Change languageFootball
Football » English » Open Discussion
-
The Dark Knight Rises
By
jamiescfc2010 - 15-07-2012 16:54So the next part of the trilogy is upon us next Friday with the double bill on Tuesday night (which I have got a ticket at my local cinema). I'm such a big fan of Nolan since he brought Batman Begins then of course the best film I've seen since The Lion King when I was younger but I think he's one of the best directors of the Batman films then all those awful films e.g Batman Forever and of course Batman and Robin.
Views: 589 Posts: 37
- Page 1
-
Re: The Dark Knight Rises
By
kingjaime - 15-07-2012 22:00I rate both of Tim Burton's Batman films as superior to Chris Nolan's first two. I didn't get the fuss about Batman Begins when it was out and I've watched it since and been even more mystified. The Dark Knight was better, but again I thought decidedly overhyped, and overrated. Perhaps it is film-making for the times? It can't escape my attention that Begins is 8.3 on imdb and Dark Knight is 8.9, compared to 7.6 for Burton's Batman and 6.9 for his Returns. Dark Knight 2.0 better than Returns?! 1.3 better than Batman? For me, Keaton was a better Batman, and I say that as a generally big fan of Bale, and Jack Nicholson was a superior Joker. I suppose imdb ratings is it's won debate.
In short: Tim Burton's Batman films > Chris Nolan's Batman films > > > Joel Schumacher's abominations
Which is odd because Nolan's Memento and, especially, The Prestige are two of my favourite films of modern times and Bale is probably my favourite modern actor, with 3:10 To Yuma, The Machinist, The Prestige, Terminator Salvation and, especially, American Psycho all excellent. I will go watch Dark Knight Rises, I just won't have high hopes.
Oh and also the Batman outfit looks pretty rubbish now and the Batmobile is still looking stupid crud compared to in Burton's films.
-
Re: The Dark Knight Rises
By
grinner - 16-07-2012 16:36The Dark Knight was by far the best Batman movie of them all*, thanks in no small part to Heath Ledgers amazing acting abilities. Without him it would have been a decent movie still, but he elevated it to the next level and beyond. One of my favourite movies of all time.
Tim Burtons effort were not bad imo, had more of an element of fun about them as was always the way Batman should be, but they werent great movies. Looking forward to seeing the new one, but will be stuck on a train/car ride for 24 hours on release day, so might have to wait a few days before seeing it sadly. Cant wait though.
*obviously excluding the 1966 Adam West/Burt Ward classic featuring "quick Robin, pass me the Bat-Anti-Shark repellent" & "Some days, you just cant get rid of a bomb" lines amongst so many other that have me in tears of laughter for 90 minutes everytime i watch it.
-
Re: The Dark Knight Rises
By
kingjaime - 16-07-2012 20:11I hope you have the DVD of it too, it's well worth listening to the commentary from West and Ward :)
I'm surprised you saw much fun in Burton's films. The first is lighter but still pretty dark, the only real humour/fun being with some of Nicholson's antics, which were generally still pretty macabre. And Returns I thought was pretty heavy on the darkness and melancholy, sparked a bit of a backlash from the "fun" purists and saw the series turned over to Schumacher, who turned it into a quasi-fun load of rubbish.
-
Re: The Dark Knight Rises
By
gazzas1uk - 16-07-2012 20:32so you mean your carers let you out in the real world jamie? fml
-
Re: The Dark Knight Rises
By
rockstarroberts - 16-07-2012 23:55
superior joker? better batman? better movies? major trolling
-
Re: The Dark Knight Rises
By
rockstarroberts - 17-07-2012 01:18
oh and heath's joker > devito's penguin
-
Re: The Dark Knight Rises
By
naftalichase - 18-07-2012 17:30
kingjaime wrote:I rate both of Tim Burton's Batman films as superior to Chris Nolan's first two.
Hard to decide... for me of course...
kingjaime wrote:
In short: Tim Burton's Batman films > Chris Nolan's Batman films > > > Joel Schumacher's abominations
100% Agree in Joel's movies!
