The Dark Knight Movie Discussion (July 18th, 2008) — Page 4

CO said:

 

GhostAlpha26

Thats your take on the movie, which is fine and Id respect it if it was executed better, it was poorly done. Having the end show the symbolism doesnt make up for the fact that 2 Hours and 20 mintues of the movie was out of wack.

And this is not the first movie in the genre to have "Choice" as a theme , Spiderman 2

 

GA26, I agree that every comic book movie in its sequel has gone the route of choice, as actually Superman II from 1981 was the first to do this where Superman actually becomes human.

But TDK is the first comic book movie where it delves into all the people in the movie, not just the hero.  It delves into Commission Gordon, where he decides to fake his death and to the point where he has to dupe his own family.  Could any of us ever fathom doing that, making our loved ones think we are dead!  I could go on and on about each character, but I think my previous posts have pretty much summed up each characters dillema. 

Listen, I dont' think this is THE greatest comic book movie ever, as I believe you dont start putting those labels on a movie til a couple year down the road when you see it on DVD a dozen times, and the movie either holds up or doesn't, as I still think Superman:The Movie is the greatest Comic Book movie ever cause that movie has the magic that Star Wars has, but again, just my opinion.

I told a friend the other day, I could see myself seeing TDK again, and thinking it isn't as great as how I initially felt after I saw it two weeks ago, as my love for this movie could be simply that Nolan is trying to do what I wanted with a summer blockbuster for about 15 years now.  So as I said, no matter how much I love or like this movie 5 years from now, I respect the hell out of Nolan for what he has done with the 2 Batman movies, as he has tried to put out an interesting story, tried to get into the depths of the characters, and tried to tell it in an adult way that doesn't scream CGI or merchandising right in your face like those PT movies did from 99-05.  It is the same way I feel about Lord of the Rings, I respect the hell out of those movies, even though I don't really love them, nor do I really watch them much. 

I feel that Spiderman 2 did that though. Peter had to make a choice as well as Mary Jane and Doc Oc. It just doesnt feel that ground breaking or that it stands out as something so much better than other similar movies.

Heres a piece of a review that really gets to what is problematic with the movie in my opinion

"Nolan and his co-writer brother Jonathan evidently think Batman is a figure whose tragic qualities have Shakespearean depth.

But he isn't - mainly because his problems aren't universal enough.

How many of us face the problem of having a split personality, or unlimited wealth, or the responsibility of being solely able to fight the worst kinds of crime?

You can take a character out of a comic-strip, but you can't take the comic-strip out of the character.

Batman is not a tragic hero at all, but an adolescent action-figure with the kind of problems most of us can only dream of having."

The movie over stepped it bounds as far as I'm concerned. It glorified a terrorist and effectively reduced a great superhero into a mess.

GhostAlpha26 said:

lordjedi said:

 

I'll agree that two face was taken out a bit to quick, but I think the point of keeping Joker alive was to have him for the next movie (not gonna work out unfortunately unless they go with a different actor).

As far as the two falls go, I swear I heard Batman activate something (his wing thing maybe?) during his fall with Rachel that at least slowed them down.  That's why he was able to get under her and provide some cushion when they hit.  Otherwise I'd agree with you.

 

Sorry but when I watched it again, I watched and listened intently to that scene and he does nothing, so... still ridiculous

His cape flares out just before they hit.  I'm not sure if that's enough to slow them down or not.  He's also wearing the new suit, so that may have helped a bit.  I'm willing to suspend some belief, especially since Mythbusters showed that just about every gadget Batman has is a little on the "fantastic" side.

lordjedi said:

 especially since Mythbusters showed that just about every gadget Batman has is a little on the "fantastic" side.

No shit!

:)

lordjedi said:

GhostAlpha26 said:

lordjedi said:

 

I'll agree that two face was taken out a bit to quick, but I think the point of keeping Joker alive was to have him for the next movie (not gonna work out unfortunately unless they go with a different actor).

As far as the two falls go, I swear I heard Batman activate something (his wing thing maybe?) during his fall with Rachel that at least slowed them down.  That's why he was able to get under her and provide some cushion when they hit.  Otherwise I'd agree with you.

