Batman Discussion 967
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.
One Word (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I second that.
Best "Knight" movie Heath Ledger was in! He really did the Joker perfect.
Re:One Word (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:One Word (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Three Words (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Three Words (Score:5, Funny)
Disappearing Pencil Trick!
Bearing this in mind, I don't think I ever want to see the Joker play "hide the salami" with Harley Quinn.
Re:Three Words (Score:5, Funny)
Let me get this straight. You think your client, one of the richest men in the world, is a vigilante who likes to dress up as a bat and beat criminals to a bloody pulp with this bare hands. And your answer to this is to try and blackmail him?
Re:Three Words (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, if I remember it right, Lucius totally effed up. The accountant only said that he knew that Wayne Enterprises had created the Batmobile; he hadn't necessarily concluded that Wayne was Batman! Obviously the script doesn't realize this. Or maybe I heard it wrong.
Re:Three Words (Score:4, Funny)
Re:any chance of an unrated dvd release ? (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Re:One Word (Score:4, Funny)
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.
Re:One Word (Score:4, Funny)
Can Oscar's be given posthumously? (Score:5, Insightful)
Because Heath Ledger deserves one.
End of story.
Re:Can Oscar's be given posthumously? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Can Oscar's be given posthumously? (Score:4, Interesting)
Yes, they can.
Peter Finch [wikipedia.org] (who won Australia's first Acting Oscar?) has got the only posthumous Oscar for Acting (there are others in other categories).
Sadly, another Australian may get one this way..
--Q
Re:Can Oscar's be given posthumously? (Score:5, Interesting)
Because Heath Ledger deserves one.
This is not a troll, but a legitimate question. I have only seen the trailers of the new Batman movie. I have read in a lot of places that the joker character is is very good.
However, from what I have seen on the trailer, the joker does not seems crazy like the one impersonated by Jack Nickolson. Thus my question to the people that have seen the movie would be, Is the Joker character by Ledger better than the one by Nickolson?
And to the compic purists (I am not one of them...) which of the two characterisations is closer to the one in the comics?
Re:Can Oscar's be given posthumously? (Score:5, Interesting)
Yes, without question. Ledger's Joker actually acts legitimately crazy, complete with the tongue thing. You can tell that he is rational in his own mind, and not trying to be funny, as Nickilson's Joker tried to be.
You really have to see it to understand what I mean. It really is the best villain I've seen.
Re:Can Oscar's be given posthumously? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Can Oscar's be given posthumously? (Score:5, Interesting)
Ledger's Joker seems to have been based on Mark Hammill's Joker in the edgier of the animated episodes/movies.
Re:Can Oscar's be given posthumously? (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, kinda...
Ledger's Joker is based more on the comic series which always had the Joker as more of a psychotic than a jokester. Perhaps it was the Adam West series's softening of the character that gave the Joker that impression in the general public. In the 70's when the Joker became even a bit more grittier, and through the Dark Knight and similar gn's, the "darkening" of the Batman universe came to influence Dini, etc. in how they developed the character for TAS, though a bit softer still since it was a kids show.
Ledger's version is easily the closest to the original Joker concept of a true psychotic criminal, one who not only revels in his own altered version of the world, but finds the humor in the differences of what is considered our normal and what he considers normal, and uses that humor as part of his villainy.
Nicholson's Joker, while following closely to The Killing Joke origin of the Joker (and in my mind a weak cause for the level of the Joker's psychosis as required for the original character), was more along the lines of the 50's and 60's prankster Joker.
Either way, it will take a lot to find another actor who can come close to bringing the Joker to life in the same way Ledger did.
Re:Can Oscar's be given posthumously? (Score:4, Insightful)
It's pretty much what everyone was hoping it would be. You don't even recognize him as Heath, it's all Joker.
Re:Can Oscar's be given posthumously? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Can Oscar's be given posthumously? (Score:5, Insightful)
Agreed. Over the decades, the Batman comics moved from dark to campy to dark again. Nicholson's Joker was some strange amalgam between dark and campy. Ledger's Joker on the other hand is indeed pure psychopath, the Joker as characterized by Frank Miller and Alan Moore.
Of the people I know who are familiar with the Joker character from having read comic books, all who have seen Dark Knight agree that Ledger's Joker is the best interpretation.
Re:Can Oscar's be given posthumously? (Score:5, Insightful)
I'd put this further as saying Nicholson played a great comic book Joker.
Ledger played the Joker as a real human being. That gives a LOT more emotional shock value in the end, since you could actually imagine Ledger's Joker existing in the real world.