-
Re: The Dark Knight Rises
By
xdungersx - 04-09-2012 20:49
LOL @ whoever said jack nickolsons joker was better than heath ledgers!! are you deluded?
-
Re: The Dark Knight Rises
By
kingjaime - 04-09-2012 23:59LOL @ how it's too much effort to look who wrote something you got such a laugh from.
And no, he was. People got waaaay overhyped about Ledger's Joker. My theory is it's a combination of 3 things: (1) Ledger's is very "zeitgeist"; in the present times he seems much more edgy and realistic and "appropriate" than Nicholson's, (2) Ledger died young and tragically and so there's inevitable "death cult" element, (3) People see The Dark Knight and don't know too much of older films and actors, so take as highly original a look and performance you can find to a greater or lesser extent essayed in older films and performances by other actors. For example, is it possible to be as impressed by Ledger's Joker if you've seen Brandon Lee as The Crow, in it's time, and simply imagined "If Brandon Lee played The Crow as a bad guy"? Charismatic psychopaths and/or nihilists... There are so many I could list. But they are mainly from films prior to 1994, and that puts them "out of time" and basically way off the radar of most younger moviegoers in 2008/9.
Ledger wasn't bad as Joker, he was very good. But I preferred Nicholson. So there. It probably helped that I didn't like The Dark Knight as much as Batman. And I can understand why, for those young enough to consider a 1989 film super-old, maybe it's even older than them, that something from 20 years more recent (film and performance) has extra appeal and speaks to them more. Meh.
-
Re: The Dark Knight Rises
By
rockstarroberts - 05-09-2012 03:56
um, jack's joker is for kids, heath's joker actually convinces you that he doesnt care about dying and it has nothing to do with dying young, his portrayal as the joker was outstanding and even if he didn't die, he deserved that oscar
-
Ant: The Dark Knight Rises
By
kevinskyy - 05-09-2012 13:54
Jack's Joker is much cooler & appropriate for the Batman-wold imo :)
Heath's Joker just looked scarier, that's all ...
-
Re: The Dark Knight Rises
By
kingjaime - 05-09-2012 22:29"jack's joker is for kids"... Nah man, if one were to be flip about it one could easily dismiss Ledger's as the same. You only have to look at how many on the internet put him up as their avatar or quoted "Why so serious". Yawn. There's something horribly pandering about him, the nihilism and the emo-esque aura. He was for "troubled" teens, and those who've become troubled 20-somethings, to lap up.
You also have to think a little of the context of the Batman film with Nicholson. There really wasn't such a thing as "dark superhero" films before that. In fact for any type of superhero films, there was the Superman series, and that's about it. The only live action performance of Joker before was Cesar Romero in the TV series, which of course was tongue-in-cheek and played for fun. They were treading new ground with that film, there were no performances Keaton could look back on for "how to play fairly disturbed superhero", nor for Nicholson to look back on for "how to play modern, visceral supervillain".
But I digress, because I don't think I need to make any excuse or mitigation for Nicholson. I think he stands regardless as superior. I don't think I'd ever like to see "kids" watching his performance, as if it's somehow interchangeable with cartoon or the 60s Romero performance. Depends on the age-range you apply to "kids" I suppose.
-
Re: The Dark Knight Rises
By
kingjaime - 05-09-2012 22:36Also, I think while it's important it be delivered right, humour is an important element. Dark, by all means, but humour nonetheless. It's part of the essence of the character. Nicholson's Joker nailed it, not just thanks to the script, but in his performance. Ledger's, I don't remember laughing once, if they even tried for it. And tbh, I don't think he looked scarier, he just looked a mess. I think Nicholson's did and does look genuinely spooky. And that's little surprise because Burton, at the height of his powers in those days, and his team were waaaay better than Nolan and his team at conjuring with the macabre.
