The Dark Knight Rises

[AshleyO]

Originally Posted by Grausamkeit

Actually, most people have been far off-base with the assumptions they've made since I've joined the board. No, I don't think that people can make well-educated gueses about me based on an avatar and a profile picture. Tim Burton is not an idol for me. I just happen to like some movies of his that I actually grew up watching. Childhood nostalgia has far more to do with me liking Batman and Batman Returns than any goth associations. For me, they are much better than the ones Nolan directed. I haven't yet seen an advertisement for a movie of his that looks interesting.


Judas, I agree. That probably also has a fair bit to do with it, as well. People just can't let this franchise die.

Oh shit! It's an iconoclast! Fuck me holy!

[Despanan]

Originally Posted by Grausamkeit

I actually liked him better in Brokeback Mountain. He made a much more believable gay man than he did a psychopath.

Wait, so the great Heath Ledger role that people were sadly unaware of was Brokeback? The groundbreaking gay romance that won 8 academy awards and was the 10th highest grossing romance movie of all time? The one that inspired countless parodies and almost got his funeral picketed by the Westboro baptist church. People who saw the Dark Knight didn't know he'd played a gay cowboy, and thus were "Sadly ignorant" of his career and lauded acclaim on his final "lackluster" performance?

Bullshit. People were aware of Brokeback - That movie is a huge part of pop culture and easily worked it's way into the national consciousness.

Do better.

As Joker he only reminded me of those poor schizophrenic homeless people in downtown Houston. Homeless crazy dudes aren't scary, most of the time. They just need meds and therapy.

Man, the homeless people in downtown Huston must be freaking PHILOSOPHERS. Also oddly coherent.

Seriously, you're telling me This is a scarier, more convincing performance than this?

Are you HIGH? Nicholson's performance was good, and groundbreaking for the time, but MAN oh MAN does it pale in comparison to Ledger's joker. I could write whole academic essays devoted to that character, and as for acting, it's one of the most subtle, nuanced performances I've ever seen. Notice how everything the joker says is either a lie or a half-truth? Notice how batman's and Joker's goals are pretty much the same? (To prove people are like them, either civilized or savage - noble and good or a product of their environment?) Notice the constant "Dog" motif? TDK is brilliant. Honestly, it's already going down in history as one of the best movies of all time.

There's just no comparison.

I think that there is a lot of emotional attachment because of his death for some people and that probably colors most people's opinion of his role in TDK. It would be a terrible tragedy for an actor to die with a boring role as their last, it must therefore be hyped up and no one is allowed to question its greatness!

Wait, so I like this, simply because Ledger died? All the subtext: the intellectual, philosophical, and political intrigue, the clash of archetypes in a post 9/11 world is just grief over losing the guy from 10 things I hate about you?

There are things wrong with the Dark Knight, and there are weak performances Maggie Gylinhall and Christian Bale spring to mind. but your criticisms are obviously based on nostalgia, ignorance, and contrarianism.

Stop it.

I'm not going along with the cult of personality. Boohoo.

No, you're being an moron and making yourself look both stupid and arrogant. To dismiss the massive critical, academic, and popular response to this film as irrational, ignorant "hype" over an actor's death and subsequent "cult of personality" is the HEIGHT of self-involved, brain-dead douchery.

You're allowed to not like the film, but don't pretend you actually know anything about batman, acting, film, or story-telling in general because you clearly don't and are admittedly basing your judgment of the film on what you liked as a kid.

Quit being a stupid, dismissive, contrary, dickhole.

Edit: also, as a comparison between the two films This is Relevant

[Grausamkeit]

Just deal with the fact that I didn't like his portrayal. All this whole thing is is you being flabbergasted that someone disagrees with your opinion and what the popular thought is about Ledger's Joker. Other people are just as entitled to their opinion on things as you are. Sometimes they're gonna clash with yours. It's douchey to whine about it and call them stupid for it.

[AshleyO]

Graus, you're entitled to be wrong and you are.

Thing is, you threw out a positive claim that Nicolson was better and that Ledger's Joker wasn't any good. THEN you lack the intellectual fortitude to prove your thesis and resort to dismissing the ledger role as just a cult of personality. You sound intellectually bankrupt. Back your shit up.

The fact that you're backpedaling into saying it's all just opinion is intellectual cowardice. Yes, it is your opinion, but it doesn't protect you from being stupid. Despanan proved that you were being stupid and then a couple other people did and now... you're crawling into your "indestructible" opinion cave.

