The tribute was small yet appropriate. All it said was:
"In Loving Memory of Heath Ledger and _that other guy_"
Sorry, I forget his name.
I don't like that it's at the end of the cast credits. It seems like something you'd put first.
The other guy's name is Conway Wickliffe
i agree, but it seemed like the whole idea was to have the title card impact right when gordon is saying "the dark knight", and it would kind of ruin the momentum if it was an r.i.p. instead. i mean, it's there, everyone in the theater saw it so
Servo on
0
Options
Garlic Breadi'm a bitch i'm a bitch i'm a bitch i'm aRegistered User, Disagreeableregular
The tribute was small yet appropriate. All it said was:
"In Loving Memory of Heath Ledger and _that other guy_"
Sorry, I forget his name.
I don't like that it's at the end of the cast credits. It seems like something you'd put first.
The other guy's name is Conway Wickliffe
i agree, but it seemed like the whole idea was to have the title card impact right when gordon is saying "the dark knight", and it would kind of ruin the momentum if it was an r.i.p. instead. i mean, it's there, everyone in the theater saw it so
The tribute was small yet appropriate. All it said was:
"In Loving Memory of Heath Ledger and _that other guy_"
Sorry, I forget his name.
I don't like that it's at the end of the cast credits. It seems like something you'd put first.
The other guy's name is Conway Wickliffe
i agree, but it seemed like the whole idea was to have the title card impact right when gordon is saying "the dark knight", and it would kind of ruin the momentum if it was an r.i.p. instead. i mean, it's there, everyone in the theater saw it so
I mean after that
i know what you mean, that's why i said it would kind of ruin the momentum of the moment. the music is way up and pounding, everyone's jazzed for a couple of minutes, it's not exactly the right time. it's only like a minute later.
I recall reading a book a year or two back that discussed how it seems like comic books, when they're too good, suddenly stop being comic books. It was talking about books like Persepolis and Maus; comics that have far-reaching appeal and highbrow themes. A lot of literary critics wouldn't recognize them as comic books, because comic books are obviously just for slathering mongoloids. And if these works weren't then that made them something besides comic books.
I know you probably didn't mean anything by your comment, but this is the kind of thinking that pisses me off. The movie features a character that, for the decades he's existed, has been recognized as a superhero. It's never been debated. So yes, it's a fucking superhero movie. That doesn't mean it's not a brilliant movie, or a movie deserving of widespread acclaim and recognition, or that it's not as good as any other Best Picture winner; but it's still a damn superhero movie. And that's okay.
Oh man, I'm glad I didn't go to see it on Saturday afternoon because the IMAX projector in the Mall of Georgia broke down 30 minutes into the 12:20 showing. Pissed wouldn't even begin to describe how I would be feeling right now if I had been in that theater. I hope they fix it by Monday or I've got to get my $15 back.
It depends on whether you think of 'superhero movie' as a genre, or just as a descriptor.
If it's a genre, then there are certain tropes and conventions that usually follow, which define what that genre is.
For example, I've got an idea for a movie I'd like to make which would be about Hank Pym, and feature mostly him and Doc Samson. The large majority of the movie would be them in a psychiatry session, with sporadic flashbacks to actual super-heroing. It wouldn't be at all similar to most superhero movies, in that there'd be very little actual crime fighting and mostly introspection and character reveals. It may star a superhero but I really doubt many people would think of it as a 'superhero movie'.
I recall reading a book a year or two back that discussed how it seems like comic books, when they're too good, suddenly stop being comic books. It was talking about books like Persepolis and Maus; comics that have far-reaching appeal and highbrow themes. A lot of literary critics wouldn't recognize them as comic books, because comic books are obviously just for slathering mongoloids. And if these works weren't then that made them something besides comic books.
I know you probably didn't mean anything by your comment, but this is the kind of thinking that pisses me off. The movie features a character that, for the decades he's existed, has been recognized as a superhero. It's never been debated. So yes, it's a fucking superhero movie. That doesn't mean it's not a brilliant movie, or a movie deserving of widespread acclaim and recognition, or that it's not as good as any other Best Picture winner; but it's still a damn superhero movie. And that's okay.
That's not what I meant at all. I don't really care much for labels, all I know is that when I watched Iron Man I got a "SUPERHERO" vibe that I didn't get from Dark Knight.
Perhaps it's because the director has done everything possible to set these movies so they're realistic as possible. It works for Dark Knight, but I'm not sure that's completely a good thing. It made Dark Knight and Batman Begins hit really close to home, but it lacked an element of fantasy that I enjoy in comic books.
I'm not going to say much about this movie but I will say I went into it knowing virtually nothing about it and the movie exceeded any expectations I might have had.
