Ross, I know you like movies and pride yourself on quality film-making, but sometimes you sound like that guy in the group who has to snub a film on every merit or he doesn't feel like the smartest guy in the room.
There's nitpicking and then there's Over-Compulsive.
Make no mistake, I love The Dark Knight. It is flawed, though. The scene where he somehow lifts prints off a shattered bullet is one of the stupidest things I've ever seen in such a polished film. It also doesn't really do anything with Batman as a character. I could list probably twenty films I've seen that are better overall films than The Dark Knight. I wish people wouldn't put it on quite as high a pedestal.
It has alot to do with Batman as a character. The whole film, in fact, is contrasting Batman vs The Joker vs Dent.
It's just the film isn't concerned with spending all it's time establishing Batman as a character. Because, you know, they spent the entire LAST film doing that. Which is really the best part of Nolan's Batman series. He spent an entire movie establishing the main character. It's only in the sequel where he then took that firmly established character and did something with it in response to other characters.
Ironman works really well for the same reason. Till the end anyway. And the ends whole problem is that it strays from being about Ironman to throw in a superficial villain to give the cliched climax.
IMO, the problem with the Dark Knight is that it's not a good batman film. Its a GREAT Joker film, but the entire film pretty much just serves to make Batman look like a chump compared to the Joker. Batman pretty much gets trumped at every encounter, save the final bit, and he even winds up torching his ethics to try to stop the joker. Ultimately, though the Batman takes the fall for the final crime to stop the Joker's ultimate victory, it still has the benefit of ostracizing batman from Gotham, which will make it that much more difficult for Batman to actually fight crime in the future.
The only two times the Joker even came close to failure in that movie is when the ships didn't blow each other up (which was ultimately irrelevant as he already turned Dent, proving he was right.) and the final act of Batman sacrificing his reputation to prevent word of Dent's action from getting out; which again had the bonus of causing a major interference to Batman. Everything else was a carefully planned out (or skillfully improvised) into part of his plan.
How is it not a good Batman film? Just because he doesn't win every encounter? That sounds like a recipe for a boring Batman film. The Joker succeeds so often, from a narrative perspective, because he has to. Because if he doesn't, what's the point? You need to establish credible antagonists and to do that, they have to win.
Batman's "win" at the end is a victory, but kind of a tainted one. Which is rather appropriate given that The Joker is, essentially, his equal and opposite. But it's still ultimately a victory and a win in the 2 constrasts between Batman/Dent and Batman/Joker that run throughout the film.
The Joker is ultimately wrong. Given the chance, the people of Gotham aren't just like him. They refused to turn on one another. And Dent is ultimately not what Gotham needs (or the man himself isn't). He's too weak. But Dent as a symbol can live on. Because the Batman is strong enough to make it so. Because, as Gordon says at the end, he can take it. He can be whatever Gotham needs him to be. That's the power of a symbol.
Ultimately, the movie is still all about the idea of Batman. The Joker stands large because he has to in order for the film to work and because he's got to be established whereas Batman is being imported from the previous film that was all about him. But it's still Batman's film and still all about him and how he relates to these other things.
shryke on
0
Options
KageraImitating the worst people. Since 2004Registered Userregular
Batman's Batman voice sucked. Like the more I watch the movie the more annoying it gets.
Like, just get a modulator or something you rich bastard. Christ.
My neck, my back, my FUPA and my crack.
0
Options
KalTorakOne way or another, they all end up inthe Undercity.Registered Userregular
Title notwithstanding, TDK is as good as I remember. I remember sitting in the theater and thinking, "huh, this is pretty long..." and cringing a bit at the voice both times. Didn't care though, had fun, still do.
People complaining about Bale's Batman voice is always annoying. If you think it through for two seconds, you realize that it makes more sense to talk like that than in his normal voice. Not to mention how metaphorically primal it is, which also is completely fitting. And anyone who says they didn't know what he was saying at any point is lying or was half asleep.