[Despanan]

Originally Posted by Grausamkeit

Just deal with the fact that I didn't like his portrayal. All this whole thing is is you being flabbergasted that someone disagrees with your opinion and what the popular thought is about Ledger's Joker. Other people are just as entitled to their opinion on things as you are. Sometimes they're gonna clash with yours. It's douchey to whine about it and call them stupid for it.

I'm not calling you stupid for disagreeing with me, nor am I calling you stupid for not liking the movie/performance. You're allowed to not like a movie.

I'm calling you stupid because the reasons you cited FOR not liking the movie are stupid. It's your reasoning that offends me, not your conclusion.

Overall, The Nostalgia Critic picked Batman 1989 over TDK, I think he's wrong but at least he has a logical coherent argument, which shows that in the end he values different things in a movie that I do. I respect that.

You on the other hand cannot make your point without arrogantly slandering / dismissing the fans of TDK. This is why I'm saying you're being stupid, and/or Trolling.

You need to have a valid line of reasoning before you slander others is what I'm saying.

Do better next time.

Like the n00b says: Back your shit up.

[AshleyO]

What's up with all this "n00b" shit?

I swear, no respect for a lady.

[Despanan]

A "lady"? pshaa. This is the internet, there are no girls here. You're probably some creepy part-gay dude with a bad haircut and terrible breath.

But more on topic, Graus is seriously saying this and this are better than This?

[CptSternn]

So has anyone watched the new leaked trailer that is now online?

[Hydrodyssodia]

Originally Posted by JCC

If you haven't read the comics then you don't really have much of a basis for judging Ledger's performance. Which was fucking awesome. Or Nolan's adaptations. Which are fucking awesome.

I don't agree with her opinion, but if someone is juding them only as movies and characters and not as adaptations, it perfectly valid to do so without knowledge of Batman comics.

[AshleyO]

She'd still be wrong.

[Hydrodyssodia]

Well, yeah, but not because she hasn't read over 700 issues of Batman. That shouldn't come into the equation unless they are being judged full on as adaptations, not just movies.

[Ben Lahnger]

You know, I loved Tim Burton's Batman movies, largely because he brought the character from campy to heroic. But I did not like Jack Nicholson as the Joker, because while the script included some interesting lines of dialog, at the end of the day Jack pretty much plays Jack in every movie he is in. He wore the make-up, and was able to deliver the lines with some attitude ("Wait'll they get a load of me!"), but he still sounded like Jack. Like Clint Eastwood being Clint in all his roles, or John Wayne before them, that works most of the time. But it doesn't to my mind comprise fine acting.

Two things make me like Nolan's Batman movies more than Burton's vision.

First, Burton's movies were foremost about creating a visual style, and the villain became much more dramatic and interesting than the hero. Burton's tales did little to dwell on the origins of the caped crusader, and the tightrope the character walks between sanity and lawful justice or vengeance and vigilantism. Nolan dug deep into those waters, expending almost too much time (in my opinion) on the origin of Batman, but later building on that foundation to explore how close the character comes to indulging the passions and psychoses that could lead him into becoming an instrument of evil himself.

And second, Ledger's portrayal of the Joker, without having some of the snappy patter of dialog that was written into Burton's scripts to throw around, asks some elemental questions about the nature of true evil. His Joker represents the kind of irrational evil that the character developed into in the comics (most notably in "The Killing Joke") that makes one realize there isn't always an answer when we ask why evil acts are done. It was completely unlike anything Ledger had ever performed before, and required a combination of obvious, garish tics and mannerisms along with a subtler undercurrent of single-minded intent that was seemingly belied by the appearance of random insanity. The character's arc in TDK also served to bring into focus that battle Batman constantly contests, striving to keep from going over the edge into being that which he is sworn to fight (also best represented in the comic "The Killing Joke".)

It was a simultaneously over-the-top and subtly nuanced, layered performance. Most film critics and a vast majority of the movie watching public got that.

To simplify my point to you, Grausamkeit, Nicholson's Joker was a cartoon charicature; Ledgers' Joker was a complex, tragic figure.

In other words:

Nicholson's Joker = Cruella DeVille
Ledger's Joker = Hannibal Lecter

Yes, many children were scared by the Burton villains. But the Nolan villains were written and acted for adults.

[AshleyO]

Ben is right.

The Joker in Burton's films... That's for kids. Kinda says a lot about Graus the iconoclast.

[Versus]

On a side note: I'm conflicted about Rises' choice of villians.

[Renatus]

Versus, what you said is hardly a sidenote, it is the point of this thread.