Re:Can Oscar's be given posthumously? (Score:5, Interesting)
I second this. The Keaton / Nicholson films took place in a world that was Willy Wonka-esque. You had to just roll with it and say "oh, it's a movie!" to believe it. I unashamedly did, and I loved those movies for years (okay, the Burton ones.). Chris Nolan just took a flamethrower to the old ones and said "No. This is right here and right now." and created something insanely beautiful.
Jack was completely over the top and all "Look at me! Look at me!" and Ledger played it as "You look at me and I'll gut you..." His Joker is what I imagine it would be like to have a camera crew following Jeffrey Dahmer or J.W. Gacy around. He's just pure, undiluted id waiting for a chance to set you on fire and giggle as you scream.
Re:Can Oscar's be given posthumously? (Score:4, Insightful)
Ledger's performance is not as over the top as Nicholson's. Having said that, Ledger's Joker is a far more frightening thing. He has no name, no history, no nothing. He is just a pure chaos.
As for comic accuracy, both are accurate.
Nicholson's is more akin to the Joker from the Detective Comics and Batman from the 70s and early to mid 80s. Over the top crazy and homicidal.
Ledger's is more like the Joker from Batman #1 from 1940 as well as Miller's Dark Knight Returns (1986). Chaos personified. No redeeming qualities whatsoever. Pure evil and utterly creepy. Terror for no discernible purpose aside from causing terror. I, personally, don't think it is as much like the Joker from Killing Joke (1988) as many others do.
The terror experienced by Gothamites which follows the news "The Joker is Free" in the comics I could not see Nicholson's inspiring. I can easily see Ledger's doing so.
Re:Can Oscar's be given posthumously? (Score:4, Interesting)
You have to see it.
There is no backstory; the Joker is not some business man that tragic things happened to. There isn't a plan, there isn't a motivation, there's no rhyme or reason.
He is Just. Fucking. Crazy.
Given any situation imaginable, his only concern is "what will cause the most entropy". That's it, there's nothing else.
And the performance is otherworldly. I never once looked at the joker and thought "That's Heath Ledger". He disappears into the role.
If you want to get an idea, just peep this quote (from wikipedia):
He made MICHAEL CAINE, one of the most acclaimed and professional actors in the WORLD, forget his lines ON SET, he was so freaky.
Just... go see the movie.
~Wx
Re:Can Oscar's be given posthumously? (Score:5, Informative)
The Comics Code Authority came about when Dr. Frederic Wertham performed studies and offered his expert analysist that comic books were the cause of juvenile crime and behaviorial issues. Think Jack Thompson of the comic book world.
The CCA set an insane amount of rules that had to be met for comics to be displayed in retailers (before the launch of the direct-dealer comic book stores we have today). Good always had to win. No implications of significant advancement in relationships (effectively bringing Clark Kent and Lois Lane's relationship to a standstill). References to the occult, zombies, etc, were unacceptable.
The CCA went so far as to censor Archie comics. There was a panel in which Betty and Veronic make sand representations of themselves on the beach. The panel had to be redone to include lines to indicate the sand-models were wearing bathing suits.
So, of course, the Joker could not be an insane lunatic on killing sprees with the CCA looming overhead. It wasn't that he wasn't a psychopath, he wasn't allowed to be shown to be a psychopath.
With the direct market, the CCA's grip on the industry was loosened. Some writers have taken to writing their own vision of the Joker, which will also cause variations in behavior. You can find one of my favorite variations in "Batman: The Killing Joke".
Re:Can Oscar's be given posthumously? (Score:5, Interesting)
Many state that Ledger's Joker is a world of difference better than Nicholson's. But how does he compare with the comic book's Joker?
As you've stated yourself, there were quite a few different comic book jokers. I think this joker is closest to the one in the killing joke, in that his aim is to force batman to face his own madness.
The Killing Joke portrays the Joker as a normal joe who is trying to get ahead and ends up in a vat of chemicals and becomes the insane criminal everyone knows.
Kind of. The storyline in the killing joke was admittedly, by the Joker himself, not his true origin. He said that he prefers his past to be multiple choice, and that he himself doesn't quite remember exactly what happened to him.
Similarly, we don't witness the origin of the Joker in this movie, and that's a good thing. The Joker also tells two conflicting stories of how he got his scars, which fits with what the joker said in the killing joke.
There are other variations of the Joker, some showing him as completely off his rocker, others showing him as super sane but highly dangerous. Which is the most accurate? And which version does Ledger portray?