 

Sorry but when I watched it again, I watched and listened intently to that scene and he does nothing, so... still ridiculous

 

His cape flares out just before they hit.  I'm not sure if that's enough to slow them down or not.  He's also wearing the new suit, so that may have helped a bit.  I'm willing to suspend some belief, especially since Mythbusters showed that just about every gadget Batman has is a little on the "fantastic" side.

It does not canopy or do anything significant to slow them and even if there was a slight flare just before they hit that would do absolutlty nothing. Even when a parachute opens and slows a person down if there is a failure and their is partial canopy in which to slow the person the force at which they hit is often devastating. And falling onto a car is no help, falling into water from ~ 100 feet is like hitting concrete. And I think most people, including kids, realized that everything about Batman is on the "fantastic" side. However, the point is still that he does not act like Batman in this movie and the movie does a poor job of injecting "reality" into the Batman world. The fact still stands, he falls from 20+ stories in his suit and is fine, he falls ~5 stories in his suit and can barely get up.

GhostAlpha26 said:

lordjedi said:

GhostAlpha26 said:

lordjedi said:

 

I'll agree that two face was taken out a bit to quick, but I think the point of keeping Joker alive was to have him for the next movie (not gonna work out unfortunately unless they go with a different actor).

As far as the two falls go, I swear I heard Batman activate something (his wing thing maybe?) during his fall with Rachel that at least slowed them down.  That's why he was able to get under her and provide some cushion when they hit.  Otherwise I'd agree with you.

 

Sorry but when I watched it again, I watched and listened intently to that scene and he does nothing, so... still ridiculous

 

His cape flares out just before they hit.  I'm not sure if that's enough to slow them down or not.  He's also wearing the new suit, so that may have helped a bit.  I'm willing to suspend some belief, especially since Mythbusters showed that just about every gadget Batman has is a little on the "fantastic" side.

 

It does not canopy or do anything significant to slow them and even if there was a slight flare just before they hit that would do absolutlty nothing. Even when a parachute opens and slows a person down if there is a failure and their is partial canopy in which to slow the person the force at which they hit is often devastating. And falling onto a car is no help, falling into water from ~ 100 feet is like hitting concrete. And I think most people, including kids, realized that everything about Batman is on the "fantastic" side. However, the point is still that he does not act like Batman in this movie and the movie does a poor job of injecting "reality" into the Batman world. The fact still stands, he falls from 20+ stories in his suit and is fine, he falls ~5 stories in his suit and can barely get up.

 

After being shot, you remember.

GhostAlpha26 said:

 

It does not canopy or do anything significant to slow them and even if there was a slight flare just before they hit that would do absolutlty nothing. Even when a parachute opens and slows a person down if there is a failure and their is partial canopy in which to slow the person the force at which they hit is often devastating. And falling onto a car is no help, falling into water from ~ 100 feet is like hitting concrete. And I think most people, including kids, realized that everything about Batman is on the "fantastic" side. However, the point is still that he does not act like Batman in this movie and the movie does a poor job of injecting "reality" into the Batman world. The fact still stands, he falls from 20+ stories in his suit and is fine, he falls ~5 stories in his suit and can barely get up.

 

People in parachutes aren't usually wearing armor either ;)  And I'm pretty sure he was somewhat faking not being able to get up after falling 5 stories at the end.  Why get up when the bad guy is just going to keep knocking you down?  Better to wait for him to come over and get him when he doesn't expect it (similar to Batman getting "shot" in the first movie).  Either way, it doesn't bother me that he fell that far and survived.  I can think of plenty of other movies that have a lot more problems than one minor scene.