Love it, every time. In the comics it's even noted that Bruce spoke in a harsh growl at times while in the cowl, something he'd "brought back from Africa" (referencing the lions, as I recall), but that might be a Frank Miller'ism, and as such, I might get yelled at for even mentioning it. >.>
First they came for the Muslims, and we said NOT TODAY, MOTHERFUCKER!
Love it, every time. In the comics it's even noted that Bruce spoke in a harsh growl at times while in the cowl, something he'd "brought back from Africa" (referencing the lions, as I recall), but that might be a Frank Miller'ism, and as such, I might get yelled at for even mentioning it. >.>
Ehh, the me the gold standard for the different Batman and Bruce Wayne voices is Kevin Conroy, the guy who was on the animated series and Arkham Asylum. It's deeper and more serious without sounding silly. That's my only real problem with TDK, the voice always brought me out of it a little bit.
IMO, the problem with the Dark Knight is that it's not a good batman film. Its a GREAT Joker film, but the entire film pretty much just serves to make Batman look like a chump compared to the Joker. Batman pretty much gets trumped at every encounter, save the final bit, and he even winds up torching his ethics to try to stop the joker. Ultimately, though the Batman takes the fall for the final crime to stop the Joker's ultimate victory, it still has the benefit of ostracizing batman from Gotham, which will make it that much more difficult for Batman to actually fight crime in the future.
The only two times the Joker even came close to failure in that movie is when the ships didn't blow each other up (which was ultimately irrelevant as he already turned Dent, proving he was right.) and the final act of Batman sacrificing his reputation to prevent word of Dent's action from getting out; which again had the bonus of causing a major interference to Batman. Everything else was a carefully planned out (or skillfully improvised) into part of his plan.
How is it not a good Batman film? Just because he doesn't win every encounter?
Did I say that? Did I even hint at that? My issue is that he didn't win ANY encounter, at all, and the whole gist of my post is that Batman served more as a foil to show why the Joker is so awesome and outclasses the Batman and OH MY HOW IS HE GOING TO SAVE THE DAY oh wait he doesn't.
THAT is why I don't think it's a good Batman film. He's supposed to win in the end.. not have a half-assed pseudo-victory that still leaves the city and Batman noticeably worse off than it was before.
People complaining about Bale's Batman voice is always annoying. If you think it through for two seconds, you realize that it makes more sense to talk like that than in his normal voice. Not to mention how metaphorically primal it is, which also is completely fitting. And anyone who says they didn't know what he was saying at any point is lying or was half asleep.
Nobodies saying he shouldn't be disguising his voice, just that he shouldn't sound so completely rediculous when he does it. Like it has been said before, watch (well listen) to anything that had Batman voiced by Kevin Conroy to see an awesome way to do the Bruce/Batman voice split.
THAT is why I don't think it's a good Batman film. He's supposed to win in the end.. not have a half-assed pseudo-victory that still leaves the city and Batman noticeably worse off than it was before.
The Joker's entire goal was to prove that Batman could be corrupted.
Heroes don't need to win in the end, that's just silly. What they do need though is an emotional arc through the story, which I didn't feel like Batman had in The Dark Knight.
It's a bad movie because he's supposed to win in the end?
First of all, Batman won at chasing down Joker's truck and flipping it over. I felt that was a pretty good victory in the theater. He didn't end up killing the Joker, but he still stopped all his goons and the garbage truck and all that. And then, at the end... he stopped the SWAT team from killing the hostages and strung the Joker up on a rope. Another victory. Seemed like he won quite a few encounters. But besides that, I'm fascinated by this "He's supposed to win in the end..." comment.
That's why it's a bad movie? Cause da good guy s'posed to win? Cause good gotta triumph at the end? Good gotta beat da big mean baddie? Brad Pitt and Morgan Freeman gotta win out over John Doe and that box at the end?
Like many other superhero movies (but unlike Batman Begins, ironically) The Dark Knight suffers from trying to cram too much into one script and the characters suffer for it.
THAT is why I don't think it's a good Batman film. He's supposed to win in the end.. not have a half-assed pseudo-victory that still leaves the city and Batman noticeably worse off than it was before.
The Joker's entire goal was to prove that Batman could be corrupted.