Depends on how you choose to define "accurate." I always prefer the interpretation of a villain that is most realistic, so to me, the best interpretation of the joker is one where he is a psychopath, and thus is able to laugh at his very violent antics. Ledger portrays a highly intelligent complete psychopath, and his relationship to Batman is much more interesting than the usual, "I do bad stuff and try to escape the hero who is trying to stop me." He wants Batman to stop him. It's very cool.
Re:Can Oscar's be given posthumously? (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.
It's not the latest Batman flick (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:It's not the latest Batman flick (Score:5, Funny)
Joker did it for the lulz.
Good movie (Score:5, Interesting)
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...
Re:Good movie (Score:5, Funny)
Cesar Romero [wikipedia.org] is the only real Joker.
Re:Good movie (Score:5, Interesting)
Yeah, Joker was awesome - but the biggest criminal of all time of course is Batman's alter ego, Mr. Wayne.
Mr. Bruce Wayne is the better class of criminal [dealbreaker.com] that the Joker talks about - someone who would make the white collars on Wall Street look like children.
So, being behind white collar crimes when you are a superhero at night is fine, but you don't enjoy others doing the same? Interesting take, this Batman movie thingy.
Re:Good movie (Score:5, Insightful)
I doubt it.
Re:Good movie (Score:5, Interesting)
Here are my thoughts.
The Good
The Bad
Other than that, I really enjoyed it. The Joker really did have an awesome performance.
SPOILER ALERT! (Score:4, Funny)
What? Oh, sorry. Wrong film.
Re:SPOILER ALERT! (Score:5, Funny)
I haven't seen Sixth Sense yet, you insensitive clod.
Just rented it & was planning to see it tonight.
The Dark Knight (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The Dark Knight (Score:4, Interesting)
Is it just me or was the Bat-Bike the slowest fast thing that you've ever seen in a movie? It always looked like on a relative scale that it should be or was moving fast, but it wasn't actually going that fast at all on an absolute scale. It was weird.
Great move though. I can't wait for more!
Lloyd Center (Score:3, Informative)
Obviously Cmdr T won't be reading this, but the Lloyd Center cinemas are very close to the OSCON venue - two stops on the MAX, or about half a mile if he feels like walking.
http://www.fandango.com/regallloydmall8cinema_aaapq/theaterpage [fandango.com]
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
or about half a mile if he feels like walking
What kind of true geek walks anywhere? You think we get these perfectly round bodies by doing anything even remotely close to exercise? YOU INSENSITIVE CLOD!
Re:Lloyd Center (Score:4, Funny)
I thought the movie was an ok treatment I guess (Score:5, Funny)
It was pretty good (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
One Question (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:One Question (Score:4, Insightful)
There was a (probable, but subtle) allusion to Catwoman in TDK. When Fox gives Batman his new suit, he makes it a point to say it will protect against cats.
Re:One Question (Score:4, Insightful)
So.. basically the animated series Freeze?
(which btw.. I thought was a pretty compelling character)
Boats (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Tiny Lister had a great role in that scene, convincing the warden (or whomever he was) to give him the detonator. What great writing.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I thought this was the best scene in the whole movie! To me, it distinguished between the common criminal (Tiny) and the truly evil one (Joker). Even the common criminal has rules, where Joker played by no rules what so ever.
It also showed the Common Criminal has the balls to do what should have been done. But that was the point, wasn't it. Awesome!
Re: (Score:3)
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:
Too cliched... They took the safe, predictable way out of that one - the scary prisoner with the heart of gold makes the noble choice to save the innocent citizens, while the citizens are cowardly and ready to toss aside the prisoners, but end up not able to make that decision either. We've seen this exact outcome to the Prisoner's Dilemma every time it's come up in a movie.
Then again, what could the writers do? Blowing up either one of the boats would have made the movie a hell of a lot darker.
You BELIEVED the maniac?!? (Score:3, Interesting)
So the insane killer guy tells you that the detonator will blow up the OTHER boat. That you would be SAFE?!?
And you fucking BELIEVED him?
THAT was the problem I saw with that scene. Wouldn't the Joker do something more ... Joker'ish? Like have the detonator blow up YOUR boat? Or BOTH boats?
Re:You BELIEVED the maniac?!? (Score:4, Interesting)
Harvey to Two Face felt forced (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Harvey to Two Face felt forced (Score:5, Interesting)
I think that was the point -- the Joker even commented that the descent to madness takes just a little push. That's what the hospital scene was -- Harvey was holding it together even through everything that happened until a little push, then his whole personality crumbled around him.
