|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Sat Jul 26, 2008 11:14 pm
Daemon Mama At the risk of being attacked - I am going to express my opinion on how disappointed I was by this movie. I am an older person and have been a batman fan for over 40 years. My nickname as a child at summer camp was Catgirl and my license plate is BTMBL. Don't get me wrong - I would give the movie an 7 out of 10. But I was expecting a 10. Heath Ledger is good.... but would anybody be mentioning Oscar if he hadn't died? The producers of this movie should be paying his little girl a lot of money because since she lost her daddy this movie has been blown out the water at the box office. And PLEASE - who thinks Maggie G. can pass as anyone's love interest or reason for going insane???? Maybe because he saw her without makeup one morning???? There were too many unanswered questions - How did he really get scarred? Why does he wear the make up?? Why does Batman keep letting people know who he is?? And why does he use that stupid growling voice inconsistantly?? And why is Two face gone when he - at least - had a reason behind his insanity and anger? My family went to see TDK Sunday night and it was sold out - we saw Hellboy instead. I told my husband (who HATES going to the movies) to be glad he can wait for DVD for TDK because, in my humble opinion, Hellboy was the better movie - there was a plot and motive and no unanswered questions - except if she hates him so much - why does she love him??? But that is the nature of love I guess. By no means do I wish to trample all over your opinion, nor do I mean to be discriminatory to "older people" when I make the following comment: Firstly, please do not demean Maggie Gyllenhaal. She is one of her generation's best actresses, and is pretty in her own right. Like other posters have said, love interests do not need to be stunningly gorgeous. Having watched plenty of the classics, I am going to assume that the older generations have become accustomed to the buxom blonde, supermodel type love interest, as that is the type seen in many of the movies. But let me pose this question to you: Would you rather see a great actress like Maggie Gyllenhaal in quite possibly the year's best film, or would you rather see Katie Holmes repeat her utterly flat role? There is no way in hell that Holmes could have pulled off the scene where the Rachel Dawes character is in the warehouse. She just doesn't have the emotional firepower that Gyllenhaal has. Secondly, there is a perfectly logical explanation for unanswered questions. Like one other poster said, Christopher Nolan didn't want to delve too deeply into the Joker's character. The less you know about the character, the more frightening he becomes. Look at Anthony Hopkin's Hannibal Lecter in "Silence of the Lambs." The same principle applies there. Lecter is hardly on screen throughout the movie, and as a result, we know very little. We only know what Clarice knows, and this makes him that much more chilling. Having watched films such as "Psycho", I realize it can be easy to become used to having everything nicely and neatly wrapped up at the end of the movie. But, the unanswered questions leave room for two things: 1. A sequel (which is really just a studio cop-out to make more money); and 2. it allows the audience to draw their own conclusions. Just like English class, a great movie does not spoon feed the audience the answers. It allows them to discover it by themselves and with the characters on screen.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jul 28, 2008 6:11 pm
sankapoo I didnt really have a problem with MaggieG. I just wish they hadnt changed the actresses. I mean, its like the old batman now. xD Although now that her character is dead who cares. I wish they had told us how the Joker really got those scars too, I mean, I'm leaning towards his father hacking into his face, but I'm not sure, I'd have to watch it again. As for Two face, ugh. If he's really dead, thats just..tacky. I mean he didnt even really go psycho. Just got a tad bit angry and killed like..two people. . Katie Holmes passed on Batman for her movie Mad Money. So that's her fault. And besides, Maggie Gylanhaal was fantastic, I thought. And she's definitely beautiful, so I don't know what everyone's smokin'...
I'm glad that they left the Joker's scar/makeup thing a mystery. Because it just lets his enigma that much more mysterious. If everything was handed to the audience, it would make for a very boring experience. What would you have to question afterwards?
As for Harvey Two-Face, if they made him "un" dead, then I'd say that makes it so much more tacky. It would be lazy storytelling. I think so, at least. ...there will be a show tonight. domokun
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jul 28, 2008 6:35 pm
Yeah but I think it would have been better if they had introduced Two face at the end like they did, and then just kept him alive. You can hardly call him a villain for the two people he killed and the child he tried to kill.