He failed.
Well, Batman showed that he was willing to violate people's privacy to catch the Joker, so even though, as far as I can tell, the Joker totally wasn't trying to show that Batman was corruptable, he managed to show that Batman was willing to cross the line. (Though, lucky for Batman, Morgan Freeman is the only one who knows that). Seriously though, I don't think the Joker even made an inkling that he wanted to corrupt Batman. His goal was to show that PEOPLE can be corrupted. He took the "White Knight" of Gotham and got him to go on a violent killing spree of revenge. He proved that one, and only because Batman took the rap did word of that not get out. (And even then, it's going to cause interference with Batman's duties, thus cause an increase of crime and people being monstrous to each other and oh hey look, the Joker was right anyway.)
EDIT: Delta Assault: Those WOULD be victories if each and every one of them didn't play directly into the Joker's hand.
-Flipping over the truck which ultimately lead to the Joker's capture? Joker WANTED to get capture so everyone would celebrate, his goons would nab Dent and the chick, he could give Batman the "pick one" speech, and then get out and blow up his bomb minion, and finally capture Lao for the mobsters.
-Stringing up the Joker was a friggen distraction. The entire event didn't matter, because in the end, Harvey Dent was out there Two-Facin' it up. Batman ultimately lost that duel of wits.
Also, I never say it was a bad movie, I said it wasn't a good BATMAN movie. (But thanks for the patronizing tone, I appreciate it.) I feel the movie goes out of it's way to make Batman look bad in order to make the Joker look more awesome. It's still an awesome movie, I just don't find it a good movie to show to someone and say "and this is why Batman is awesome!"
It's a movie you show to someone and say "Holy shit the Joker is amazing in this.. Also there's batman.. I guess. He has a funny voice."
Kevin Conroy is indeed a badass Batman. Him doing the voice was part of what sold me on Arkham Asylum before I knew anything else about the game.
I am sorry , the Animated Series is just far better than any live action batman has been.
There's something timeless with it's handling of Batman and the rouge gallery.
Even Batman Beyond managed to be something special if you divorce it from the animation style (both Beyond and TAS haven't aged terribly well as far as animation goes)
The AA Game proves you have to have Paul Dini involved to have a brilliant Batman. He doesn't understand the character he defines the character.
The Dark Knight will be one of those films like Terminator 2 or Fifth Element that hit with a big bang but slowly fall to a whimper in the history of film with everyone but those in that specific age group when it came out. If you are thinking "Wow you are wrong about T2 and Fifth Element" I bet you are in your thirties.
0
Options
KalTorakOne way or another, they all end up inthe Undercity.Registered Userregular
Yeah, if there's one fault I can find with Nolan's movies, it's that they're short on emotion, which sometimes hamstrings the actors from creating an entirely human character. They have motivation and everything required to tell an intricate story that my mind loves to chew over for months afterward, but sometimes it seems like the intricacy of the plot just doesn't leave room for a very intricate character.
There are emotional moments that establish motivation or convey pieces of the plot (I believed Angier's despair after the water tank trick went wrong at the beginning of The Prestige, for example), but most of the other characters just don't have time to develop emotion, or something.
I think the strongest emotional connection I've felt with a Nolan character was Dom in Inception, mainly because the window ledge scene freaked me out and I got a huge "it would suck for that to happen" feeling. Most of the time it doesn't really bother me, because I'm watching a Nolan movie and it's like my brain is eating a huge delicious meal; I don't mind if the characters aren't as emotionally developed as they might be.
THAT is why I don't think it's a good Batman film. He's supposed to win in the end.. not have a half-assed pseudo-victory that still leaves the city and Batman noticeably worse off than it was before.
The Joker's entire goal was to prove that Batman could be corrupted.
He failed.
