Sign in to follow this  
Schwaltzvald

The Dark Knight

Recommended Posts

Wow, you actually missed the joke.

I didn't. Actually the part about Joker's dad was a half truth, much like a lot of the stuff Ledger's Joker talked about. I guess that works as irony in itself and I think it's good.

As for the versions of Joker, I think the reason why people can't see the similarity for much of the classical versions of Joker with Ledger is because the Ledger Joker is a much newer, more openly threatening version of the Joker. The Joker for decades, as a crazed mass murderer he was, was a smooth villain. Almost classical in how he was the antithesis to Batman. Really, I don't think one can make too big of a fuss on which Joker is better. Because both Nicholson and Ledger did GREAT Jokers on the types of Jokers they aimed to do.

Who's being snide? You don't have to take offense every time somebody makes a quip.

Yeah, because it's you who decides how snide it sounded right? No need to be defensive there. Hurrrrrrr

And on a side note to those ragging on Tim Burton's Batman' date=' remember that it too was a phenomenon, was the first film to break $100 million in it's first ten days of release, and is the highest grossing DC film ever, and when Dark Knight passes it (an inevitable fact at this point) it will still be there above Begins.[/quote']

That reminds me, how because the Dark Knight is such a good Batman film, now people are on to ragging the 89 version. Like *certain people in this very thread* that does it with reckless abandon and with very little objective reasoning. For me, the original Batman 89 and Dark Knight will be my favorites. Batman Returns had a lot of good things going for it, but felt a bit off base. Batman Forever went totally off the cuff with Jim Carrey (though I did like his Riddler, Schumacher didn't let anything fun happen there). Batman & Robin is self explanatory since the higher-ups wanted a family film and totally messed around with the darker 'Dark Knight' ideology of Batman. And personally, I never liked Batman Begins and I probably never will. I think the Dark Knight deserves a lot of credit for improving vastly on Batman Begins and living up to the Batman film legacy of the 89 Batman (replete with the rubber suit!).

I almost have to laugh any time people totally bash one Batman movie to make a point for the other. What about those people who like both? Especially since both of them were aiming for totally different things. And like Poke said, the 89 Batman basically kickstarted the idea of a serious Batman movie. By today's standards it may not seem as dour, but it got the trend going. And Nekofrog constantly ragging on how bad the 89 one is, but it clearly was going for the feel of the more classical Batman comics without overstepping on the corniness. And again, Dark Knight is more like the newer Batman comics. How can you really argue all that without steeping so hard in pure subjectivity?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yeah, because it's you who decides how snide it sounded right? No need to be defensive there. Hurrrrrrr

Now you've just completely stopped making sense. :/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The movie was awesome.

But I was distracted throughout once I saw the trailer for the watchmen.

I had a fangasm as soon as I realized what the trailer was.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The movie was awesome.

But I was distracted throughout once I saw the trailer for the watchmen.

I had a fangasm as soon as I realized what the trailer was.

I had the same thing happen to me. The first time I saw Dark Knight was at an advanced screening, so the only trailers we got were for Terminator Salvation and some forgettable Matt Damon movie. The second time we saw it was in IMAX opening night. We got the Watchmen trailer, and my friend and I were just so satisfied, it wouldn't have mattered if we saw The Dark Knight again or not.

I didn't. Actually the part about Joker's dad was a half truth, much like a lot of the stuff Ledger's Joker talked about. I guess that works as irony in itself and I think it's good.

Joker tailored each story to his audience. If he was telling it to an old man, he said it was his dad. If it was a pretty woman, he'd say it was his wife. I'm sure if he say a little boy, he'd say he got in an accident with this son. None of them are true. If Joker has a past, he'd prefer it to be multiple choice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's the thing isn't it? While most classical Jokers, the 89 Joker or the Animated Series Joker, they always had some sort of a solid story (except for the very first Joker who came out of absolutely nowhere... like 99% of villains back then). I am fully willing to accept the reasoning that the Ledger Joker is simply and purely insane. Again, I just think it's a break in some sort of an established tradition with the character. But that doesn't really make him worse. Just different.

All this in depth about the Joker makes me sound like I'm totally bashing the film, so I'll leave it at that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No costumes for ours. Guess our Bat-fans were lackluster. I at least set the mood with black shorts and my chain-dragon black t shirt.

People in costumes is one of the many reasons I no longer see movies in the theater.

EDIT: and it was a VERY good movie. Not #1 of all time as IMDB fanwankers would have you believe (_12 Monkeys_ still being my solid favorite), but it was easily the best of the Batman franchise. People in this thread who claim the other movies stick closer to the "older" comics while this one is more like "new" ones apparently don't realize Frank Miller's storylines are almost as old as me.

-steve

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And like Poke said, the 89 Batman basically kickstarted the idea of a serious Batman movie. By today's standards it may not seem as dour, but it got the trend going.

If you had said the 89 Batman kickstarted the idea of a dark Batman movie I might have agreed with you. It was so steeped in over the top campiness I can't believe that anyone can take it or it's interpretation of the characters seriously. Particularly the fact that it had Batman kill more than once.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
People in costumes is one of the many reasons I no longer see movies in the theater.

EDIT: and it was a VERY good movie. Not #1 of all time as IMDB fanwankers would have you believe (_12 Monkeys_ still being my solid favorite), but it was easily the best of the Batman franchise. People in this thread who claim the other movies stick closer to the "older" comics while this one is more like "new" ones apparently don't realize Frank Miller's storylines are almost as old as me.

-steve

That's because Miller's comics are relatively newer compared to Bob Kane's.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only thing that sucked about my Dark Knight experience last night is that they played only one trailer. The Love Guru.