Meh, I'd like to see them do the riddler, Thats going to be interesting.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jul 29, 2008 11:48 am
RedWhiteBlack Daemon Mama At the risk of being attacked - I am going to express my opinion on how disappointed I was by this movie. I am an older person and have been a batman fan for over 40 years. My nickname as a child at summer camp was Catgirl and my license plate is BTMBL. Don't get me wrong - I would give the movie an 7 out of 10. But I was expecting a 10. Heath Ledger is good.... but would anybody be mentioning Oscar if he hadn't died? The producers of this movie should be paying his little girl a lot of money because since she lost her daddy this movie has been blown out the water at the box office. And PLEASE - who thinks Maggie G. can pass as anyone's love interest or reason for going insane???? Maybe because he saw her without makeup one morning???? There were too many unanswered questions - How did he really get scarred? Why does he wear the make up?? Why does Batman keep letting people know who he is?? And why does he use that stupid growling voice inconsistantly?? And why is Two face gone when he - at least - had a reason behind his insanity and anger? My family went to see TDK Sunday night and it was sold out - we saw Hellboy instead. I told my husband (who HATES going to the movies) to be glad he can wait for DVD for TDK because, in my humble opinion, Hellboy was the better movie - there was a plot and motive and no unanswered questions - except if she hates him so much - why does she love him??? But that is the nature of love I guess. By no means do I wish to trample all over your opinion, nor do I mean to be discriminatory to "older people" when I make the following comment: Firstly, please do not demean Maggie Gyllenhaal. She is one of her generation's best actresses, and is pretty in her own right. Like other posters have said, love interests do not need to be stunningly gorgeous. Having watched plenty of the classics, I am going to assume that the older generations have become accustomed to the buxom blonde, supermodel type love interest, as that is the type seen in many of the movies. But let me pose this question to you: Would you rather see a great actress like Maggie Gyllenhaal in quite possibly the year's best film, or would you rather see Katie Holmes repeat her utterly flat role? There is no way in hell that Holmes could have pulled off the scene where the Rachel Dawes character is in the warehouse. She just doesn't have the emotional firepower that Gyllenhaal has. Secondly, there is a perfectly logical explanation for unanswered questions. Like one other poster said, Christopher Nolan didn't want to delve too deeply into the Joker's character. The less you know about the character, the more frightening he becomes. Look at Anthony Hopkin's Hannibal Lecter in "Silence of the Lambs." The same principle applies there. Lecter is hardly on screen throughout the movie, and as a result, we know very little. We only know what Clarice knows, and this makes him that much more chilling. Having watched films such as "Psycho", I realize it can be easy to become used to having everything nicely and neatly wrapped up at the end of the movie. But, the unanswered questions leave room for two things: 1. A sequel (which is really just a studio cop-out to make more money); and 2. it allows the audience to draw their own conclusions. Just like English class, a great movie does not spoon feed the audience the answers. It allows them to discover it by themselves and with the characters on screen. I agree 100% on the Hannibal Lecter statement... He was barely on screen and still managed to make AFI's top villain of all time. I figure when they reform the list once again Heath Ledgers Joker will most likely be in the top 10. I think if they do a sequel which... judging from the money its raking in... there will be... side note... its predicted that The Dark Knight may beat Titanics 600 million... cant make a sequel to that one hahaha what with Jack dead and the Titanic sunk... anyway sequel... I think they should do Frank Millers "The Dark Knight Returns"... its set 40 years after Batman hung up the suit and retired... only thing is that Robin would ughhh... have to return... although Robin is a girl... which kinda fits the character more. And another side note... do some of you honestly think Two Face is dead... well just think about it... why introduce him just to kill him half an hour later... plus we need him for The Dark Knight Returns. Also the he only is getting an Oscar because he is dead... thats total bull. He's going to win awards because of his acting not because we feel sorry he's dead and we are only sorry because he wont be able to make a sequel. Just think... who is going to beat him on best supporting role or best villain... if he doesnt win those.. sure would like to see the role that gets it... so give the guy some credit... instead of this sympathy bull.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jul 29, 2008 12:22 pm
I went to the midnight showing, even though I had stayed up all night the night before, and went to the airport to pick up a friend, and bought a puppy that day. Busy day. I fell asleep during a bit of the beginning but I'm going to see it again today with my boyfriend, because he didn't get to see it. Very awesome movie.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jul 29, 2008 4:33 pm
I went to the midnight showing!