What I was referring to with the Mythbusters thing is the gagdets that look real.  Like the wire he uses to lift himself up or go across rooms with.  Some of those things at least seemed plausible.  Unfortunately, there's nothing commercially available in that size of a package.  The best one Mythbusters tested was the cable to turn the car around tight corners.  Even with the strongest cable they could find, they only made it about halfway through the turn before the pole (the anchor) got pulled up.

lordjedi said:

 

People in parachutes aren't usually wearing armor either ;)  And I'm pretty sure he was somewhat faking not being able to get up after falling 5 stories at the end.  Why get up when the bad guy is just going to keep knocking you down?  Better to wait for him to come over and get him when he doesn't expect it (similar to Batman getting "shot" in the first movie).  Either way, it doesn't bother me that he fell that far and survived.  I can think of plenty of other movies that have a lot more problems than one minor scene.

What I was referring to with the Mythbusters thing is the gagdets that look real.  Like the wire he uses to lift himself up or go across rooms with.  Some of those things at least seemed plausible.  Unfortunately, there's nothing commercially available in that size of a package.  The best one Mythbusters tested was the cable to turn the car around tight corners.  Even with the strongest cable they could find, they only made it about halfway through the turn before the pole (the anchor) got pulled up.

If you want to create your own reasonings thats fine Im just going off what I actually saw not what my mind can come up with. And I guess no Airborne Infantry solider specially equipped for parachuting has ever been injured by a fall :p.  And lets not forget in Batman Begins after he jumps off the building after speaking with Gordon he lands hard against the railing and at least shows signs of injury by a 1 1/2 story fall. If your going to make him more human in the movie then at least show a 20+ story fall caused a bit of an inconvenience especially since he did nothing to slow their descent. But Im sure there will be another loop hole I must be missing that was neither implied  are articulated in the movie, he was cape less and his cape didnt catch cosmic bat winds that drop him as light as a leaf to the ground below. OR his armor was not updated to the newest beta 2.0 which has a special hidden impact feature that senses imminent impact and deploys a special batgel within the suit to let him withstand falls from 5000 feet, how could we forget the batgel.

The movie prides itself on being true and gritty and "realistic" yet has so many holes. I realize that other movies have the same issue but if you want to make a critically realistic movie I think it should be looked at critically. If they are going to step away from the comic book style and walk into a whole new arena, thats great  but do it right, and I don’t feel they have. Take the scene when they are transporting Dent, the SWAT guy riding shotgun delivered so many terrible lines that took away so much of the seriousness of that scene. Hes making these casual nonchalant remarks about horrendous destruction thats going on. Wheres the gritty, seriousness in that? And tagging it as a good time to lighten the tension with humor is just a terrible idea.

CO said:

GhostAlpha26 said:

 

The movie prides itself on being true and gritty and "realistic" yet has so many holes. I realize that other movies have the same issue but if you want to make a critically realistic movie I think it should be looked at critically. If they are going to step away from the comic book style and walk into a whole new arena, thats great  but do it right, and I don’t feel they have. Take the scene when they are transporting Dent, the SWAT guy riding shotgun delivered so many terrible lines that took away so much of the seriousness of that scene. Hes making these casual nonchalant remarks about horrendous destruction thats going on. Wheres the gritty, seriousness in that? And tagging it as a good time to lighten the tension with humor is just a terrible idea.

 GA, we can do this for every movie, and it seems to me you are looking for holes in the movie.  I mean if you want to rip our beloved OOT movies, I really don't think you want to go down that road.  How does the Empire get the AT-AT's on the Hoth?  What do they just drop them off from the Star Destroyers?   I mean they just appear from broad daylight, ready to fight.  But do I really care after how great the movie is?  It is a fantasy movie that tries to give a dose of reality.  Sure there are some things you question, it is like that in every movie in this genre, but I think if you are looking for plot holes in these movies, you are going to find them.  Geez, I would tell you not watch the Original Superman, cause he is going to turn back time after Lois gets killed, and makes you wonder, "Anytime something goes bad, why doesn't he turn back the earth?"  As I said GA26, I really don't have any problem with you not liking the movie, and I am not trying to convince you otherwise, but it just seems like you are guys are looking for anything wrong in this movie, when I can honestly say I enjoyed iy, and  I'll let the little stuff slip. 