-
Re: The Dark Knight Rises
By
rockstarroberts - 06-09-2012 02:23
you're all as high as a kite, ledger's joker wasn't meant to make you laugh, jack's was not cooler or more appropriate, you know nothing
-
Re: The Dark Knight Rises
By
rockstarroberts - 06-09-2012 02:25
i watched jack's joker and it does nothing for me, he takes thing way too personel, while ledger just does what he wants and isn't afraid to die, nolan > burton not just in directing, but all their movies, ledger's joker will always be the standard since he made you want to see Gotham burn, and every future villain will have to carry his jockstrap
-
Re: The Dark Knight Rises
By
naftalichase - 06-09-2012 05:24
rockstarroberts wrote:i watched jack's joker and it does nothing for me, he takes thing way too personel, while ledger just does what he wants and isn't afraid to die, nolan > burton not just in directing, but all their movies, ledger's joker will always be the standard since he made you want to see Gotham burn, and every future villain will have to carry his jockstrap
But Jack's Joker is like the joker needs to be... that's the joker in all batman's comics!!! that's the difference.
-
Re: The Dark Knight Rises
By
rockstarroberts - 06-09-2012 09:20
noooooo, hamill's joker is the way the joker is in the comic books, heath's joker takes elements from two different batman comics and even clockwork orange and destroys jack's joker, you can admit you're wrong, or you continue to be wrong
-
Re: The Dark Knight Rises
By
kingjaime - 06-09-2012 18:46Funnily enough, I rewatched The Dark Knight last night because I see it still has a basically unheard of imdb rating of 9/10, and because of this thread, and I wondered if I was missing something. My memory said "Chaotic mess". Big chases and explosions and effects but Bale is just Patrick Bateman most of the time he's supposed to be Bruce Wayne, puts on an absurd voice as Batman, costume looks cruddy compared to Keaton-era. The Batmobile looks crud, stupid design so he rams things with the tyres/wheels, cape flying everywhere but, miraculously, not into the tyre when he was on the bike. Joker licks his lips and slobbers like he's either got salt all around them or he's a gummy 80 year old missing his false teeth. Absurd plot elements (bus crashes into the bank, no commotion outside, just drives out into a line of traffic... Joker's big plan to get Batman is to threaten explosions and killing, wow, actions beyond the huge mob group he was talking to...), no proper story of why Joker exists or is the way he is, terrible introduction/creation of Two-Face and he's just a waste of time in the rest of the film. The whole thing's overlong at 2hrs25mins. There's just nothing frightening about the random violence and murder and his Joker's just a mess. His facepaint is less frightening for being all smudged. The "dilemma decision" for the people on the ships. Yawn. Nothing original there.
So anyway I rewatched it and it hadn't improved. It's an average film. It's a 7/10 maybe. And Ledger's Joker is dull. His unhinged anarchist murderer-terrorist isn't original and is inferior to Nicholson playing unhinged darkly-humorous murderer-gangster.
Nolan's done some fine work, not least Mememento, but he isn't up to the level of peak Burton. And his Batman films, or at least the first two because I haven't seen the third, are significantly inferior. Batman Begins is, in many ways, actually awful, barely a 6/10. Dark Knight is at least a bit better. But not much.
-
Re: The Dark Knight Rises
By
rockstarroberts - 06-09-2012 23:25
you are full of crap, the fact that you think joker needs an introduction proves your ignorance, second, the tumbler is freaking awesome, you're not going to fight crime in the actual batmobile, you drive that around just to show off, you fight crime with the tumbler, both of burton's films are campy and predictable, you know nothing, two face was fine, even though two villains is hard to pull off, but it still works
and inception > every freaking burton movie, you sir are a troll
-
Re: The Dark Knight Rises
By
kingjaime - 07-09-2012 00:02Inception isn't anything special. Nothing campy about Burton's films. You should check the definition before trolling such remarks. They're not predictable except in the sense of Batman defeating the given supervillain. You knew in the first that Joker would unleash Smilex on the public, that he'd shoot Bob, that Knox would die, that Bruce Wayne's parents were murdered and it turned out they were murdered by the young Jack Napier. Predictable? Please. That in the second Penguin would seek to kidnap and murder all the first-born children of Gotham, that Shreck would die, that the Ice Princess would die, with Batman set-up, and he'd get chased by the police? Predictable? God. The Dark Knight was waaay more predictable.