Me and my sister dressed up as the Joker! We had a Joker shirt and the make up and we even died our hair green! I've seen it 3 times already. Me and my sister are planning on going atleast 6 times.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jul 30, 2008 10:28 pm
sankapoo Yeah but I think it would have been better if they had introduced Two face at the end like they did, and then just kept him alive. You can hardly call him a villain for the two people he killed and the child he tried to kill. Meh, I'd like to see them do the riddler, Thats going to be interesting. I have never really considered Two-Face a true villain; especially not in this movie. Harvey Dent was a great man who couldn't handle his situation any longer. If he was a true villain (Joker-style), he wouldn't even flip the coin. Or at least the coin wouldn't matter.
As for the comment on Frank Miller's Batman...this is Christopher Nolan's Batman, and I wouldn't want anything else anymore. Sure, I am not the biggest Batman Begins fan, but it's tough to argue that Nolan revolutionized Batman. I wouldn't want Miller to pollute Nolan's directorial prowess. Of course, Miller might be a good director if Nolan passes on the next movie (which he almost passed on Dark Knight).
For the next Batman, I definitely wouldn't mind seeing Robin. I think that this new venture wouldn't treat him like some punk-a**, cheesy kid. It would be a dynamic character, I believe.
Also, the Titanic sequel would be called Britannic. Seriously, though...Britannic was Titanic's sister ship. ;D ...it's addressed to the bottom of the sea. domokun
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Aug 04, 2008 8:24 pm
Otakkun sankapoo Yeah but I think it would have been better if they had introduced Two face at the end like they did, and then just kept him alive. You can hardly call him a villain for the two people he killed and the child he tried to kill. Meh, I'd like to see them do the riddler, Thats going to be interesting. I have never really considered Two-Face a true villain; especially not in this movie. Harvey Dent was a great man who couldn't handle his situation any longer. If he was a true villain (Joker-style), he wouldn't even flip the coin. Or at least the coin wouldn't matter.
As for the comment on Frank Miller's Batman...this is Christopher Nolan's Batman, and I wouldn't want anything else anymore. Sure, I am not the biggest Batman Begins fan, but it's tough to argue that Nolan revolutionized Batman. I wouldn't want Miller to pollute Nolan's directorial prowess. Of course, Miller might be a good director if Nolan passes on the next movie (which he almost passed on Dark Knight).
For the next Batman, I definitely wouldn't mind seeing Robin. I think that this new venture wouldn't treat him like some punk-a**, cheesy kid. It would be a dynamic character, I believe.
Also, the Titanic sequel would be called Britannic. Seriously, though...Britannic was Titanic's sister ship. ;D ...it's addressed to the bottom of the sea. domokun I think you mistook his Frank Miller reference. He is referring to the graphic novel Miller wrote some 15 years ago that sets Gotham 10 years after Batman's retirement. What I think he is suggesting is that Nolan draws from this material for a sequel. It could work. Change retirement to Batman being exiled and you could basically take the plot, in theory. I haven't read the novel, yet. I just bought it today and plan to read it soon. But if he doesn't use it for this next sequel, he could definitely use it in any possible future sequels. But, if the rule of threes holds up, it should end at with this next sequel. Rarely have I seen a series last past anything more than it's second sequel. But if Nolan doesn't screw up Batman 3 like Raimi screwed up Spiderman 3, all should be well, and a fourth installment could happen.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Aug 08, 2008 5:46 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Aug 08, 2008 5:59 am
saw the movie the day after it came out, then again recently heart heart heart heart heart
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Aug 08, 2008 9:26 am
i love the dark knight it was the best
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Aug 09, 2008 8:33 am
RedWhiteBlack I think you mistook his Frank Miller reference. He is referring to the graphic novel Miller wrote some 15 years ago that sets Gotham 10 years after Batman's retirement. What I think he is suggesting is that Nolan draws from this material for a sequel. It could work. Change retirement to Batman being exiled and you could basically take the plot, in theory. I haven't read the novel, yet. I just bought it today and plan to read it soon. But if he doesn't use it for this next sequel, he could definitely use it in any possible future sequels. But, if the rule of threes holds up, it should end at with this next sequel. Rarely have I seen a series last past anything more than it's second sequel. But if Nolan doesn't screw up Batman 3 like Raimi screwed up Spiderman 3, all should be well, and a fourth installment could happen. Oh, I see. xD!! My mistake. I could see that working...and that would be a reason to introduce Robin (which is always cool in my books), but I'm still not sure...although, the B-man is already getting very beat-up...what with his injuries in the two movies so far. xD! As for the rule of threes, all that will happen is we'll wait a disgustingly long time and then make a fourth one. Die Hard, Indiana Jones, Beverly Hills Cop... gonk I wouldn't mind if the next Batman was the last one. And at least Spiderman 3 was better than 2. Wow, that was an awful movie... domokun
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Aug 09, 2008 3:30 pm
 I saw it with my friend like, a week ago or something . . .