Well, Batman showed that he was willing to violate people's privacy to catch the Joker, so even though, as far as I can tell, the Joker totally wasn't trying to show that Batman was corruptable, he managed to show that Batman was willing to cross the line. (Though, lucky for Batman, Morgan Freeman is the only one who knows that). Seriously though, I don't think the Joker even made an inkling that he wanted to corrupt Batman. His goal was to show that PEOPLE can be corrupted. He took the "White Knight" of Gotham and got him to go on a violent killing spree of revenge. He proved that one, and only because Batman took the rap did word of that not get out. (And even then, it's going to cause interference with Batman's duties, thus cause an increase of crime and people being monstrous to each other and oh hey look, the Joker was right anyway.)
There is only one line Batman can cross, and he did not cross it. I thought the "break your only rule" lines made that fairly apparent.
The thing with Dent is that Gotham isn't totally full of corrupted people, and that people are trying to make a difference. Batman was already a controversial character to begin with amongst the populace (unlike Dent). For news to break that Dent shot and killed several people, in addition to threatening the Commissioner's family at gunpoint, would be devastating to public morale and hopes that Gotham can redeem itself.
But that's my point, the entire situation was set up to essentially be lose-lose for Batman. Either people find out that Dent went wacko and the publics morale goes through the shitter, or Batman gets made into the target, has to go into hiding, crime rises, the White Knight is still dead, and the public's morale goes down the shitter. All because, IMO, they wanted to show that the Joker is just that awesome and clever. Even beat up and hanging from a rope twenty stories up, he's still winning.
But that's just really my opinion on the movie. It's still one of my favorite superhero movies, even if I found the superhero portion lacking.
"His men are psycho and expendable... yet somehow completely dependable."
I think one valid criticism from that video above is when you re-watch the bank heist. I can accept the fact that the Joker manipulates his crew into killing each other. But this is a crew of highly competent men who he's never worked with before, who all pull off their jobs without a hitch.
EDIT: Delta Assault: Those WOULD be victories if each and every one of them didn't play directly into the Joker's hand.
-Flipping over the truck which ultimately lead to the Joker's capture? Joker WANTED to get capture so everyone would celebrate, his goons would nab Dent and the chick, he could give Batman the "pick one" speech, and then get out and blow up his bomb minion, and finally capture Lao for the mobsters.
-Stringing up the Joker was a friggen distraction. The entire event didn't matter, because in the end, Harvey Dent was out there Two-Facin' it up. Batman ultimately lost that duel of wits.
Also, I never say it was a bad movie, I said it wasn't a good BATMAN movie. (But thanks for the patronizing tone, I appreciate it.) I feel the movie goes out of it's way to make Batman look bad in order to make the Joker look more awesome. It's still an awesome movie, I just don't find it a good movie to show to someone and say "and this is why Batman is awesome!"
It's a movie you show to someone and say "Holy shit the Joker is amazing in this.. Also there's batman.. I guess. He has a funny voice."
Sorry, just don't agree at all. Flipping the truck did lead to the Joker's capture and his eventual escape, but it's better then having the Joker loose on the streets of Gotham in a truck shooting up everything. The entire event at the skyscraper did matter, because otherwise, the SWAT team would've shot all the hostages, and the Joker's goons would've shot the SWAT team. That would've been a very bad thing if you value human life. So... it seems like Batman did matter.
And the film is absolutely a good Batman movie, because at the end Batman comes out looking amazing. You don't mention anything about the end, but you should, because it's the best part. Batman sacrifices his reputation to become something more than a hero. "He's a silent guardian, a watchful protector. A Dark Knight." I almost cried when Gordon said those words. Batman looks bad? How the hell does he look bad when he takes on the sins of Harvey Dent in order to save his city? How does that make for a bad Batman movie?
That moment at the end is one that you show to someone and say "and this is why Batman is awesome!"
But if you don't want to enjoy the best Batman film ever made because you dislike his voice, hey that's your prerogative.
EDIT: Eh, people starting to complain, so I won't post a wall of text reply. I'll just repeat the fact that I don't think it's a bad film, I just feel like story is constructed so that everything Batman does (and I do mean EVERYTHING) just plays into the Joker's hand in some fashion, and that doesn't reflect well on the character and thus why I don't think it's a good Batman film. I still enjoy it very much for it's action and for the amazing portrayal of the Joker.
