The Dark Knight (and how awful it will be)

[pinstrike]

Ok. F**ck Heath Ledger.
He has, with this movie, poisoned Batman media for YEARS to come. Christopher Nolan has done the damage by choosing him, but his comments about his idea of the character he portrayed are unforgiveable. Batman Begins was the worst movie to come out of ever. With its "gritty realism" and twenty foot vertical jumps...and lack of supervillain...and lack of the real R'as Al Ghul...and the lack of anything that made Batman the adoration-worthy character we'd grown up with.

The Joker in this move is not the Joker by any means. He is a "punk rock anarchist...a tortured soul seeking redemption through destruction..." What the F*** is that? The JOKER is a laughing, practical joking madman with no other drive than evil and fun. He is a criminal genius with a sense of humour. He SMILES. He LAUGHS. His skin is bleached and none of that is negotiable. Adapt it how you want, but you can't take a character with opposite character traits and name him after the greatest villain in DC comics history.
It's bull****. The best Batman movie ever made would have to be Batman Returns or Batman Forever. They had PLOTS and SUPERVILLAINS and a BATMAN WHO INVENTED AND DESIGNED AND CONSTRUCTED HIS OWN DEVICES AND A BATMOBILE. Not a Tumbler. Christopher Nolan RAPED Batman. Heath Ledger got sloppy seconds.
Now if Chris can get his hands on some sleeping pills, we'd be in business.
Why? Because I cannot believe I am alone when I say that I would prefer the Batman mythos to REMAIN THE BATMAN MYTHOS. True, it is darker than most, but it is still a comic book story. Anyone seen X-Men? Jesus, it was like Degrassi with superpowers. Why are people afraid to make comic book movies?
I am ashamed that I live in a generation when characters loveable for decades are shat upon by directors and actors, and the hypey-fan-kids lap it up.
True story: Jack Nicholson himself, when approached about Heath's death, paused in smoking his cigar to answer the paparazzi with a giggle and the words "heh, I warned 'im."
A joke from the Joker...A LAUGHING, SMILING, PRACTICAL PRANKSTER WHO SMILES, HAS BLEACHED SKIN, SMILES, LAUGHS, AND KILLS PEOPLE FOR THE SAKE OF LUNACY AND PURE FUN AND GAME-ENJOYMENT!
Let me tell you who ISN'T in the upcoming debacle you call a movie: the joker.
Damnit, look at him!!! He's not even got the physical aspect right! Is that make-up? What the hell is wrong with these people?
All they're looking at is how appealing the idea of a super-sadistic morose psychopath is, and not realizing how NOT THE JOKER that is! Call him something else, put him in another movie, hell, I'm sure the guy can pull off one hell of a character that would still appeal to their emo/gritty natures. But do not ever call him the joker.
The point of the Joker is not to be ironic. There is no point, lest you could call pure, surrealistic joy and lunacy a point. JOY! He LOVES what he does. He doesn't brood or frown. He jokes and plays and people usually end up killed and he loves it. He is happy! The character could not be farther from the name they slapped on him.

This movie makes me very, very upset.
And you guys...come on! Does no one agree with me?

[The Big Daddy C-Master]

The problem with movies is they don't always stick to the same formula and they try to appeal to pop culture, something hardcore fans don't like. Unfortunately they aren't the majority, the popular culture is.

[Psyquis52]

C-Master has it right.
They aren't making this movie for just the fans. They're trying to incorporate entire new people to it.
You have to look at these movies as kind of Elseworlds. Otherwise you'll go nuts trying to pick it apart.

Despite how far off they stray, there's no denying that Christopher Nolan makes a good movie.
I know some of you will have trouble admitting that because when you see Batman Begins all you see is someone who's not treating Batman the way you feel he should be treated.

Batman's just plot material and I'm of the belief that if we ever got a perfect match for the comic book Batman in a movie that it would be just awful.

[pinstrike]

Ok, psyquis 52. Allow me to begin by saying C-Master had a point. I didn't have a problem with that. You took it too far and defended it.

You're saying there is no denying Christopher Nolan makes a good movie.
But I ALREADY denied it, which makes your statement either ignorant of mine, and therefore should not have been said and is itself purjured, or it is simply a lie. Either way, it is wrong.