Re:Harvey to Two Face felt forced (Score:4, Insightful)
Hmmmm, you have a point. Still, even with "just a little push," it didn't seem like his personality up to that point was that fragile. Of course, my argument goes against my other nitpick about the movie, which is that the Joker spent a lot of time explaining his motivations to the audience rather than leaving it up to them to deduce. Can I have my cake and eat it too? ;-)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So in other words you are here to troll in a discussion specifically about Batman. Seriously man, if you don't have the "time or interest" to actually come up with something interesting to say why even bother? Also how would you know what I watch or don't watch? If you're trying to make a statement about the quality of cinema today then make it already.
Doing the right thing doesn't make you popular... (Score:3, Insightful)
Anybody else catch that?
Anybody else think of Bush when they caught it?
Re: (Score:3)
Ledger doesn't deserve it for this. (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:Ledger doesn't deserve it for this. (Score:4, Insightful)
Two-Face's face (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Why didn't they just kill the lawyer? (Score:3, Interesting)
Are you serious? (Score:4, Funny)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Because then the Joker says, kill 10 people or I'll blow up a hospital.
Or kill 100 people or I'll blow up a hospital.
Or kill 1000 people or I'll blow up a hospital.
The moment you accept killing one innocent person is OK to save many more innocent people, then how do you propose we weigh their lives? Does society even work when we permit such madness to reign?
Major Plotholes ... Spoiler Alert (Score:5, Informative)
Re:"disappering pencil" (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:"disappering pencil" (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:What no discussion of the Bambi movie? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Not seeing this movie would be a supreme mistake. Also, it lacks product placement as far as I can remember. . . Go and watch it, you will see. Don't bring your kid.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
There are still quite a few US filmmakers who hold the integrity of their vision above that of the studio's greed for profit.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I agree with the voice comment - every time I hear it it just doesn't sound right. He's trying too hard.
Re:SPOILER - Really, it is... (Score:5, Interesting)
I think that's totally intentional. Obviously the man is trying to disguise his voice so no one can figure out his true identity.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The movie was great across the board, driven by Heath's terrific acting and superb writing.
However...I don't really get the reasoning Joker used to convert Dent into Two-Face?
Re:Great Movie! (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Great Movie! (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:Great Movie! (Score:5, Interesting)
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?
Re:Great Movie! (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
>However...I don't really get the reasoning Joker used to convert Dent into Two-Face?
I thought the Joker explained it pretty well, although the Bugs Bunny-esque nurse outfit was stealing the scene. The Joker believes everyone is like him deep inside, and he believes the facade of civilization is paper-thin, waiting for the right someone to tear it down. His corruption of Dent is a demonstration of how he's right - all it took was personal leverage followed by tragedy to push Gotham's crusading White Kn
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Holy editing Batman! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Holy editing Batman! (Score:5, Insightful)
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).
Re:Since when (Score:5, Funny)
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 ...
Re:too racy (Score:5, Funny)
Re:I wonder who will play Aunt Madge (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:not a schemer or a planner (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:Biggest geek movie until X-Files? (Score:5, Insightful)
"Geek" doesn't mean being into the latest gadgets and computers.
Comic books and tabletop gaming are, and always have bee, geek.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
"Poor writing", "poor editing"...where was this most obvious? Care to pinpoint issues rather than blanketing them across the entire movie?
Well, ultimately a film is a story. So the entire thing is couched within the vehicle of...the writing, direction, and editing. Those are the primary elements that translate a story onto film. If you have a bad story to start with, and then give it to a bad storyteller, and then give that to someone who can't tell the difference between a good story and a bad story...w
Re:Farewell sweet Karma (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Re:I hate... (Score:5, Funny)
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.
Re:I hate... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
It also had the double effect of pushing Dent twords jokers plans for him.
Re:I hate... (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
In comics there's a saying -- and maybe it extends to comic-book movies, too: No one ever stays dead except for Bucky, Jason Todd, and Uncle Ben.
(And even that might no longer hold true. I think I remember someone saying that they brought back Bucky a couple of years ago.)
Re:Batman in tights (Score:4, Funny)
We'll save you the trouble of asking and just get off your lawn.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Every damn movie that comes out is a 9/11 feel good film. Cloverfield? OBVIOUSLY the burning building was to remind us all of 9/11. Spiderman 3? Oh lordy, a building is nearly destroyed in the film, let's pull the 9/11 card out.
Let's stop this right now. 9/11 happened nearly 7 years ago and you're not doing any of the victims any justice by continuing to pull this crap. Cut it out, grow up, grieve if you must still, and move on.