movie, 1 chase scene, lighting? well, the majority of the movie is supposed to be at night, so deal with it. do you suppose that the critics (bear in mind, these are professionals that who watch and review hundreds of films per year) gave it good review because a. they thought it was a good movie, or b. they were worried about public perseption of giving a bad review to a movie because the star had died?

i will give you an example of why the "b" idea is bs. pop singer, aaliyah, died during the filming of her movie, queen of the damned. did the critics sing praise on that movie, simply because she died? nope, the movie sucked and they call it right.

brandon lee was killed during the filming of the crow. the movie was given great reviews. why? cause it was a great movie. it too was a movie that was dark, involved characters that talked like they had throat cancer, and face paint. the movie was great and the critics called it right...just like the dark knight.

[Mikman]

I still don't see how anyone can like The Dark Knight. It was either boring or irritating. It came far below my expectations. There was just too much that didn't need to be there.

Heath Ledger's acting was not worthy of an Oscar. He didn't do anyhting that was outstanding. I'm glad that The Dark Knight wasn't nominated for the best film. That shows the people who give the Oscars have at least a little sense (though not much).

[the_riesen]

I still don't see how anyone can like The Dark Knight. It was either boring or irritating. It came far below my expectations. There was just too much that didn't need to be there.



Dude, (no offense to anyone cuz i love you but...) Most of the people here are pretty nerdy...including myself lol. Nerds are a different breed, we love stuff like this, even if it makes no sense to you lol:kiss:

[Dudebro]

These old-fashioned "critics" simply gave it a good review because they were told to think that because of all the great expectations, and because Ledger diedOk so you're just a nutjob about this then huh? It's some big bad conspiracy because almost everyone in the world disagrees with you? Sure, whatever you say.

Honestly I can't see any reason to keep discussing this with you.

Btw, Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic are USER SUBMITTED reviews. I know you think anyone who likes this movie is a moron but you can't deny it's mass appeal. Well, maybe you can but you'd be wrong.


Btw do you think The Dark Knight is worse than Batman and Robin?

[Mikman]

It's not a conspiracy against me. I'm just one person and I don't matter.

Batman and Robin was worse than The Dark Knight in terms of filmmaking but it was not overrated. Plus, the lighting was better.

I don't think that anyone who likes The Dark Knight is a moron. I simply think that everyone is just caught up on all the hype.

[Dudebro]

I simply think that everyone is just caught up on all the hype.
Well you're wrong and I find it insulting that you think I'm so easily taken in by hype.

[presidentjlh]

I read all the reviews of The Dark Knight and how it was so great. When I finally watched the movie I was disappointed.
Dudebro edit- Spoilers from this point on.

First, the plot was lame. The movie just kept jumping from place to place. first it was get the mobster , then the Joker , then Two-Face. It didn't flow properly. So many things were just shoved in there.

Second, the main characters were irritating. Batman had an annoying voice and you couldn't tell what he wanted. Did he want to be Batman, did he want tro quit, or was he afraid he had to quit. The Joker was the most annoying. he didn't seem to have a point, he was always smacking and repeating himself, and he was always contradicting himself. Two-face had very little backstory, and he was only there for
the last 30 minutes.

Third, there was so little action for a two and half hour movie. Most of the fight scenes were so short and there wasn't many of them. The fight between Batman and the Joker was only two minutes long. The chase was the only good bit of action there was. Batman also didn't use many of his bat-gadgets.

Finally, the end was so lame. Batman could have stopped Two-face without killing him. He could have used a batarang or stuned him.

These are my reasons and I wanted to see if anyone agrees.

There's a lot of symbolism to what happened in the movie. Just because the characters didn't do what seemed logical doesn't mean the movie is bad, it means you have to look deeper into it than surface level.

[Dudebro]

Thanks for the input and welcome to the forum.

[the_riesen]

i heard the three-quel will have justice league references

[TrakMastaTom]

Batman and Robin was worse than The Dark Knight in terms of filmmaking but it was not overrated. Plus, the lighting was better.


Not liking a movie because it is overrated is you letting your opinion be altered by other people's. Why should what other people think affect what you think?

[Mikman]

If people are annoyed with me, I will leave this discussion.

[Dudebro]

People are annoyed with your posts, not you.

[Kong]

I think it is that this topic has gone on for too long. Mostly it is everyone vs you and both sides have already said everything there is to say and now it is on a loop repeating itself.

[mario90s]

that statement is entirely inaccurate. the caesar romano joker (from the tv series) was funny. the joker's original appearances in the comics have him portraited as a homicidal maniac whose crimes are illogical, whimsical, and brutal. batman said something along the lines in batman #1, that the joker's logic makes sense to him alone.

the joker stayed dark and murderous throughout the 1940's. it wasn't until the 50's that he turned into a funny practical joker.
He was talking about Jack Nicholson not Caesar Romano!!!!!!:curse: sorrry, for ovvereacting,:(

[Dudebro]

He was talking about Jack Nicholson not Caesar Romano!!!!!!:curse: sorrry, for ovvereacting,:(
Well if he meant Nicholson he shouldn't say "original" when speaking about his character since he wasn't the first.