Why an introduction for Joker unimportant? They made a whole film detailing Batman's origin. They put the origin of Two-Face into The Dark Knight. They had their Joker tell various differing stories about his origin, so they did include it in a sense, they just didn't come up with anything as compelling.
A properly designed Batmobile can easy be a tool for helping to fight crime. Certainly was in Burton's films, with guns, missiles, and other weaponry. Much better than the stupid Tumbler thing. Much more stylish and sleek.
Your post was predictable, if not camp. Troll.
-
Re: The Dark Knight Rises
By
rockstarroberts - 07-09-2012 00:28
you're stupid, people know who the joker is, to properly introduce him is retarded, you dont fight crime in the batmobile, those movies are for kids, the tumbler would destroy the batmobile, you're such a burton groupie, it's disgusting
-
Re: The Dark Knight Rises
By
kingjaime - 07-09-2012 01:24Ah, you misunderstand. I am not saying they should have treated people like they know nothing about the character, like told exactly why this and why that, or put like a nametag on him. But the benefit to the story of telling or hinting something compelling is a bonus. They didn't do almost a whole film on Batman's genesis, Begins, out of presumption people wouldn't know who Batman was if they didn't. Nor did they do it for Two-Face for that reason. Nor did they have Ledger tell two or three basic "how I got the scars" stories for the sake it. Done well, it gives depth. You may have pathological hate for the 1989 Batman film but tying Joker's past to Bruce Wayne's added interesting depth, and the "who created who" element when it was later Batman involved in Napier falling into the chemical vat and ultimately resurfacing as Joker.
But they skipped adding any interest like that to Dark Knight. So in Batman we have an intrinsic link between Batman and Joker, a past, an extra level of emotion and motivation of vengeance behind Batman pursuing The Joker. In Dark Knight, the whole element is "He's a bad guy" and then later "He killed the girl Batman loved". Stunningly original. In Batman, you have a Joker who, following pretty much the whole point, ever, of Joker, is infused with (macabre) humour. If you take out the humour, what's Joker's gimmick? Why be "The Joker"? They could just as easily have had The Riddler, only don't have him issue any riddles, or The Penguin, but stop him cackling and using gadget-umbrellas. They stripped the character of what made him and didn't replace it. Instead he's just a nihilist/anarchist who happens to wear vaguely clown-like face paint, have green hair and wear a purple suit. Dullness.
-
Re: The Dark Knight Rises
By
rockstarroberts - 07-09-2012 02:03
it didn't add depth, it added stupidity since joker had nothing to do with bruce's parents deaths in the comics and the falling in the chemical vat/waste was corny, that's how he gets his scars? it's dumb, Riddler's crimes are non violent and egotistical
-
Re: The Dark Knight Rises
By
rockstarroberts - 07-09-2012 02:03
nolan used the batman comics to make his movies, that's why he's better than burton
-
Re: The Dark Knight Rises
By
kingjaime - 07-09-2012 03:22"it didn't add depth, it added stupidity since joker had nothing to do with bruce's parents deaths in the comics". There's never been a definitive consistent story of who and why. People have always been content to play around with it a little; there's even a comic series where Bruce Wayne died and his father became Batman! I don't see that it's automatically stupid that they came up with their own variation to the story. I thought it was a good touch. It is also worth noting that a lot of the origin of Batman in Begins was based off comics that had no writing or other input from either Bob Kane or Bill Finger (creators of Batman), nor any of the early writers. "Ra's al Ghul" was nothing to do with them. The whole "League Of Shadows" for that matter. It is further worth noting that Kane worked as a consultant on both Burton's Batman films, which you can take as tacit approval from the creator of the character and the original mythos for the mythos they presented. And, it's not a stretch to think, for the way Joker was portrayed and performed.
"and the falling in the chemical vat/waste was corny, that's how he gets his scars? it's dumb"
Have you watched it? He's disfigured by the fall into the chemical waste, realistic. He goes to a backstreet surgeon to try to fix the damage, realistic. The surgeon does something of a botch job, the best he can with the tools he has. Realistic. Dismissing it as "corny and dumb" is just pathological favour for Nolan speaking, causing lazy dismissal of a pretty decent story that had no-less than Bob Kane's own approval.
