N'Al on 8/8/2008 at 17:43

---

I, for one, would absolutely welcome that.

I think one of the reasons The Dark Knight worked so well (and why I liked it so much) is that it didn't really feel like a superhero movie to me; more like a crime thriller that just happened to have a guy in a batsuit in it. In a sense, one could argue that that's contrary to what a superhero movie should be about (I mean, people tend to want to go see a superhero movie to see a superhero do superhero stuff), but, to me, that worked to the movie's advantage. Imo, previous superhero movies (incl. the good ones, and not just e.g Schumacher's abominations) all "suffered" somewhat from the inherent campness and silliness of superheroes. I dunno, I have no problems accepting (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien_%28Alien_franchise%29) a creature from outer space with the most bizarre life-cycle and acid for blood, but when it comes to a dude dressing up in a suit and shooting laserbeams out of his eyes? Now that's just stupid! :erm:

Even those movies that tried to do something different with their superhero character - most notably Ang Lee's Hulk - have all always been held back from true greatness due to the nature of the superhero (then again, there's only so much you can do to "un-hero" a 10-foot green giant...); it's also one reason why it'll be interesting to see how the upcoming Watchmen movie handles this.

I feel The Dark Knight is the first movie to have truly nailed this; I mean, if Batman were replaced with some sort of high-profile cop in this movie, would it really have been that much different? Sure, you've got the whole idea of the symbol of the bat, and how it inspires fear, and so on, but I'm pretty sure someone could come up with a suitable alternative that wouldn't require anyone to dress up in a suit.



I fully agree, and again, I feel that this is what elevates The Dark Knight beyond a mere superhero movie. Nicholson's Joker was a guy who had a bullet ricochet across his face before falling into a tub of acid; not even realistic in the slightest. By contrast, Ledger's Joker is simply a guy with some scars (and serious psychological problems!), which grounds him more in reality, and hence makes him much more believable. In fact, I quite like that he gives multiple explanations for his scars in the movie, and all of them are probably wrong. Same goes for Twoface, his origin and his transformation from Harvey Dent.

Stitch on 9/8/2008 at 18:26

---

what the fuck is this shit

You misunderstand me entirely if you consider me some sort of Batman purist. I do think that there's an excellent, accurate portrayal of Joker to be made some day, but that doesn't mean Ledger's approach rocked any less.

Scots Taffer on 10/8/2008 at 23:30

---

That doesn't make sense as a lot of sources close to Nolan said his next movie isn't even a Batman movie. Plus he was taking a month off. They're hardly going to be getting to production stage with a movie that they have zero on; no story, no signed on cast, no script.
It's all bullshit in the face of the overwhelming praise of TDK and you'll be seeing a lot of it in the coming weeks.

Oh, and I caught it again yesterday, which reinforced that I need to see it on IMAX a second time too, but man, those first two hours are a power house of cinema. The build up to the truck chase is just insane, the pressure and tension just keeps piling on until it's unbearable and given Gordon's "death", you have a feeling that anything is possible - including both Dent and Rachel being killed.

Admittedly, upon rewatching the last forty or so minutes feels pretty flabby (everything after the Two-face set-up)... I mean, thematically it all ties together pretty nicely but it's sloppily handled. I'd obviously rather they made a 3.5hr movie with intermission if the studio had the balls to allow it and it could have more effectively told the latter half of the movie over a more reasonable timeframe... also allowing for a "breather" after some of the events in the middle.

Angel Dust on 11/8/2008 at 00:40

---

I saw it again the other day and that is exactly what I was thinking too. They either needed to have Dent's fall and death in a separate film or increase the running time of this one to flesh it out properly.

As far as the next film goes I don't think villains are the way. The ending of the Dark Knight is a setup for a potentially interesting third film, Batman is on the run and has truly become the villain, and with a focus on Batman's relationship with Gordon, who should be made into a bigger character, you could have something. Of course throw a villain or two in there but I don't think they should be the focus since they will most likely come off like wannabes after the Joker who is Batman's true nemesis as I am assuming that recasting the Joker is not an option. If it were though does anyone have any ideas?

Scots Taffer on 11/8/2008 at 00:53

---

I agree somewhat, I think Gordon really has to come to fruition as a character now. Oldman has been brilliant so far, a remarkably human portrayal of this determined cop who's also kind of timid and fearful for his/his family's safety. He's been put into the toughest spot so far in his career: he's trying to clean the streets with a totally corrupted force, his strongest allies and even his staunch but wavering supporters are all dead or recriminated, and now his "ace in the hole" of Batman is now the focus of their hunt in the wake of the Joker's mayhem.

I too think that whatever they think of for a third Batman movie it has to bring home the concepts of what has been lost versus what has been gained, the sacrifices that lead towards a line in the sand that must exist somewhere and how everything that's been built has sort of crumbled, is it a case of Wayne Manor being slowly rebuilt in the background or is it that they have to move on and away from it, because there's nothing left to fix.



Which is really all I meant by "Batman can't become second fiddle to the villains" in the sense that, as long as Batman is intimately involved with the characters that exist as the movie's central villains - Ra's Al Ghul and Batman had history, the Scarecrow was an incidental villain, Joker was created and defined by Batman, Two-Face was an incidental villain - then they'll continue to nail the right tone. The problem is when Dr Freeze is just some guy with a freeze ray going batshit on Gotham... well, yeah, who cares basically. Similarly for a good chunk of the other villains.