[Dudebro]

Bumping this to discuss the most recent Batman movie.

I gotta say I was let down. I'm not 100% sure what it was that let me down but I think it's a combination of Hathaway as Catwoman and how they dealt with Bane at the end. Without going into spoilers I thought Hathaway was just all wrong for the role. She's cute, sure, but that's not what Catwoman is supposed to be. I think of Catwoman as dangerous and lusty, Hathaway just can't pull that off.
http://www.retrouprising.com/img/2012_07/1127.jpg
I saw none of this in the movie.

Anyone else see it yet?

[CrispyChicken]

I haven't seen it yet, but Hathaway as Catwoman I never really liked from the beginning.

[Dudebro]

Well you should still try to keep and open mind about it, lots of other people seemed to like her in the role. I could just be spoiled by the way Michelle Pfeiffer portrayed the character-
http://www.retrouprising.com/img/2012_07/1128.jpg
Hard to top that.

[DrunkN]

I liked the new catwoman.

I think that this movie was doomed to be overshadowed by the one before it, but I thought it was good. It was very much a different kind of movie, and it can be harder to warm up to, but at the least I thought it was very stylish.

Only click if you have seen the movie:
I started to cry during the scene where Alfred was leaving Bruce. Kind of strange, but I guess Alfred always struck me as a very real kind of person and I was saddened to see him force himself to detach from what he held so close for so long while he still could.

[Dudebro]

What did you like about her? Besides not being a great pick for the role I thought they didn't spend nearly enough time fleshing out her character.

The whole thing with Alfred was sad, for sure. I thought the scene at the end with him crying and talking about failing was much more sad though. Thankfully they showed him realizing he didn't fail, although the delivery was just a tad corny.

So what did you think about the "death" of Bane? Personally I think it was pathetic, easily the worst part of the movie. The character is awesome, I loved his voice, but they just throw him away with an unbelievable scene. Did he not hear the batbike roll up in that empty quiet room? Terrible.

Then Talia dying was like a B movie, I even heard people laugh in the theater I was in. Not as lame as Banes death but close.

[Winnebagel]

Okay, DB, you know I'm not much of a Nolan fan, but I thought TDKR hit a new low. Just terrible overall, and the characters were all wrong.

I agree about the way they handled Bane. Talk about anti-climactic!

I am just really glad that the series will be rebooted after this movie. I can't wait for a hopefully more faithful translation of the series. I would love to see DC get someone from TAS to input on how to make a really good Batman movie. I was underwhelmed by TDKR.

[Dudebro]

One good point about the movie WB
At least Bane was portrayed as highly intelligent and could best Batman in a fight. Compared to the other movie adaptation of Bane this was great.

[Winnebagel]

One good point about the movie WB
At least Bane was portrayed as highly intelligent and could best Batman in a fight. Compared to the other movie adaptation of Bane this was great.

I agree. I didn't like the changes to Bane's character, but I will definitely give you that. He was at least somewhat imposing.

[SMASH]

I like the trilogy. I will buy it when it comes out on blue ray. They were some good action movies. I don't compare them to the comic story because how can you compress thousands of comic book lore in just a few hours of time.

[CrispyChicken]

@WB- It is an adaption after all. Nolan tried something outside from the usual Batman. I personally think it worked for the first two movies. Batman does not always have to be the same. Imo, a change is nice every once in a while.

[DrunkN]

So what did you think about the "death" of Bane? Personally I think it was pathetic, easily the worst part of the movie. The character is awesome, I loved his voice, but they just throw him away with an unbelievable scene. Did he not hear the batbike roll up in that empty quiet room? Terrible.

I've had the same problem with pretty much every villain in comic book adaptations that doesn't end up dead. I'm almost never satisfied, and I didn't find this to differ much from the fate of the scarecrow in all three movies so far.

I guess one particular reason I liked catwoman in this movie was the fact she, nor anyone else, ever used the word "catwoman". If anything she was a rather underplayed, non (relatively) dramatic character that took up no more space than she should have, and that was good, because I loved everyone else. (I wasn't a fan of the female villain, though she had to compete with bane so she was rather doomed)

[joz]

I really enjoyed the second one. That one is the best out of the three for me. DKR was certainly lacking something for me. It was, meh, at best and my wife thought the same. We were both disappointed.

[bearhawk72]

They should consult Rocksteady about writing a script for the reboot. From playing their games they really understand the Batman universe.

[Winnebagel]

@WB- It is an adaption after all. Nolan tried something outside from the usual Batman. I personally think it worked for the first two movies. Batman does not always have to be the same. Imo, a change is nice every once in a while.

It's true Crispy. To each their own. I'm just not a fan of his take on Batman. I really enjoyed Tim Burton's very dark take, but Nolan's just left me cold overall. Glad alot of people liked it, though.

I still think the truest filmed representation we have seen is the animated series. For that matter, I think Batman Mask of Phantasm is about the best Batman movie out there. I'm hoping that we will see a live action Batman film series made by people who love the original character of Batman.