EDIT2: It's like how I find the time travel in Back to the Future a little convoluted and nonsensical, but that doesn't stop them from being some of my favorite movies of all time.
Undead Scottsman on
0
Options
Element BrianPeanut Butter ShillRegistered Userregular
So Joseph Gordon Levitt is confirmed for Dark Knight Rises, not that I needed more convincing to see it..but..
Also, sooo, the guy in the bed was Ra's al Ghul right?
Man, what's up with Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan? Whatever Kirk does, he just can't win! He strands Khan on Ceti Alpha V with the best of intentions, but then Ceti Alpha VI blows up and wrecks the whole planet. He goes to find out what happened to the Reliant but just ends up getting his ship shot all to hell and Scotty's nephew dies. He goes down to Regula to find and protect the Genesis device but it ends up getting discovered by Khan and beamed away. He runs into a nebula so the odds will be even, but Khan activates the Genesis device at the end and Spock ends up dying anyways. Everything he does just plays into Khan's hand in some fashion. This doesn't reflect well on the character of Kirk. What a shitty Star Trek movie, am I right?
0
Options
DHSChase lizards.....bark at donkeys..Registered Userregular
EDIT: Eh, people are bitching I guess, so I won't post a wall of text reply. I'll just repeat the fact that I don't think it's a bad film, I just feel like story is constructed so that everything Batman does (and I do mean EVERYTHING) just plays into the Joker's hand in some fashion, and that doesn't reflect well on the character and thus why I don't think it's a good Batman film. I still enjoy it very much for it's action and for the amazing portrayal of the Joker.
The problem is, that is in no way something that precludes any story from being a good Batman story. It happens a lot to him, the Joker gets some clear wins like the original Joker in the Batman Beyond movie Return of the Joker, he straight up defeats "Bruce" Batman completely, even destroys one of his closest relationship. Hell, Mask of the Phantasm, he loses out completely to the titular villain, having beem outwitted and being emotionally manipulated. I don't it true what you're claiming about the story. Even so, you're not really making a claim that makes any sense, and it's kind of unnecessary. Even given your premise, so?
I mean, it's just so insubstantial of an observation. If it succeeds as a story, then it succeeds as a movie and does what it intended to do. I think the best use of a franchise character in film media should stand up more as a story irrespective of the character, it should be that strong on its own. It shouldn't disrespect the character and world it draws from, which it doesn't, it makes Batman a credible character by having him be susceptible to a genius like his own, just like a Carmine Falcone was to him, he didn't expect it, that could and should happen. In fact, it is constructed that way, because it is the POINT of the movie, Batman is still a man first and foremost, he is not perfect and can LOSE, sometimes there is no victory.
Also you're point kind of fails to mention that as a Batman "story" the Nolan trilogy isn't complete. It's the middle act, and usually the hero doesn't win. Han Solo straight up got played, too.
DHS on
"Grip 'em up, grip 'em, grip 'em good, said the Gryphon... to the pig."
DHS is right. Batman Begins was the origin, The Dark Knight was about escalation and cause/effect of Batman's existence, and Dark Knight Rises will probably be about why Gotham needs Batman to never stop fighting.
EDIT: Delta Assault: Those WOULD be victories if each and every one of them didn't play directly into the Joker's hand.
-Flipping over the truck which ultimately lead to the Joker's capture? Joker WANTED to get capture so everyone would celebrate, his goons would nab Dent and the chick, he could give Batman the "pick one" speech, and then get out and blow up his bomb minion, and finally capture Lao for the mobsters.
-Stringing up the Joker was a friggen distraction. The entire event didn't matter, because in the end, Harvey Dent was out there Two-Facin' it up. Batman ultimately lost that duel of wits.
Also, I never say it was a bad movie, I said it wasn't a good BATMAN movie. (But thanks for the patronizing tone, I appreciate it.) I feel the movie goes out of it's way to make Batman look bad in order to make the Joker look more awesome. It's still an awesome movie, I just don't find it a good movie to show to someone and say "and this is why Batman is awesome!"