Good comic-book-movie directors tend to, even if they stray from source material, have solid things remain. Par Example,

1. Villains only able to be suitably thwarted by the hero, hence the conflict. [In Christopher Nolan's clusterfuck, as I remember it Katie Holmes played a made-up character. A made up character who THWARTED THE "VILLAIN".] But there WAS really no solid villain, nor any solid threat.
2. A hero who is able to defeat the villain. [remember how "Batman" was a great detective in Batman Begins, ooh, and how he designed his own crime-fighting materials? And remember how he thwarted the evil plot? Remember the evil plot? NEITHER DO I!]
3. A plot.

Christopher Nolan succeeded in not only sucking at adapting material, but at making movies period.

So, if you're saying I'm WRONG in analyzing his or any cinema and its quality, take a year in film school, as I've been doing, and learn about the logistics first.

Sir, you don't realize that this is NOT a subjective issue. There is a clear right and wrong here. It is not how I "feel" Batman should be treated. It is simply HOW Batman should be treated. You cannot rob his story of its primary elements, indeed, rob HIM of his primary traits, cast in fake characters, a fake origin, villains who are the complete opposite of the villains themselves. I mean, total and unadulterated opposites, and even start by saying you're making a Batman movie, let alone a good one.

[Psyquis52]

Apr 19, 2008 19:05:18 GMT -5 pinstrike said:

Ok, psyquis 52. Allow me to begin by saying C-Master had a point. I didn't have a problem with that. You took it too far and defended it.

You're saying there is no denying Christopher Nolan makes a good movie.
But I ALREADY denied it, which makes your statement either ignorant of mine, and therefore should not have been said and is itself purjured, or it is simply a lie. Either way, it is wrong.

Good comic-book-movie directors tend to, even if they stray from source material, have solid things remain. Par Example,

1. Villains only able to be suitably thwarted by the hero, hence the conflict. [In Christopher Nolan's clusterfuck, as I remember it Katie Holmes played a made-up character. A made up character who THWARTED THE "VILLAIN".] But there WAS really no solid villain, nor any solid threat.
2. A hero who is able to defeat the villain. [remember how "Batman" was a great detective in Batman Begins, ooh, and how he designed his own crime-fighting materials? And remember how he thwarted the evil plot? Remember the evil plot? NEITHER DO I!]
3. A plot.

Christopher Nolan succeeded in not only sucking at adapting material, but at making movies period.

So, if you're saying I'm WRONG in analyzing his or any cinema and its quality, take a year in film school, as I've been doing, and learn about the logistics first.

Sir, you don't realize that this is NOT a subjective issue. There is a clear right and wrong here. It is not how I "feel" Batman should be treated. It is simply HOW Batman should be treated. You cannot rob his story of its primary elements, indeed, rob HIM of his primary traits, cast in fake characters, a fake origin, villains who are the complete opposite of the villains themselves. I mean, total and unadulterated opposites, and even start by saying you're making a Batman movie, let alone a good one.

Heh....I see I touched a nerve there.

[pinstrike]

Touched a nerve? No, you're simply wrong. Wrongness bothers me. And you have yet to refute anything I've stated. If you have anything left in you to defend Nolan and Ledger and the band of vandals they represent, do continue. Otherwise, I invite others to take up the torch.

[Dja Majista]

I can't really refuse an invite so I'm just gonna address what I can.

You're saying there is no denying Christopher Nolan makes a good movie.
But I ALREADY denied it, which makes your statement either ignorant of mine, and therefore should not have been said and is itself purjured, or it is simply a lie. Either way, it is wrong.

This is a wasted point. You're actually not saying anything relevant if you're not addressing the clear intent of his language. Granted, if you think it's unclear, you simply call him out on equivocation. However, most people know that the phrase "There's no denying..." is not meant literally. Rather it should be read as a normative statement: "There should be no denying..."

