Digital Spy

Search Digital Spy
 

DS Forums

 
 

dark knight.whats the big deal?


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 30-06-2013, 10:48
loonattic
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 479

just got round to seeing the dark knight for the first time,and though it was good,it wasn't as good as I've been hearing for the past few years.as a superhero film,the x men movies were more enjoyable as was the recent marvels like the avengers,thor captain America.i even like the 2 fantastic 4 films better.i cant see how the dark knight took as much money as it did(one of the few to pass the billion mark I think?)anybody else agree? dark knight rises is on my lovefilm list next so hopefully that's better.
loonattic is offline   Reply With Quote
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
Old 30-06-2013, 11:15
NorfolkBoy1
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Norwich
Posts: 4,056
just got round to seeing the dark knight for the first time,and though it was good,it wasn't as good as I've been hearing for the past few years.as a superhero film,the x men movies were more enjoyable as was the recent marvels like the avengers,thor captain America.i even like the 2 fantastic 4 films better.i cant see how the dark knight took as much money as it did(one of the few to pass the billion mark I think?)anybody else agree? dark knight rises is on my lovefilm list next so hopefully that's better.
If you didn't like TDK, you won't like TDKR, but why you didn't start with Batman Begins I don't know.

If you liked the Fantastic Four films better than TDK*, just don't bother with TDKR.






*Also, I weep for your soul.
NorfolkBoy1 is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 30-06-2013, 11:22
Yuffie
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Scotland
Posts: 4,771
Hey, Avatar is the highest grossing film of all time and its by far not the best film ever made. How much money a film makes doesn't determine how good it is.Take the likes of Transformers and the later Pirates of the Caribbean films. They got over the billion mark and you'll find a lot of people who don't like them.

Saying that, I do firmly believe the Dark Knight films deserve their place near the top of a lot of peoples favorite movie lists. Shame you didn't like them, there is a few of you out there who didn't enjoy them. But they were exactly what more people wanted in a superhero film and now we find superhero films been compared to them ( e.g. Man of Steel).

Do what NorfolkBoy said and start from the beginning. Chances are that its not going to change your view on the movie that much but it might help to know the origin story.
Yuffie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-06-2013, 12:23
daver34
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 814
Dark knight rises is to long.6/10
daver34 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-06-2013, 13:16
elnombre
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 2,862
If you didn't like TDK, you won't like TDKR, but why you didn't start with Batman Begins I don't know.
For what it's worth, I didn't like TDK (mostly due to the sludgy tone and Heath Ledger's sophomoric performance as The Joker), but I did enjoy TDKR.
elnombre is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-06-2013, 13:19
not_the_doctor
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 1,153
... .i cant see how the dark knight took as much money as it did(one of the few to pass the billion mark I think?)anybody else agree? dark knight rises is on my lovefilm list next so hopefully that's better.
It took in so much money due to WB's shameless exploitation of Heath Ledger's death. Without that, I doubt it would have made much more money than the first one.

TDKR is a lot dumber, but also in some ways less irritating than TDK. Would make sense to watch BB first, though, if you can handle another meh superhero movie.
not_the_doctor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-06-2013, 13:24
downtonfan
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 3,383
The Dark Knight is good because of the incredible performance from the late, great Heath Ledger.
downtonfan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-06-2013, 13:28
theonlyweeman
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 5,979
It took in so much money due to WB's shameless exploitation of Heath Ledger's death. Without that, I doubt it would have made much more money than the first one.

TDKR is a lot dumber, but also in some ways less irritating than TDK. Would make sense to watch BB first, though, if you can handle another meh superhero movie.
No, it took money because it was so surprising nobody expected something so dark, and Heath Ledger's performance as the joker was unusually charismatic and well done, especially for a villain. Of course Heath Ledger's death raised awareness, but I don't think WB shamelessly exploited it. And if they did, they got his posthumous Oscar, so I doubt his family cares...
theonlyweeman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-06-2013, 13:34
elnombre
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 2,862
The Dark Knight is good because of the incredible performance from the late, great Heath Ledger.
If your definition of an incredible performance is licking your lips constantly as an affectation (wonder if he picked that up at drama school) and playing The Joker as if he's a cross between The Crow and a nihilistic teenage goth, you're right.

His performance bore no resemblance whatsoever to who the Joker is in the comics, graphic novels or elsewhere. The Joker enjoys his crimes, he lives for them, they give him pleasure and laughter and he thrives on chaos. Ledger's Joker didn't even have a sense of humour, he was just a bland, grunting terrorist. I was hoping for a characterisation similar to 'The Killing Joke'. Based on his performance, I doubt Ledger had even read it, nor had most of the people who praised him (dying didn't hurt his reviews either, lets face it). It's The Joker for people who don't know who the Joker really is.