It's a movie you show to someone and say "Holy shit the Joker is amazing in this.. Also there's batman.. I guess. He has a funny voice."
Sorry, just don't agree at all. Flipping the truck did lead to the Joker's capture and his eventual escape, but it's better then having the Joker loose on the streets of Gotham in a truck shooting up everything. The entire event at the skyscraper did matter, because otherwise, the SWAT team would've shot all the hostages, and the Joker's goons would've shot the SWAT team. That would've been a very bad thing if you value human life. So... it seems like Batman did matter.
And the film is absolutely a good Batman movie, because at the end Batman comes out looking amazing. You don't mention anything about the end, but you should, because it's the best part. Batman sacrifices his reputation to become something more than a hero. "He's a silent guardian, a watchful protector. A Dark Knight." I almost cried when Gordon said those words. Batman looks bad? How the hell does he look bad when he takes on the sins of Harvey Dent in order to save his city? How does that make for a bad Batman movie?
That moment at the end is one that you show to someone and say "and this is why Batman is awesome!"
But if you don't want to enjoy the best Batman film ever made because you dislike his voice, hey that's your prerogative.
I even forgot to mention that Joker was about to blow up both ferries. Sure, he expected one or the other to turn the detonator key, so the two ferries saved themselves in that sense, but Joker was just going to turn both keys and kill everyone. But he didn't, cause of Batman.
I'll just repeat the fact that I don't think it's a bad film, I just feel like story is constructed so that everything Batman does (and I do mean EVERYTHING) just plays into the Joker's hand in some fashion, and that doesn't reflect well on the character and thus why I don't think it's a good Batman film.
Why? This happens to Batman all the time. Half his rogues gallery is as deadly as they are because they're incredibly manipulative and intelligent.
Posts
This post is contrived. Say what you mean.
There's nitpicking and then there's Over-Compulsive.
He's saying for a great film, you need at least 2 of the above.
It has alot to do with Batman as a character. The whole film, in fact, is contrasting Batman vs The Joker vs Dent.
It's just the film isn't concerned with spending all it's time establishing Batman as a character. Because, you know, they spent the entire LAST film doing that. Which is really the best part of Nolan's Batman series. He spent an entire movie establishing the main character. It's only in the sequel where he then took that firmly established character and did something with it in response to other characters.
Ironman works really well for the same reason. Till the end anyway. And the ends whole problem is that it strays from being about Ironman to throw in a superficial villain to give the cliched climax.
How is it not a good Batman film? Just because he doesn't win every encounter? That sounds like a recipe for a boring Batman film. The Joker succeeds so often, from a narrative perspective, because he has to. Because if he doesn't, what's the point? You need to establish credible antagonists and to do that, they have to win.
Batman's "win" at the end is a victory, but kind of a tainted one. Which is rather appropriate given that The Joker is, essentially, his equal and opposite. But it's still ultimately a victory and a win in the 2 constrasts between Batman/Dent and Batman/Joker that run throughout the film.
The Joker is ultimately wrong. Given the chance, the people of Gotham aren't just like him. They refused to turn on one another. And Dent is ultimately not what Gotham needs (or the man himself isn't). He's too weak. But Dent as a symbol can live on. Because the Batman is strong enough to make it so. Because, as Gordon says at the end, he can take it. He can be whatever Gotham needs him to be. That's the power of a symbol.
Ultimately, the movie is still all about the idea of Batman. The Joker stands large because he has to in order for the film to work and because he's got to be established whereas Batman is being imported from the previous film that was all about him. But it's still Batman's film and still all about him and how he relates to these other things.
Like, just get a modulator or something you rich bastard. Christ.
My Let's Play Channel: https://youtube.com/channel/UC2go70QLfwGq-hW4nvUqmog
Some of the critiques are silly, although the calendar is hilarious. "Try to kill Harvey Dent but not really."
"SWEAR TO ME!"