Good comic-book-movie directors tend to, even if they stray from source material, have solid things remain. Par Example,

1. Villains only able to be suitably thwarted by the hero, hence the conflict. [In Christopher Nolan's clusterfuck, as I remember it Katie Holmes played a made-up character. A made up character who THWARTED THE "VILLAIN".] But there WAS really no solid villain, nor any solid threat.
2. A hero who is able to defeat the villain. [remember how "Batman" was a great detective in Batman Begins, ooh, and how he designed his own crime-fighting materials? And remember how he thwarted the evil plot? Remember the evil plot? NEITHER DO I!]
3. A plot.

Christopher Nolan succeeded in not only sucking at adapting material, but at making movies period.

So, if you're saying I'm WRONG in analyzing his or any cinema and its quality, take a year in film school, as I've been doing, and learn about the logistics first.

Sir, you don't realize that this is NOT a subjective issue. There is a clear right and wrong here. It is not how I "feel" Batman should be treated. It is simply HOW Batman should be treated. You cannot rob his story of its primary elements, indeed, rob HIM of his primary traits, cast in fake characters, a fake origin, villains who are the complete opposite of the villains themselves. I mean, total and unadulterated opposites, and even start by saying you're making a Batman movie, let alone a good one.

To say the standard of any form of art/literature is a clear and objective one is pretty bold. Especially since we have a whole school of philosophy dedicated to answering that question, aesthetics. To claim authority based on one year of film school is also pretty bold since most critics who've finished their education don't even consider their opinions absolute. Though believing that assessing something for it's practical purposes is the best way to determine how good it is, consider this standard: Does the movie make a lot of money?

Doesn't that seem like it might be a good standard for a film maker who's out to make money? If that's not an objective approach then I don't know what is.

[Psyquis52]

Apr 23, 2008 17:58:01 GMT -5 pinstrike said:

Touched a nerve? No, you're simply wrong. Wrongness bothers me. And you have yet to refute anything I've stated. If you have anything left in you to defend Nolan and Ledger and the band of vandals they represent, do continue. Otherwise, I invite others to take up the torch.

Good Lord!

you're simply wrong. Wrongness bothers me.

Why don't you just take off your glove and smack me in the face?

I'm glad Dja Majista took you up on your offer because the ideal of defending the works of Christopher Nolan doesn't exactly appeal to me. I don't like him enough to do so and I'm not itching for debate either.

Dja has me right on why I said, "there's no denying" I was merely using it as a figure of speech. I didn't mean it in quite so literal a sense.

And with that I step back and watch you two go at it. #duel#

[The Big Daddy C-Master]

As long as we keep the peace this discussion is cool by me, so let's keep the peace all. ;D

How is Esteemed Leader btw?

[Dja Majista]

I don't even know anything about Christopher Nolan, so I can only go so far in my rebuttal. But on the other hand, if the movie makes lots of money then Nolan has something going for him from my arguments standpoint.

[pinstrike]

Ok. See, my little quip after the "there's no denying" nonsense was for humourous purposes. Of course I know his intention, but word choice is an inexhaustable source for sarcasm. I guess I wasn't clearly being comedic.
Anyway, the whole money-as-purpose-of-cinema thing, we are not arguing the same thing. If the movie makes money, he succeeded as a businessman. An entrepeneur, a well trained salesmen, But has failed to deliver a valueable product. He has failed as an artist based on his splendid disregard for Batman and all it stands for. He has made a movie already that was as boring and disjointed as it was inaccurate. Explain the plot:

Ok, there's Bruce Wayne. He's travelled and learned nothing but fighting styles from everywhere imaginable and a man named R'as al Ghul. Ok. He returns to Gotham City and sells his shares of his father's company...and buys a bunch of stuff to fight corruption...doesn't design it or build it...BUYS it. Ok, so he goes out against organized crime...but meets a girl...who doesn't exist anywhere else...and that kinds goes nowhere...Oh, and there's a guy who is testing a chemical on people that drives them crazy...and there's a water-vaporizing device that's getting stolen...and Batman kind of chances upon the antedote...which the guy he bought the gadgets and stuff from actually discovered...and he gives it to Gordon, and HE goes to stop the evil plot that we still kinda don't know about. He gives his lady-friend the "tumbler"(and it makes me sick to say that), and she goes to blow up the bridge where we now learn the train is going over and it has the water-vaporizing device on it. But Batman, he goes and fights R'as Al Ghul on the train, but that doesn't matter because the train is already gonna be derailed....so Batman fights him a bit and jumps off...and it's over. So he's really Bat-the-Middle-Man. Didn't stop shit. Didn't thwart shit.
So, I mean---OH! I forgot. Then he buys his share in the ciompany back again using small businesses...and that doesn't affect anything...at all...and the organized crime thing...is vaguely assumed to be a diminished threat...eh?