In terms of characters I think the ultimate compliment you can give an actor is by stating that you couldn't even tell they were playing the character they were - this was definitely the case with Ledger's joker performance. The only other time I've seen that happen is Daniel Day Lewis in There Will Be Blood. I honestly didn't care that much about Ledger's passing. Having seen this performance I'm thoroughly convinced that we as the audience have lost out. Color me selfish.
The weakest aspect of the movie for me was Batman himself. He just seemed over-shadowed by every other character in the movie.
Finally, the best part of the film for me was the fact that it broke from the typical formula for this type of movie. This caused it to become more of a "film" as opposed to a "superhero" movie for me.
I don't know if I even want to consider Dark Knight a superhero movie. 'Physiological thriller' sits with me better as the genre.
Still fucking awesome, no matter how you slice it.
It still stuck to a certain level of comic book cheesiness, like the stock redshirt bad guys not having much of a personality to them, that ridiculous pointless first faked death, the batpod and batmobile (gadgetry in general, i.e "intimidate mode")
anyway, I think the best thing about this movie (probably the series if theres going to be a Nolan sequel) is the sound editing. I like how this film had a moment just like the first did where Batman says "SWEAR TO ME!" through his voice mod, except it's with the Joker.
Sam on
0
Options
DVGNo. 1 Honor StudentNether Institute, Evil AcademyRegistered Userregular
I recall reading a book a year or two back that discussed how it seems like comic books, when they're too good, suddenly stop being comic books. It was talking about books like Persepolis and Maus; comics that have far-reaching appeal and highbrow themes. A lot of literary critics wouldn't recognize them as comic books, because comic books are obviously just for slathering mongoloids. And if these works weren't then that made them something besides comic books.
I know you probably didn't mean anything by your comment, but this is the kind of thinking that pisses me off. The movie features a character that, for the decades he's existed, has been recognized as a superhero. It's never been debated. So yes, it's a fucking superhero movie. That doesn't mean it's not a brilliant movie, or a movie deserving of widespread acclaim and recognition, or that it's not as good as any other Best Picture winner; but it's still a damn superhero movie. And that's okay.
That's not what I meant at all. I don't really care much for labels, all I know is that when I watched Iron Man I got a "SUPERHERO" vibe that I didn't get from Dark Knight.
Perhaps it's because the director has done everything possible to set these movies so they're realistic as possible. It works for Dark Knight, but I'm not sure that's completely a good thing. It made Dark Knight and Batman Begins hit really close to home, but it lacked an element of fantasy that I enjoy in comic books.
I was able to enjoy this one a lot more because there wasn't anything stupid like a Microwave ray that evaporates water but leaves humans dandy, or the concept of a league of assassins using economics as a weapon.
DVG on
Diablo 3 - DVG#1857
0
Options
Quoththe RavenMiami, FL FOR REALRegistered Userregular
edited July 2008
This movie also felt much more realistic to me, as strange as it is to say that about any hi-tech type film. The scenarios in place were, I thought, more feasible given the current state of post-9/11 society.
I love that Batman's sonar vision (this thing does sound plausible though) gave him glowing white eyes like in the cartoon and comics but did anyone else think the visual presentation of the vision was a little weak?
I found it a little confusing, moreso because the sound became difficult to hear while the effect was on screen. I couldn't make out some of the voiceovers because of it. It probably didn't help that I was fairly tired at that point.
I thought the movie was ok, but I wasn't blown away. I liked how they turned it into a Daredevil movie for about 20 minutes, though.
I'm still not liking Christian Bale's bat-voice. He sounds more like Laryngitis Man, and I don't know if he's got something in his mouth, but he seems to have a problem with his 'S's.
I wish in the past two movies they would've stuck with the original Batman music, like Superman Returns, but instead they've decided on loud drums and two loud notes as Batman's theme. Every single time there's supposed to be a suspensful moment in the movie it sounds like a swarm of mosquitoes is in the theater.
I recall reading a book a year or two back that discussed how it seems like comic books, when they're too good, suddenly stop being comic books. It was talking about books like Persepolis and Maus; comics that have far-reaching appeal and highbrow themes. A lot of literary critics wouldn't recognize them as comic books, because comic books are obviously just for slathering mongoloids. And if these works weren't then that made them something besides comic books.
I know you probably didn't mean anything by your comment, but this is the kind of thinking that pisses me off. The movie features a character that, for the decades he's existed, has been recognized as a superhero. It's never been debated. So yes, it's a fucking superhero movie. That doesn't mean it's not a brilliant movie, or a movie deserving of widespread acclaim and recognition, or that it's not as good as any other Best Picture winner; but it's still a damn superhero movie. And that's okay.