Love it, every time. In the comics it's even noted that Bruce spoke in a harsh growl at times while in the cowl, something he'd "brought back from Africa" (referencing the lions, as I recall), but that might be a Frank Miller'ism, and as such, I might get yelled at for even mentioning it. >.>
Ehh, the me the gold standard for the different Batman and Bruce Wayne voices is Kevin Conroy, the guy who was on the animated series and Arkham Asylum. It's deeper and more serious without sounding silly. That's my only real problem with TDK, the voice always brought me out of it a little bit.
Did I say that? Did I even hint at that? My issue is that he didn't win ANY encounter, at all, and the whole gist of my post is that Batman served more as a foil to show why the Joker is so awesome and outclasses the Batman and OH MY HOW IS HE GOING TO SAVE THE DAY oh wait he doesn't.
THAT is why I don't think it's a good Batman film. He's supposed to win in the end.. not have a half-assed pseudo-victory that still leaves the city and Batman noticeably worse off than it was before.
Nobodies saying he shouldn't be disguising his voice, just that he shouldn't sound so completely rediculous when he does it. Like it has been said before, watch (well listen) to anything that had Batman voiced by Kevin Conroy to see an awesome way to do the Bruce/Batman voice split.
The Joker's entire goal was to prove that Batman could be corrupted.
He failed.
First of all, Batman won at chasing down Joker's truck and flipping it over. I felt that was a pretty good victory in the theater. He didn't end up killing the Joker, but he still stopped all his goons and the garbage truck and all that. And then, at the end... he stopped the SWAT team from killing the hostages and strung the Joker up on a rope. Another victory. Seemed like he won quite a few encounters. But besides that, I'm fascinated by this "He's supposed to win in the end..." comment.
That's why it's a bad movie? Cause da good guy s'posed to win? Cause good gotta triumph at the end? Good gotta beat da big mean baddie? Brad Pitt and Morgan Freeman gotta win out over John Doe and that box at the end?
What a weird ass complaint to have about a movie.
Well, Batman showed that he was willing to violate people's privacy to catch the Joker, so even though, as far as I can tell, the Joker totally wasn't trying to show that Batman was corruptable, he managed to show that Batman was willing to cross the line. (Though, lucky for Batman, Morgan Freeman is the only one who knows that). Seriously though, I don't think the Joker even made an inkling that he wanted to corrupt Batman. His goal was to show that PEOPLE can be corrupted. He took the "White Knight" of Gotham and got him to go on a violent killing spree of revenge. He proved that one, and only because Batman took the rap did word of that not get out. (And even then, it's going to cause interference with Batman's duties, thus cause an increase of crime and people being monstrous to each other and oh hey look, the Joker was right anyway.)
EDIT: Delta Assault: Those WOULD be victories if each and every one of them didn't play directly into the Joker's hand.
-Flipping over the truck which ultimately lead to the Joker's capture? Joker WANTED to get capture so everyone would celebrate, his goons would nab Dent and the chick, he could give Batman the "pick one" speech, and then get out and blow up his bomb minion, and finally capture Lao for the mobsters.
-Stringing up the Joker was a friggen distraction. The entire event didn't matter, because in the end, Harvey Dent was out there Two-Facin' it up. Batman ultimately lost that duel of wits.
Also, I never say it was a bad movie, I said it wasn't a good BATMAN movie. (But thanks for the patronizing tone, I appreciate it.) I feel the movie goes out of it's way to make Batman look bad in order to make the Joker look more awesome. It's still an awesome movie, I just don't find it a good movie to show to someone and say "and this is why Batman is awesome!"
It's a movie you show to someone and say "Holy shit the Joker is amazing in this.. Also there's batman.. I guess. He has a funny voice."
I am sorry , the Animated Series is just far better than any live action batman has been.
There's something timeless with it's handling of Batman and the rouge gallery.
Even Batman Beyond managed to be something special if you divorce it from the animation style (both Beyond and TAS haven't aged terribly well as far as animation goes)
The AA Game proves you have to have Paul Dini involved to have a brilliant Batman. He doesn't understand the character he defines the character.
The Dark Knight will be one of those films like Terminator 2 or Fifth Element that hit with a big bang but slowly fall to a whimper in the history of film with everyone but those in that specific age group when it came out. If you are thinking "Wow you are wrong about T2 and Fifth Element" I bet you are in your thirties.