It's really great! x3
And the Joker was just so~ cute! ^w^ <3
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Aug 09, 2008 7:52 pm
Otakkun RedWhiteBlack I think you mistook his Frank Miller reference. He is referring to the graphic novel Miller wrote some 15 years ago that sets Gotham 10 years after Batman's retirement. What I think he is suggesting is that Nolan draws from this material for a sequel. It could work. Change retirement to Batman being exiled and you could basically take the plot, in theory. I haven't read the novel, yet. I just bought it today and plan to read it soon. But if he doesn't use it for this next sequel, he could definitely use it in any possible future sequels. But, if the rule of threes holds up, it should end at with this next sequel. Rarely have I seen a series last past anything more than it's second sequel. But if Nolan doesn't screw up Batman 3 like Raimi screwed up Spiderman 3, all should be well, and a fourth installment could happen. Oh, I see. xD!! My mistake. I could see that working...and that would be a reason to introduce Robin (which is always cool in my books), but I'm still not sure...although, the B-man is already getting very beat-up...what with his injuries in the two movies so far. xD! As for the rule of threes, all that will happen is we'll wait a disgustingly long time and then make a fourth one. Die Hard, Indiana Jones, Beverly Hills Cop... gonk I wouldn't mind if the next Batman was the last one. And at least Spiderman 3 was better than 2. Wow, that was an awful movie... domokun Yeah, I'm not too much of a Robin fan, either, but knowing Nolan, he'll hopefully three dimensionalize Robin, and maybe tone down that god awful red and yellow suit. Like, I know he's Robin, but does his suit really need to be those colors? And you're kidding about Spiderman 3 being better than 2, right? In 3, Raimi totally mooted everything he set up in the first two movies. Like, introduce a new person who killed Uncle Ben? Please... Raimi totally ******** up 3. 2, however, was the best Spiderman. Spiderman's internal and external struggles, along with some truly excellent action and dialogue sequences, not to mention a truly excellent Alfred Molina as Doc Ock all make the movie something more than the typical Fantastic Four type fare. Thanks to Spiderman 2, we now have the truly excellent superhero movies, like Iron Man, and The Dark Knight. (Woot... I managed to keep that last paragraph on topic with that last sentence XD)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Aug 11, 2008 11:21 am
I was actually being serious when I said that introducing Robin would be cool in my books. I like Robin a whole lot more (as a character) than Batman. I'm not saying that he wasn't a bit hokey in the 90s movies, but so was Batman at that time in the franchise. xD And I have no doubt that if Nolan returns, and if Robin is introduced...it won't be a terrible thing at all. ^^ (As I've said earlier, Nolan almost didn't return to direct Dark Knight because he didn't want to do a sequel)
As for Spiderman 2, a good script is only as good as the actors/director. The acting in that movie was absolutely terrible...like, even worse than the first one. And there were some scenes that made me cringe they were so badly directed. And the switcheroo on Ben's killer had me mad at first, but only until I learned that was true-to-comic. One thing that Marvel has over DC adaptations is a control over how the movie represents the orignal material...and I am definitely cool with that. (But this is off-topic to the orignal thread, so if you want to continue our Spiderman debate, feel free to PM me. xD) domokun
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