The relationship between Joker and Batman is that of two seemingly opposite people who have more uncomfortable similarities than one of them dare acknowledge. In TDK, they are simply two growling, murky, scenery-chewing fatalists.
elnombre is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-06-2013, 13:36
Iggyman
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 2,700
just got round to seeing the dark knight for the first time,and though it was good,it wasn't as good as I've been hearing for the past few years.as a superhero film,the x men movies were more enjoyable as was the recent marvels like the avengers,thor captain America.i even like the 2 fantastic 4 films better.i cant see how the dark knight took as much money as it did(one of the few to pass the billion mark I think?)anybody else agree? dark knight rises is on my lovefilm list next so hopefully that's better.
I love The Dark Knight but i must admit that the first time I saw it I was unimpressed. However, something about it stuck with me so when the Blu-ray came out I bought it and watched it again, and liked it far more. I've now watched it a fair few times and have grown to love it.

Also really like TDKR, but it's not QUITE as good as TDK. Both films are better than Batman Begins though which is a bit naff in places (but still mostly enjoyable).
Iggyman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-06-2013, 17:33
JEFF62
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 2,835
The Dark Knight is good because of the incredible performance from the late, great Heath Ledger.
Was there any footage of him being interviewed with or without the make up? Its very mysterious. I have never seen any footage like that when it was released or on the dvd. I never quite understood why we never saw the character as a normal man like the Jack Nicholson joker in the 1989 film. Why was thee no back story. (It may have been explained in the film. I cant remember now as i haven't seen The Dark Knight for three years.) But it has always struck me as strange that there is no footage ever shown of Heath Ledger being interviewed about the role or anything. Maybe it has never been shown as a mark of respect or at the request of his family.
JEFF62 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-06-2013, 17:58
Big Boy Barry
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Barry's Manor
Posts: 22,498
Heath Ledger's death gave it a novelty factor. His performance was great, no doubt, but dying before the film's release added another selling point. Personally I still think Jack Nicholson's performance was better. The first two Batman movies are still the best ones IMO
Big Boy Barry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-06-2013, 18:00
RebelScum
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Aberdeen
Posts: 8,958
TDK is probably the best of the three but it's the one I least look forward to re-watching. It's relentless and I find quite draining. Whilst I can hapilly sit though the othe two in one sitting, I'll watch TDK over two nights. Yeah, HL was good but I do cringe at some of the worship that's thrown his way, but I guess every generation has to have their own James Dean. The one I enjoy re-watching the most is TDKR. All three are great though.
RebelScum is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-06-2013, 18:37
elnombre
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 2,862
TDK is probably the best of the three but it's the one I least look forward to re-watching. It's relentless and I find quite draining. Whilst I can hapilly sit though the othe two in one sitting, I'll watch TDK over two nights. Yeah, HL was good but I do cringe at some of the worship that's thrown his way, but I guess every generation has to have their own James Dean. The one I enjoy re-watching the most is TDKR. All three are great though.
The difference is James Dean could act like a believable human being.
elnombre is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-06-2013, 18:45
Pistol Whip
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: North West
Posts: 9,292
Here we go again "You're a knob for liking TDK" "No, your a knob for not liking it"

How very 2008.
Pistol Whip is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-06-2013, 18:49
RebelScum
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Aberdeen
Posts: 8,958
The difference is James Dean could act like a believable human being.
Funnily enough the rumour I heard was that James Dean was extremely short sighted, and much of his "moody" acting was just him struggling to see.

Rumours aside, they were both good actors and deserve to be recognised as such, but that's as far as I'd go.
RebelScum is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-06-2013, 18:58
downtonfan
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 3,383
If your definition of an incredible performance is licking your lips constantly as an affectation (wonder if he picked that up at drama school) and playing The Joker as if he's a cross between The Crow and a nihilistic teenage goth, you're right.

His performance bore no resemblance whatsoever to who the Joker is in the comics, graphic novels or elsewhere. The Joker enjoys his crimes, he lives for them, they give him pleasure and laughter and he thrives on chaos. Ledger's Joker didn't even have a sense of humour, he was just a bland, grunting terrorist. I was hoping for a characterisation similar to 'The Killing Joke'. Based on his performance, I doubt Ledger had even read it, nor had most of the people who praised him (dying didn't hurt his reviews either, lets face it). It's The Joker for people who don't know who the Joker really is.