There are emotional moments that establish motivation or convey pieces of the plot (I believed Angier's despair after the water tank trick went wrong at the beginning of The Prestige, for example), but most of the other characters just don't have time to develop emotion, or something.
I think the strongest emotional connection I've felt with a Nolan character was Dom in Inception, mainly because the window ledge scene freaked me out and I got a huge "it would suck for that to happen" feeling. Most of the time it doesn't really bother me, because I'm watching a Nolan movie and it's like my brain is eating a huge delicious meal; I don't mind if the characters aren't as emotionally developed as they might be.
The thing with Dent is that Gotham isn't totally full of corrupted people, and that people are trying to make a difference. Batman was already a controversial character to begin with amongst the populace (unlike Dent). For news to break that Dent shot and killed several people, in addition to threatening the Commissioner's family at gunpoint, would be devastating to public morale and hopes that Gotham can redeem itself.
But that's just really my opinion on the movie. It's still one of my favorite superhero movies, even if I found the superhero portion lacking.
I think one valid criticism from that video above is when you re-watch the bank heist. I can accept the fact that the Joker manipulates his crew into killing each other. But this is a crew of highly competent men who he's never worked with before, who all pull off their jobs without a hitch.
Sorry, just don't agree at all. Flipping the truck did lead to the Joker's capture and his eventual escape, but it's better then having the Joker loose on the streets of Gotham in a truck shooting up everything. The entire event at the skyscraper did matter, because otherwise, the SWAT team would've shot all the hostages, and the Joker's goons would've shot the SWAT team. That would've been a very bad thing if you value human life. So... it seems like Batman did matter.
And the film is absolutely a good Batman movie, because at the end Batman comes out looking amazing. You don't mention anything about the end, but you should, because it's the best part. Batman sacrifices his reputation to become something more than a hero. "He's a silent guardian, a watchful protector. A Dark Knight." I almost cried when Gordon said those words. Batman looks bad? How the hell does he look bad when he takes on the sins of Harvey Dent in order to save his city? How does that make for a bad Batman movie?
That moment at the end is one that you show to someone and say "and this is why Batman is awesome!"
But if you don't want to enjoy the best Batman film ever made because you dislike his voice, hey that's your prerogative.
Streaming 8PST on weeknights
EDIT2: It's like how I find the time travel in Back to the Future a little convoluted and nonsensical, but that doesn't stop them from being some of my favorite movies of all time.
Also, sooo, the guy in the bed was Ra's al Ghul right?
Arch,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_goGR39m2k
Uh, I'm pretty sure it was Jim Gordon
The problem is, that is in no way something that precludes any story from being a good Batman story. It happens a lot to him, the Joker gets some clear wins like the original Joker in the Batman Beyond movie Return of the Joker, he straight up defeats "Bruce" Batman completely, even destroys one of his closest relationship. Hell, Mask of the Phantasm, he loses out completely to the titular villain, having beem outwitted and being emotionally manipulated. I don't it true what you're claiming about the story. Even so, you're not really making a claim that makes any sense, and it's kind of unnecessary. Even given your premise, so?
I mean, it's just so insubstantial of an observation. If it succeeds as a story, then it succeeds as a movie and does what it intended to do. I think the best use of a franchise character in film media should stand up more as a story irrespective of the character, it should be that strong on its own. It shouldn't disrespect the character and world it draws from, which it doesn't, it makes Batman a credible character by having him be susceptible to a genius like his own, just like a Carmine Falcone was to him, he didn't expect it, that could and should happen. In fact, it is constructed that way, because it is the POINT of the movie, Batman is still a man first and foremost, he is not perfect and can LOSE, sometimes there is no victory.
Also you're point kind of fails to mention that as a Batman "story" the Nolan trilogy isn't complete. It's the middle act, and usually the hero doesn't win. Han Solo straight up got played, too.
This is also very well put.
Gooooooooo Batman.
Why? This happens to Batman all the time. Half his rogues gallery is as deadly as they are because they're incredibly manipulative and intelligent.