Ok thats great. Star Wars is set in a different galaxy. You mean go down the road where I join a community of fans unpleased with the original versions of Star Wars who edit the movies to have more contunity and less "flaws." Yeah I think I might be close to that road.  The "flaws" in TDK just really stood out to me and really took me "out of the movie," I found it difficult to hold the suspension of disbelief with TDK casue I contuinally felt I was getting knocked out of it. It went back and forth between realisim and fairy tale too much for me to believe it. There was too much inconsistancy. Im not saying every movie I like is flawless and doesnt have its issue but this movies issues really stuck out like a sore thumb to me and I could not enjoy it for that reason.

GhostAlpha26 said:

If you want to create your own reasonings thats fine Im just going off what I actually saw not what my mind can come up with. And I guess no Airborne Infantry solider specially equipped for parachuting has ever been injured by a fall :p.  And lets not forget in Batman Begins after he jumps off the building after speaking with Gordon he lands hard against the railing and at least shows signs of injury by a 1 1/2 story fall. If your going to make him more human in the movie then at least show a 20+ story fall caused a bit of an inconvenience especially since he did nothing to slow their descent. But Im sure there will be another loop hole I must be missing that was neither implied  are articulated in the movie, he was cape less and his cape didnt catch cosmic bat winds that drop him as light as a leaf to the ground below. OR his armor was not updated to the newest beta 2.0 which has a special hidden impact feature that senses imminent impact and deploys a special batgel within the suit to let him withstand falls from 5000 feet, how could we forget the batgel.

 

The movie prides itself on being true and gritty and "realistic" yet has so many holes. I realize that other movies have the same issue but if you want to make a critically realistic movie I think it should be looked at critically. If they are going to step away from the comic book style and walk into a whole new arena, thats great  but do it right, and I don’t feel they have. Take the scene when they are transporting Dent, the SWAT guy riding shotgun delivered so many terrible lines that took away so much of the seriousness of that scene. Hes making these casual nonchalant remarks about horrendous destruction thats going on. Wheres the gritty, seriousness in that? And tagging it as a good time to lighten the tension with humor is just a terrible idea.

Actually, I could care less how he survived.  He's the hero, the main guy, the star.  He's suppose to survive.  If he had broken all his bones and been taken to the hospital, it would've made the movie really funny.

What other holes does it have?  So far, the biggest problem seems to be the 20 story drop.  What other things "brought you out of the movie"?  The only scene I remember thinking looked funny was when he rode the batcycle into a wall, went up the wall, turned, and came back down facing the other direction.  Something about it looked forced and funny, but that's the only one that really stuck out.

Great, now there's a posting limit.

lordjedi said:

Actually, I could care less how he survived.  He's the hero, the main guy, the star.  He's suppose to survive.  If he had broken all his bones and been taken to the hospital, it would've made the movie really funny.

What other holes does it have?  So far, the biggest problem seems to be the 20 story drop.  What other things "brought you out of the movie"?  The only scene I remember thinking looked funny was when he rode the batcycle into a wall, went up the wall, turned, and came back down facing the other direction.  Something about it looked forced and funny, but that's the only one that really stuck out.

Who said he had to break all his bones, have him show some sort of discomfort after falling that far

Ok well Ill get the ones we’ve discussed out of the way first

The SWAT member riding shotgun making terrible comments throughout that entire chase scene

Batman falls 20 stories and is fine. Falls 5 (with the same armor) is not fine.

Fox having a problem helping Batman locate Joker, using the technology he created and when his morals have been at best questionable with what else he has done for Batman.

A yellow school bus driving out of a bank covered in rubble and everyone acting like that was a normal thing.

The whole scene recreating the fingerprint from a fragmented bullet was completely and absolutely absurd.

Making the convict out to be a “good” person by having him throw out the remote. I guess their trying to show not everyone is as messed up as the Joker, sorry the guys already in an orange jumpsuit…failure.

Batman not being Batman. Not attempting to stop Rachel and himself from falling. Not attempting to get the drop on The Joker in the building when he knew his exact location. Batman walking straight up to Two-Face when he had a gun to the kids head. Batman just walks around in broad daylight, so much for his secretive nature.Batman basically getting his butt kicked by The Joker and only accidently beating him.