It's like watching a hemophiliac play dodgeball.

So, his movie was just bad. But what makes it sickening is that he tried to pawn it off as a Batman movie.

[Dja Majista]

Apr 24, 2008 11:56:00 GMT -5 pinstrike said:

Ok. See, my little quip after the "there's no denying" nonsense was for humourous purposes. Of course I know his intention, but word choice is an inexhaustable source for sarcasm. I guess I wasn't clearly being comedic.

ok, that works.

Anyway, the whole money-as-purpose-of-cinema thing, we are not arguing the same thing. If the movie makes money, he succeeded as a businessman. An entrepeneur, a well trained salesmen, But has failed to deliver a valueable product. He has failed as an artist based on his splendid disregard for Batman and all it stands for. He has made a movie already that was as boring and disjointed as it was inaccurate. Explain the plot:

Ok, I'll diagram out what we've argued
I said:
If the movie makes money, he has succeeded as a film maker and as you said a businessman.
You say:
If the movie disregards batman for all he stands for (which it has), he has failed as a film maker and an artist.
Is that a fair assessment?
My standard is him as a businessman. Your's is as an artist. So let's go with the artistic standard for a good movie. How do you determine whether a movie that's based on a comic book is is artistic or not? From what you've said it seems one of the major factors in determining this is whether the film maker has stayed true to the series. And in this case it is a deciding factor. So what do you think: Assuming the movie kept all of it's bare-bones qualities (acting, special effects, etc.) and instead of botching the series, stayed true to it, would you say that would be a reasonably good movie?

[pinstrike]

Hmmm...an interesting perspective...but indeed the answer is clear. It would be BETTER, but not GOOD. Even if the series was not botched (which I am relieved to find you agree with) it still would have a disjointed plot and poor writing and direction. See, it IS a two-part thing. It spat on Batman, AND had poor direction. The only thing it did have was great casting with Christian Bale, and Gary Oldman (who was born to be commissioner Gordon...born to be).

[Dja Majista]

Apr 24, 2008 23:11:18 GMT -5 pinstrike said:

Hmmm...an interesting perspective...but indeed the answer is clear. It would be BETTER, but not GOOD. Even if the series was not botched (which I am relieved to find you agree with) it still would have a disjointed plot and poor writing and direction. See, it IS a two-part thing. It spat on Batman, AND had poor direction. The only thing it did have was great casting with Christian Bale, and Gary Oldman (who was born to be commissioner Gordon...born to be).

So better in the sense that it would no longer be a disservice to fans, but not better in an artistic sense. In other words, the movie could have still been artistic even with fan disservice but...

you claim that the movie is still flawed artistically regardless of this disservice because it has a disjointed plot and poor writing and direction which is a fair point.

Ok I just wanted to clarify your logic. I definitely couldn't argue the above point, since I haven't seen the movie and I don't really see many movies, so I don't qualify as an authoritative critic.

So I'd invite someone who wants to defend the plot of this movie to step up if they want.
(eh, if they don't come, you win.)


And on another note, I think maybe if you had decided to set the standard at the business end, you might have made an even stronger point. Because you could argue that, a plot that was more true to the series would bring in more fans and still retain the newcomer audience, thus actually making more money. But on the other side, one would say that this alternate method attracts more newcomers and more than accounts for the deficit of disappointed fans. Granted, I find the latter more believable (simply because if I were a batman fan, I'd be obliged to see a movie about him no matter how good or bad it is, within reason of course), but that doesn't change the fact that both are entirely hypothetical and thus impossible to test.

[Psyquis52]

Just going to throw this in there, take it or leave it:

Other works of Christopher Nolan's worth note -
Momento
The Prestige

Take a look at those if you like.