Whereas all the flaming here, is a side note, a side note that I would love to stab through the skull, so please if everyone would cut it out. All of you are getting angry over an a non-consequential opinion that differs from your own. Such anger is consequential as it creates stress and shortens your lifespans. Now tell me, is this really worth shortening your lifespan? That is of course on top of the time directly wasted getting angry over this.

Personally I liked the old batman movie series, with the slight exception of the first one(I never really caught onto it). It has a lot of fond memories for me, like one of the times when I was a child going with my cousins to a cottage we rented from a family that were friends of ours. I remember how as we were heading home from the cottage one lovely summer's night, in one of the towns we passed through there was an old fashioned theatre, on a cobblestone street, that was playing a batman movie (I think it might have been Batman forever). My cousins wanted to go see it, but we didn't, so I eventually saw it on video tape.

Moral of the story is sure, it might not be the same type of film as Nolan's, it might look a lot lower quality, but it has it's charm, and for some it has a leading role in the fond memories of our pasts.

[CptSternn]

http://geektyrant.com/news/2011/7/18...r-trailer.html

[AshleyO]

Originally Posted by Versus

On a side note: I'm conflicted about Rises' choice of villians.

Actually, when you consider that in the comics, Bane ended up being the leader of the League of Shadows and that the whole thing with Nolan started there, it makes 100% perfect sense.

The only one that doesn't seem to make sense is Catwoman. I almost think she may be fluff.

[Valhalla]

Fluff is a good guess.

Since Bane isn't one of the most iconic Batman villains, Nolan needed to make sure there was a villain in the movie that casual Batman fans would already know, and get excited about.

Plus Rachel is dead, someone has to be the new love interest.

I like Catwoman though, so I'm not complaining.

[Versus]

Originally Posted by Valhalla

Plus Rachel is dead, someone has to be the new love interest.

As long as he isn't still obssessed over Rachel while a totally hot Catwoman is making passes at him. That would just have me yelling at the movie.

[Hydrodyssodia]

Originally Posted by Versus

On a side note: I'm conflicted about Rises' choice of villians.

I'm actually very happy with the choice of using Bane. That way Nolan has used as a main villain for each movie the only three characters that deserve the title of Batman's nemesis, Ra's, Joker and Bane. Well, I guess Two-Face counts aswell, but he did got used in TDK. And I actually like that they are using less well known villains. Hell, Zsasz showed up in begins.

[Hydrodyssodia]

Oh, and Catwoman is apparently going to be based on Ed Brubaker's version, so no silly purrrfect puns or ridiculous over sexualization.

[Valhalla]

Originally Posted by Versus

As long as he isn't still obssessed over Rachel while a totally hot Catwoman is making passes at him. That would just have me yelling at the movie.

Fully agree. Hopefully they don't have any flashbacks to Rachel either. The less angst involved the better.

[Saya]

Originally Posted by Hydrodyssodia

Oh, and Catwoman is apparently going to be based on Ed Brubaker's version, so no silly purrrfect puns or ridiculous over sexualization.

OH! With the goggles? I loved that!

I actually really love Catwoman.

I'm actually very happy with the choice of using Bane. That way Nolan has used as a main villain for each movie the only three characters that deserve the title of Batman's nemesis, Ra's, Joker and Bane. Well, I guess Two-Face counts aswell, but he did got used in TDK. And I actually like that they are using less well known villains. Hell, Zsasz showed up in begins.

His choice of villains so far as been good, but in Batman Begins I don't think they were utilized well. Ra's Al Ghul felt really underwhelming (might have been because it was Liam Neeson though. I like him but I just didn't believe him as a villain.) and the Scarecrow...awesome, but not used well. When he was on the horse and being all badass, it was like, "FINALLY!" But then he got taken down by Katie Holmes. It was very anti-climatic.

The villains in Dark Knight however made the movie, so I'm hoping both Catwoman and Bane will be badass (if Catwoman is even much of a villain).

[Apathy's_Child]

I think Nolan realized the vital fact that the best good vs. evil stories see villains as compelling as the heroes... but overdid it slightly when he forgot to make his hero even vaguely interesting. That was a huge problem for me.

I liked DK - it was an interesting movie, and I'm with Desp on the "could write a wealth of essays on this shit" angle, but "one of the best movies of all time"? For real? Honestly dude, I think you're making it better than it was.

[AshleyO]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talia_al_Ghul

Why is a fluff character like Catwoman in this movie when this particular character would have served that role as love interest and been more relevant?

I really don't see how Catwoman is necessary for this movie while Talia would have made it a little more personal and deeper.