Batman saving The Joker.

The Joker making a deal with the mob to get their money when he cares about nothing.

Batmans longest and most physical fight was with the SWAT team.  He couldnt have incapacitated the first group, grabbed one of their comms and informed the entire team? Nah it was better for him to have fought all of them, that made more sense. I mean don’t have him fight the criminals/enemy for the last big fight scene.

The Jokers convincing of Harvey into becoming a cold blooded murder.

The Joker blowing up the hospital. (I have my reasons for that, I don’t wish to explain)

The Police knowing The Jokers location and completely calling off the “hit” at his location. Understandably a bigger problem arose but the terror wont stop with the Joker still running around.

Rerouting the SWAT convoy to take the lower street levels ( cant get anymore predictable).

Putting The Mayor out in an area impossible to control and extremely visible after a hits been placed on his life.

That’s all I can think of right now. Those scenes either made me think BS or that was done really poorly. I expect almost no one to agree with my reasons, but those are my reasons but Im sure youll have all kinds of circumventing you can come up with to “disprove” my reasons, but it would be mute, their what I felt made the movie poor.

CO said:

 How does the Empire get the AT-AT's on the Hoth?  What do they just drop them off from the Star Destroyers?   I mean they just appear from broad daylight, ready to fight.

Sorry way off topic, but funny you should mention that. I found a link to this in adywans EpV thread.

http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Y-85_Titan_dropship

Isnt this site just awesome haha

CO said:

GhostAlpha26 said:

CO said:

 How does the Empire get the AT-AT's on the Hoth?  What do they just drop them off from the Star Destroyers?   I mean they just appear from broad daylight, ready to fight.

 

Sorry way off topic, but funny you should mention that. I found a link to this in adywans EpV thread.

http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Y-85_Titan_dropship

 

Isnt this site just awesome haha

 GA26, that is from an EU source, which pretty much contradicts so many stuff in the SW movies.  Heck Boba Fett came back to life after ROTJ, so then do we both have to say that the Sarlacc Pit doesn't kill people? 

 

GA26, I have to ask you what you think of the Burton & Schumacher Batman Films?   Like em, love em, hate em?  Just wondering.

 

I know about the EU not being cannon, it was a joke. So much for having an imagination. However it still gives you an idea of how the Empire did land them.

I havent seen those movies in years, and I barely remember them. Id have to watch them again.

ChainsawAsh said:

I don't think I've read a single "Batman" comic where Batman *didn't* save the Joker when he was about to die.  That's completely in character for Batman - it was Burton's version that was out of character for him.

 

Those were the two that jumped out at me, but it really seems to me like you really didn't want to like the movie to begin with and you're just trying to nitpick it to death.

In this movie, I feel it would have worked well though, especially since Ledger can no longer be cast.

Excuse me if  I get a bit defensive, but I was absolutly amped for this movie to come out. I really enjoyed Batman Begins as I have stated before. I watched the trailers, and all the short clips, I scoured the net for the "The first 6 minutes," I watched the HBO special which I had not done for a movie in several years, I thought the movie was going to be amazing and I was there for the midnight showing. Then after not enjoying it I gave it another go and watched it a second time and came to the same conclusion. So to start going after me personally like that I find to be out of line. Really showed your character there, I didnt come on here and just say it sucked this movie blows, I attempted to explain why I didnt like it. But you just wanted to assume for yourself, do yourself a favor and think with your head next time you make a statement about someone.

quote "I don't think I've read a single "Batman" comic where Batman *didn't* save the Joker when he was about to die.  That's completely in character for Batman - it was Burton's version that was out of character for him.'

I don't have a problem with those changes.  Because they were approved by batmans real author bob kane, and added a dramatic backbone the story needed.

Even if it became silly in execution.

The only batman that is truly canon is that written By Bob Kane.  all the rest are like EU.

That is fact, no matter how much i like batman year one that is Frank Miller's take on a character that has gone through hundreds of changes and permutations since the forties, there is no real "definitive" composite batman.