The writer of the 1989 Batman film didn't do anything different to those writing stories about the character's origins in the 70s and later. No more or less right than them to take licence and mythologize, since none of them were involved in his creation or original "genesis/motivation mythos". And unlike a lot of them, there's that tacit approval from Bob Kane to cite.
Yeah, overall I do think you lose on that one. The Joker performance is a matter of preference, but you need to amend your thoughts about the storyline of the Burton Batman films. I can only presume you didn't know about Bob Kane's involvement.
-
Re: The Dark Knight Rises
By
rockstarroberts - 07-09-2012 03:33
it's a pretty simple movie, i lost on none of these, jack's joker falls into the chemicals, and his whole agenda is revenge, that's not joker, that's typical stuff, joker does what he does because he loves havoc, it's hamill at number 1 since he's done it the longest then ledger since his joker is more authentic and not out for revenge like jack's
-
Re: The Dark Knight Rises
By
rockstarroberts - 07-09-2012 03:35
and Kane died before nolan did his movies, so you lose that one
-
Re: The Dark Knight Rises
By
kingjaime - 07-09-2012 04:14He died, let go, in part, because he was content he'd finally seen a definitive performance of Joker, and the story of Batman's origin had been perfected in film. If you were close to his grave at the point Nolan's films each received their premieres, you could here a sound not unlike someone turning.
You can't have Hamill in ranking competition, as a voice-only performer, against live-action performers. It's a different art.
-
Re: The Dark Knight Rises
By
rockstarroberts - 07-09-2012 05:44
it is different, so 1. ledger, and a distant jack, he died in 98, so i dont know about that
-
Re: The Dark Knight Rises
By
kingjaime - 08-09-2012 02:18Really my point with Kane wasn't whether or not he'd approve of Nolan's films, the storylines and characterisations, so much as that he definitely did approve of Burton's, the ones you were calling corny, predictable, stupid, etc.
I say "were" because you're probably just as bored as I am with this ;)
-
Re: The Dark Knight Rises
By
n0kcha - 09-09-2012 01:56
1. Never saw the Burton Batman but may take a look after all this debating.
2. Nolan's Batman series definitely overhyped. Rottentomatoes had to turn off reviews and comments after idiotic fanboys gave the first rottentomato reviewer death threat.
3. That being said, the Nolan's series were entertaining but nothing special.
4. I would have appreciated it if the story did introduce the Joker better.
5. TDK was far better than TDKR.
6. TDKR was way too long and too predictable. Too many loopholes.
7. Hollywood has lost its creativity. Too many comic remakes.
http://www.jest.com/article/185011/dark-knight-rises-newspaper-headlines
lol
-
Re: The Dark Knight Rises
By
rockstarroberts - 09-09-2012 02:57
no need to introduce the joker better, batman needed a remake, that reviewer hates good movies, superman needed to be rebooted again after that terrible one with brandon routh
-
Re: The Dark Knight Rises
By
kingjaime - 09-09-2012 04:10Batman needed a reboot after the dreadful efforts Joel Schumacher put out, that's for sure. It's kind of ironic that Burton got basically removed from the series because the powers-that-be didn't like the darkness of his two films, Returns in particular, and wanted to move it towards more a lighthearted atmosphere. The series goes to pot in that atmosphere, and effectively gets suspended. Years later it gets the reboot, and goes for a darker atmosphere than ever before. I can't help but wonder if they gave it back to Burton now, with no hindrances about how dark he could make it, what he'd come up with.
-
Re: The Dark Knight Rises
By
rockstarroberts - 09-09-2012 19:42
burton wont get it,he's not even in the running for it
-
Re: The Dark Knight Rises
By
kingjaime - 10-09-2012 00:28I don't think he'd be interested either, but there's no need to be realistic in pondering it briefly. I'd quite like to see it turned over to Alex Proyas personally. See if he can recapture the magic of his Dark City and Crow days.
- Page 1