[pinstrike]

Ok, yeah. Memento was great, and The Prestige was good (sub-par to its rival, The Illusionist, buit still very good). But as much as I liked watching those movies, I love Batman. And with what he's done to it, I would gladly live without those movies. What I'm saying here, is that if never making Batman Begins meant he never made a movie at all--if that was an option, I'd take it.

[Psyquis52]

Apr 29, 2008 10:01:45 GMT -5 pinstrike said:

Ok, yeah. Memento was great, and The Prestige was good (sub-par to its rival, The Illusionist, buit still very good). But as much as I liked watching those movies, I love Batman. And with what he's done to it, I would gladly live without those movies. What I'm saying here, is that if never making Batman Begins meant he never made a movie at all--if that was an option, I'd take it.

I agree with you about the Prestige.
If you pit it up against The Illusionist then it comes up quite short.

The Illusionist was quite excellent in my humble opinion. ;D

[pinstrike]

Yes it was. Two things the Illusionist had that the Prestige didn't:
1. A very palpable period-piece ambience.
2. Paul Giamatti

[Psyquis52]

May 2, 2008 10:29:03 GMT -5 pinstrike said:

Yes it was. Two things the Illusionist had that the Prestige didn't:
1. A very palpable period-piece ambience.
2. Paul Giamatti

I couldn't agree more. Paul Giamatti was superb in that flick. Not to mention Rufus Sewell. I'm of the impression that Rufus Sewell should have played Doom.

[pinstrike]

Yes! Good point!

But back to the discussion. More people need to take the poll, by the way.

The fated day draws ever nearer, and the Joker is still not the Joker. The man who fights him is still not Batman. Any new ideas regarding?

[The Big Daddy C-Master]

I saw the preview of it and it does indeed seem different, what convinces you it will be bad?

[Sinistrous]

I can't see how anyone would consider Batman Begins as art anyway, it's basically pure entertainment that would work if it wasn't filled with sloppy attempts at philosophy such as the "I'm not going to kill you, but I'm not going to save you either" *whoosh* *Qui-Gon Jinn dies*. The only philosophy I want out of Bruce Wayne should be those "SOK"s and "POW"s coming out of his fists!

[pinstrike]

I like your Beksinski artwork, there, Sinistrous. But otherwise, a couple things to realize. Batman has always been a very insightful and philospohical detective, weighing the options and consequences of every action he takes. The SOKS and POWS belong to the Adam Westian Batman. Fun and funky, it was a brief reprieve from the heaviness of the material, but he still had his monologues, his quandries, even between the BAMS.

"Begins" failed to put across what a TV show even succeeded at--blending the action and personal properties of the Bat. In fact, it failed at everything.

[Sinistrous]

What can I say, the Westian Batman is the only one I can claim some familiarity at all with; all those very rare run-ins with the comics, movies, and other TV versions aside. I guess it's been quite a while though, because I don't really recall him as the philosophical type in the show - insightful and analytical in the classical detective sense, yes, but not so much in the "the judicial system is corrupt and will just let this guy walk so I should kill him to keep him off the streets" sense.

[Psyquis52]

Westian Batman was a joke. I'm not using that as insult either. It was just intended to be a comedy.

I've seen some instances in the preview that made me think that there might be some deduction used in this, but only some.

Perhaps the animated series was the best adaptation?

[scarletspeedster]

well apparently the thread starter was very rong lol, it has had nothing short of excellent reviews.

[The Big Daddy C-Master]

Jul 18, 2008 21:12:50 GMT -5 scarletspeedster said:

well apparently the thread starter was very rong lol, it has had nothing short of excellent reviews.

Hardcore fans tend to be harsher when it comes to these sort of things.

[Joker]

Fuck Heath Ledger? For one, that's rude & dissrespectful to the dead. Have a little more respect than that.

[brucewayne]

The Dark Knight is one of the best films I've ever seen. I'm not saying that because love Batman. I'm saying it because its true. Great story. Great acting

[The Big Daddy C-Master]

Jul 30, 2008 1:22:02 GMT -5 brucewayne said:

The Dark Knight is one of the best films I've ever seen. I'm not saying that because love Batman. I'm saying it because its true. Great story. Great acting

I believe you, most hardcore fans are actually the most critical, as you can see in some of the threads regarding the movie.