The relationship between Joker and Batman is that of two seemingly opposite people who have more uncomfortable similarities than one of them dare acknowledge. In TDK, they are simply two growling, murky, scenery-chewing fatalists.
I stopped reading when you started off with "If your definition..."

downtonfan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-06-2013, 19:02
Virgil Tracy
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 19,874
If your definition of an incredible performance is licking your lips constantly as an affectation (wonder if he picked that up at drama school) and playing The Joker as if he's a cross between The Crow and a nihilistic teenage goth, you're right.

His performance bore no resemblance whatsoever to who the Joker is in the comics, graphic novels or elsewhere. The Joker enjoys his crimes, he lives for them, they give him pleasure and laughter and he thrives on chaos. Ledger's Joker didn't even have a sense of humour, he was just a bland, grunting terrorist. I was hoping for a characterisation similar to 'The Killing Joke'. Based on his performance, I doubt Ledger had even read it, nor had most of the people who praised him (dying didn't hurt his reviews either, lets face it). It's The Joker for people who don't know who the Joker really is.

The relationship between Joker and Batman is that of two seemingly opposite people who have more uncomfortable similarities than one of them dare acknowledge. In TDK, they are simply two growling, murky, scenery-chewing fatalists.
I always thought the lip-licking was due to his facial scars .


.
Virgil Tracy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-06-2013, 19:05
quirkyquirk
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 6,375
I liked it on first viewing but it's not a film I enjoy on re-watches.Everything works out like clockwork for The Joker while Batman and the cops run around like headless chickens.The Two-Face character was beyond pathetic.He completely changes character after been disfigured.Really? In Nolan's more "realistic" world,it should have been the version of Harvey Dent who had a split personality in order to justify why his character just completely switched.Plus, the character was wasted anyway,he had about 15 minutes of screen time after becoming Two-Face.

The film's too long yet too short at the same time as well IMO.By that I mean that the story is stretched out but alot of the scenes just end abruptly.

I have it on DVD but I don't bother watching it anymore.But Batman Begins I can watch over and over.
quirkyquirk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-06-2013, 20:40
mwardy
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 1,731
The Two-Face character was beyond pathetic.He completely changes character after been disfigured.Really? In Nolan's more "realistic" world,it should have been the version of Harvey Dent who had a split personality in order to justify why his character just completely switched.
Um, don't you think Nolan is onto this? That it's one of the things the film is driving at (that they are not so far apart once life happens)?
mwardy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-06-2013, 22:06
jediknight2k1
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Fighting the darkside
Posts: 2,192
The difference is James Dean could act like a believable human being.
The Joker was never meant to be a " believable human being", he is a psychotic killer who revels in his crimes. In other films it was quite apparent that Ledger could portray believable characters.

I liked it on first viewing but it's not a film I enjoy on re-watches.Everything works out like clockwork for The Joker while Batman and the cops run around like headless chickens.The Two-Face character was beyond pathetic.He completely changes character after been disfigured.Really? In Nolan's more "realistic" world,it should have been the version of Harvey Dent who had a split personality in order to justify why his character just completely switched.Plus, the character was wasted anyway,he had about 15 minutes of screen time after becoming Two-Face.

The film's too long yet too short at the same time as well IMO.By that I mean that the story is stretched out but alot of the scenes just end abruptly.

I have it on DVD but I don't bother watching it anymore.But Batman Begins I can watch over and over.
He is called "Two-Face" for a reason as after the attack he develops split personalises. The point was that Harvey Dent is attacked while doing job and trauma results him becoming a villain in the Batman comics.
jediknight2k1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-06-2013, 22:09
Big Boy Barry
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Barry's Manor
Posts: 22,498
Ledger should have played the Riddler instead. That character is more suited to intellectual plotting and mind games rather than the Joker. It also would have given the Riddler a much needed revamp after Jim Carrey's performance
Big Boy Barry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-06-2013, 23:06
ritch
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,486
Dark knight rises is to long.6/10
Brilliant, concise review....
ritch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-06-2013, 23:21
loonattic
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 479
If you didn't like TDK, you won't like TDKR, but why you didn't start with Batman Begins I don't know.

If you liked the Fantastic Four films better than TDK*, just don't bother with TDKR.






*Also, I weep for your soul.
I did start with batman begins and I do like tdk,i just think it didn't live up to the hype.the fantastic four films were unfairly criticised.much more enjoyable than tdk.
loonattic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-06-2013, 23:33
-GONZO-
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Kent
Posts: 7,772
I did start with batman begins and I do like tdk,i just think it didn't live up to the hype.the fantastic four films were unfairly criticised.much more enjoyable than tdk.
The Fantanstic Four films IMO were terrible in comparison.
-GONZO- is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply



Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:50.