That's not what I meant at all. I don't really care much for labels, all I know is that when I watched Iron Man I got a "SUPERHERO" vibe that I didn't get from Dark Knight.
Perhaps it's because the director has done everything possible to set these movies so they're realistic as possible. It works for Dark Knight, but I'm not sure that's completely a good thing. It made Dark Knight and Batman Begins hit really close to home, but it lacked an element of fantasy that I enjoy in comic books.
I was able to enjoy this one a lot more because there wasn't anything stupid like a Microwave ray that evaporates water but leaves humans dandy, or the concept of a league of assassins using economics as a weapon.
I was actively not remembering those things, so yeah, you have a point.
I didn't think it was actually possible to blight out things you didn't like from memory, but I guess it is!
I kind of think a decent idea for a sequel would be Batman trapped in Arkham. It'd be the perfect setting for an examination of Bruce's psyche and introduction of villains who, while interesting, couldn't necessarily carry an entire picture themselves or present a threat to the city as a whole. Hugo Strange, Riddler, and Ventriloquist would be my choices for new characters, in addition to anyone from the previous two films who is able to return, and since we're in hypothetical land I have to say that Joker taking over would be superb.
Just got back from the theater. God damn, that was a good movie. Iron Man is now a close second on my list for the year. It seemed to me like everyone was on their game in this movie. Aaron Eckhart was excellent as Dent and then Two-Face. Heath Ledger put in the performance of his career and made me forget I ever liked Nicholson as the Joker. This movie has completely erased the taint of the 60s show and the horrible sequels that followed the 1989 movie.
i remember that jack nicholson's joker is like number 45 on one of those lists of greatest villains that afi does. if they redo that list, i don't think it would be hyperbole to say ledger's joker could crack the top five.
those lists are kind of pointless and subjective, though
I thought the movie was ok, but I wasn't blown away. I liked how they turned it into a Daredevil movie for about 20 minutes, though.
I'm still not liking Christian Bale's bat-voice. He sounds more like Laryngitis Man, and I don't know if he's got something in his mouth, but he seems to have a problem with his 'S's.
I wish in the past two movies they would've stuck with the original Batman music, like Superman Returns, but instead they've decided on loud drums and two loud notes as Batman's theme. Every single time there's supposed to be a suspensful moment in the movie it sounds like a swarm of mosquitoes is in the theater.
more to come when I get out of work
I don't know, I think one of my favorite aspect of this new "Batman renaissance" is actually the soundtrack. I like the mood it creates, and particularly the crazy distortion at the beginning of the Joker's theme. Each time you hear it starting, it's so subtle and frightening. You know something is about to go terribly wrong, and yet it's subtle.
As for the drums for Batman himself, well I absolutely loved the idea for Batman Begins and I liked it as well in The Dark Knight. I'd say it's way more simple and direct to announces Batman's approach and it works so much better. I'd say that a whole orchestra playing Elfman's theme as Batman takes on the mob would have been quite, quite bizarre.
I loved Danny Elfman's theme from the first two titles, but the kind of soundtrack Elfman created back then would simply not fit in Nolan's Gotham City. Zimmer and Newton-Howard did an excellent job in my opinion.
The fact that Singer kept William's theme for Superman is because Superman Returns sticks so close to the roots of the first two movies. Had Singer distanced himself from Donner's work, maybe they would have ditch the original theme and moved on with a new soundtrack.
Burton's Gotham City and Nolan's Gotham City are quite different. You can't ask to "glue" an older theme from previous films when the new one has nothing to do with 'em.
I looked up the list to see who was really number one, and for a second I thought I'd completely misunderstood Atticus Finch's role in To Kill a Mockingbird.
But no, that was the heroes list, and the top villain is in fact Hannibal Lechter.
So, saw this on Friday, going to see it again tomorrow with some family members that haven't seen it yet. Honestly, I kinda wanted to see WALL-E again, so I could put a little time between viewings, but I'm sure they'll love this too, so either way it's a win.
Suffice to say, this is definately my movie of the summer, possibly the year, and both WALL-E and Iron Man were some stiff competition.
Forar on
First they came for the Muslims, and we said NOT TODAY, MOTHERFUCKER!
Posts
I don't like that it's at the end of the cast credits. It seems like something you'd put first.
The other guy's name is Conway Wickliffe
Still fucking awesome, no matter how you slice it.
i agree, but it seemed like the whole idea was to have the title card impact right when gordon is saying "the dark knight", and it would kind of ruin the momentum if it was an r.i.p. instead. i mean, it's there, everyone in the theater saw it so
I mean after that
I haven't seen the movie yet, but I've read a few reviews done by professionals that use statements like this, and it reeks of such bullshit to me.