ChainsawAsh said:

GhostAlpha26 said:

ChainsawAsh said:

I don't think I've read a single "Batman" comic where Batman *didn't* save the Joker when he was about to die.  That's completely in character for Batman - it was Burton's version that was out of character for him.

 

Those were the two that jumped out at me, but it really seems to me like you really didn't want to like the movie to begin with and you're just trying to nitpick it to death.

 

In this movie, I feel it would have worked well though, especially since Ledger can no longer be cast.

Excuse me if  I get a bit defensive, but I was absolutly amped for this movie to come out. I really enjoyed Batman Begins as I have stated before. I watched the trailers, and all the short clips, I scoured the net for the "The first 6 minutes," I watched the HBO special which I had not done for a movie in several years, I thought the movie was going to be amazing and I was there for the midnight showing. Then after not enjoying it I gave it another go and watched it a second time and came to the same conclusion. So to start going after me personally like that I find to be out of line. Really showed your character there, I didnt come on here and just say it sucked this movie blows, I attempted to explain why I didnt like it. But you just wanted to assume for yourself, do yourself a favor and think with your head next time you make a statement about someone.

 

I think you're a bit out of line here - I wasn't making a personal attack, I'm just trying to understand your complaints about the movie.  If you didn't like it, that's fine, more power to you.  But I just can't understand how the things you listed really hurt the movie that much for you, but they obviously did, so I'm sorry if I offended you.  But to say I'm "showing my character" by "assuming" things for myself and not "thinking with my head" is much more out of line than me thinking you're being too nitpicky with the movie.  Try not to take things so personally.

We were discussing a movie, not peoples personal motives, you were the one who took the discussion out of context, I didnt make anything personal before you made a personal statement about me. Its rather illogical to expect to understand someones personal feelings and reasoning as to why they liked or disliked something when you dont even know that person. And you did assume, you made an assumtion as to why I diskliked the movie without knowing what you were talking about. That is out of line to start making personal statements about why someone acted the way they did without having any background on it. If your statements were to hold up then anyone could make any statement based on no actual knowledge of what they are speaking about. If you cant understand that you made a unfavorbale personal statement towards me, then its starting to make sense how you can ignore so many holes in this movie. And Ive mired this thread enough with an argument with someone who can not see reasoning with anything logical.

GhostAlpha26 said:

 

We were discussing a movie, not peoples personal motives, you were the one who took the discussion out of context, I didnt make anything personal before you made a personal statement about me. Its rather illogical to expect to understand someones personal feelings and reasoning as to why they liked or disliked something when you dont even know that person. And you did assume, you made an assumtion as to why I diskliked the movie without knowing what you were talking about. That is out of line to start making personal statements about why someone acted the way they did without having any background on it. If your statements were to hold up then anyone could make any statement based on no actual knowledge of what they are speaking about. If you cant understand that you made a unfavorbale personal statement towards me, then its starting to make sense how you can ignore so many holes in this movie. And Ive mired this thread enough with an argument with someone who can not see reasoning with anything logical.

lol, you condemn a benign personal statement, falsely and directly accuse someone of absolutely "assuming things" and having poor "character," and yet, in the process, you're turning right around and doing all of those same things yourself. That's what you call being logical?

His perception of you as someone who isn't giving the movie a chance is a valid perception to mention in the context of this discussion. You're both talking about the flaws you mentioned and Ash doesn't think they were bad enough to actually ruin the movie as much as you think it does. He never claimed that his perception of you was the actual truth and he wasn't saying that in a way to attack you. He's simply trying to understand why you have such a strong opinion of it all (particularly in light of the fact that he defended his thoughts logically before that point). Your personal statements, on the other hand, are clearly hostile and designed to demean others (by comparison). Grow up.

(Yes I just said you're immature. Cry about it if you want.) :)

I love that frank miller comic where batman literally loses it and beats the Joker to death with his bare hands.

Not sure if i'm remembering right it is either dark knight returns or its sequel.

I remember the sequel was Frankly nuts and completely out of character for batman.

Whatever happened to that Batman versus Superman movie.  I would love to see that as Supes would clean Batman's clock.