Oh my god. I was prepared to strangle the guy in the projection room with the actual movie reel for not having Watchmen, or even Terminator 4.

But yeah, back on topic. Awesome movie, a few friends of mine are going tomorrow night and I must say, I'm tempted to go again. Just to figure out the secret behind the pencil trick.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Excellent' date=' and you are the first to say so. Like I said, everyone references the magic trick, and that's their argument alone. He had other moments too.

If you have them, yes.[/quote']

The Joker's smoke grenade prank in the beginning scene with the bank heist.

I also have to admit I laughed when I saw the firetruck on fire.

Wow. I juuuuuust got this...*facepalm* LOL.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
People in costumes is one of the many reasons I no longer see movies in the theater.

Yeah I mean obviously if people are dressed a certain way then you can't enjoy anything

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If you had said the 89 Batman kickstarted the idea of a dark Batman movie I might have agreed with you. It was so steeped in over the top campiness I can't believe that anyone can take it or it's interpretation of the characters seriously. Particularly the fact that it had Batman kill more than once.

You have to understand that it was the first Batman movie since the campiest movie ever in the first Batman movie. And the idea of a more pathos-driven Batman was starting to take off in the 80's and clearly Tim Burton looked to capitalize on that. I mean, whenever you see Bruce in that movie, it was like a study in the character's self pity and feeling of pity for the city. That was basically what the two Batman movies made by Burton was about. The guy knows how to put in that ironic touch beyond the campiness. If you get hung about the campiness, then that's that. Even the music in that movie was sorta campy but it still ended up rising above the occasion throughout.

Also, you say "Batman killed" but I have to laugh at the notion. It was more like the bad guys getting into it and getting themselves in the situation to be killed. Batman didn't go out there with the idea of killing them (maybe the remote controlled Batmobile bombing aside, but the baddies camped there, Batman flushed it out. Done and done). To me, that kind of Batman makes more sense than some ultra pacifist that seems to only work in the comicbook pages where Batman is infinitely more menacing than any real life Batman adaptation can be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Saw it again with the family tonight. Still awesome.

Didn't he say he was going after Rachel? Yet he showed up to pull out Harvey.

Spoiler: Joker tricked him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The only thing that sucked about my Dark Knight experience last night is that they played only one trailer. The Love Guru.

Oh my god. I was prepared to strangle the guy in the projection room with the actual movie reel for not having Watchmen, or even Terminator 4.

But yeah, back on topic. Awesome movie, a few friends of mine are going tomorrow night and I must say, I'm tempted to go again. Just to figure out the secret behind the pencil trick.

what? that's nuts, i'm a projectionist... both those trailers are attached trailers. so he actually had to physically remove those two previews and attach that love guru preview.

which doesn't even make sense since its not customary to put previews on for movies that are already out. quite the contrary, actually.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The projectionist screwed me outta John "Bale" Connor, as well as the delicious Watchmen trailer, featuring the Smashing Pumpkins.

Simple, go watch it again, somewhere else, & enjoy them sumbenches.

P.S. You left out Costners epic story of a guy who's vote *gasps* actually counts!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, so I watched this movie yesterday, and every movie on my top 10 list had to take a step down... This movie was amazing. By the way, Batman Begins is now #2 on my list.

The acting in this movie was ridiculously good. Every actor played his character perfectly, especially the guy who played Harvey Dent!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Out of nowhere, but I've been lurking, and this is my argument for the film.

Ever since the beginning of what I always thought of as the Big Rush of comic book movies (Batman Begins, all of the Marvel films, etc.) One thing I've tried to do is think about the films in the context of the medium. What works in one medium does not necessarily work in another. For Example, blue Hair looks cool in anime, yet never seems to work as well in real life. So too do certain conventions of a comic book fall flat when you try to take them off the page. Most of the comic book movies from the past ten years have been pushing and pulling on the notion of what actually "can" be, in a sense. Granted, a lot of comics are trying to do that now. There's a pull for making the non-sensical a little more grounded. This isn't the 50s when saying "The Far East" evoked an unreachable land of mysticism and magic, allowing writers to tell American children anything and it's believable (One reason why Alan Scott found his lantern in the Far East, and Hal Jordan received his from space).

I look at the Christopher Nolan Batman films as an interpretation of "What if this actually happened?" Some of the villains don't quite call themselves by their comic book persona. There's not colorful costumes, except the Joker, and that's just a custom suit. I custom suit I ant very badly, but I digress. The main problem is organized crime, the "Batman Villains" are just major elements of that same problem.

That may not be exactly what you read in the comic books, but the comic books aren't always what you read in comic books. There have been so many writers, and so many restrictions (like the comics code authority) that any character that's been around for a few decades is going to have a sort of margin of interpretation, from which you pull what you believe to be the "definitive". Hell, the Joker's been around long enough that we can debate interpretation in live action, and animated portrayals as well. In the situation of a 68 year old character, definitive is in the eye of the beholder.

My take? I loved the Dark Knight. I felt it went beyond the feeling of a Comic book movie, and stands on its own, without needing to apologize for itself because of the medium it sprang from. I interpreted Batman Begins as being about Fear (obvious yes, but still). Obstacles were to be pushed through, similar to how you face your fears. The Dark Knight was about illusions. I say illusions of the magical variety. The obstacles of the film had to be seen through, rather than pushed through, to be overcome. The Joker was a street magician in a sense. He pulled little tricks, he conned his audience, he fit his patter to his victim. Harvey gave the illusion of luck and fairness in one way while playing the hero, and another after his accident (which I felt was a believable explanation, in a fashion). Also, it struck me that the imagery of the two rogues of The Dark Knight were cards and coins, two staples of close-up magic.

In conclusion, "In all the old familiar places" (my favorite line from the film, think about it.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this