I recall reading a book a year or two back that discussed how it seems like comic books, when they're too good, suddenly stop being comic books. It was talking about books like Persepolis and Maus; comics that have far-reaching appeal and highbrow themes. A lot of literary critics wouldn't recognize them as comic books, because comic books are obviously just for slathering mongoloids. And if these works weren't then that made them something besides comic books.
I know you probably didn't mean anything by your comment, but this is the kind of thinking that pisses me off. The movie features a character that, for the decades he's existed, has been recognized as a superhero. It's never been debated. So yes, it's a fucking superhero movie. That doesn't mean it's not a brilliant movie, or a movie deserving of widespread acclaim and recognition, or that it's not as good as any other Best Picture winner; but it's still a damn superhero movie. And that's okay.
Tumblr Twitter
If it's a genre, then there are certain tropes and conventions that usually follow, which define what that genre is.
For example, I've got an idea for a movie I'd like to make which would be about Hank Pym, and feature mostly him and Doc Samson. The large majority of the movie would be them in a psychiatry session, with sporadic flashbacks to actual super-heroing. It wouldn't be at all similar to most superhero movies, in that there'd be very little actual crime fighting and mostly introspection and character reveals. It may star a superhero but I really doubt many people would think of it as a 'superhero movie'.
Perhaps it's because the director has done everything possible to set these movies so they're realistic as possible. It works for Dark Knight, but I'm not sure that's completely a good thing. It made Dark Knight and Batman Begins hit really close to home, but it lacked an element of fantasy that I enjoy in comic books.
In terms of characters I think the ultimate compliment you can give an actor is by stating that you couldn't even tell they were playing the character they were - this was definitely the case with Ledger's joker performance. The only other time I've seen that happen is Daniel Day Lewis in There Will Be Blood. I honestly didn't care that much about Ledger's passing. Having seen this performance I'm thoroughly convinced that we as the audience have lost out. Color me selfish.
The weakest aspect of the movie for me was Batman himself. He just seemed over-shadowed by every other character in the movie.
Finally, the best part of the film for me was the fact that it broke from the typical formula for this type of movie. This caused it to become more of a "film" as opposed to a "superhero" movie for me.
It still stuck to a certain level of comic book cheesiness, like the stock redshirt bad guys not having much of a personality to them, that ridiculous pointless first faked death, the batpod and batmobile (gadgetry in general, i.e "intimidate mode")
I was able to enjoy this one a lot more because there wasn't anything stupid like a Microwave ray that evaporates water but leaves humans dandy, or the concept of a league of assassins using economics as a weapon.
I didn't never find Microwave weapon that silly, but yeah, but this one was ludicrous. Destroy whole city by causing recession? Yeah right...
I'm still not liking Christian Bale's bat-voice. He sounds more like Laryngitis Man, and I don't know if he's got something in his mouth, but he seems to have a problem with his 'S's.
I wish in the past two movies they would've stuck with the original Batman music, like Superman Returns, but instead they've decided on loud drums and two loud notes as Batman's theme. Every single time there's supposed to be a suspensful moment in the movie it sounds like a swarm of mosquitoes is in the theater.
more to come when I get out of work
I didn't think it was actually possible to blight out things you didn't like from memory, but I guess it is!
https://twitter.com/Hooraydiation
the guy who wrote the list? probably
That's, "Damn, what other popular movies have I seen? Crap, dealine's in an hour! Where's my TV Guide?!" territory.
https://twitter.com/Hooraydiation
As for the drums for Batman himself, well I absolutely loved the idea for Batman Begins and I liked it as well in The Dark Knight. I'd say it's way more simple and direct to announces Batman's approach and it works so much better. I'd say that a whole orchestra playing Elfman's theme as Batman takes on the mob would have been quite, quite bizarre.
I loved Danny Elfman's theme from the first two titles, but the kind of soundtrack Elfman created back then would simply not fit in Nolan's Gotham City. Zimmer and Newton-Howard did an excellent job in my opinion.
The fact that Singer kept William's theme for Superman is because Superman Returns sticks so close to the roots of the first two movies. Had Singer distanced himself from Donner's work, maybe they would have ditch the original theme and moved on with a new soundtrack.
Burton's Gotham City and Nolan's Gotham City are quite different. You can't ask to "glue" an older theme from previous films when the new one has nothing to do with 'em.
as long as cesar romero was higher I can agree with it
But no, that was the heroes list, and the top villain is in fact Hannibal Lechter.
https://twitter.com/Hooraydiation
Suffice to say, this is definately my movie of the summer, possibly the year, and both WALL-E and Iron Man were some stiff competition.