Digital Spy

Search Digital Spy
 

DS Forums

 
 

dark knight.whats the big deal?


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 01-07-2013, 01:13
Matt D
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Cambridge
Posts: 11,116
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.
So, how come TDKR also grossed over $1billion?
Matt D is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
Old 01-07-2013, 01:22
Jimmy_McNulty
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Baltimore, M.D
Posts: 10,436
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.
On my first watch I didn't like TDK, I thought there were too many plotholes and scenes that didn't make sense.

And then over time it began to grow on me, and now I think it is pretty much the best cinematic experience ever made.
Jimmy_McNulty is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 01-07-2013, 12:50
downtonfan
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 3,389
So, how come TDKR also grossed over $1billion?
Good question. Some people say the most stupid things,
downtonfan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-07-2013, 16:07
MrSuper
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Glasgow
Posts: 6,790
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.


BIB that has to be a joke, right?

Wow!
MrSuper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-07-2013, 22:05
loonattic
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 479


BIB that has to be a joke, right?

Wow!
no,its not a joke.
loonattic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-07-2013, 22:06
loonattic
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 479
On my first watch I didn't like TDK, I thought there were too many plotholes and scenes that didn't make sense.

And then over time it began to grow on me, and now I think it is pretty much the best cinematic experience ever made.
EH? it aint that good.i've seen hundreds of films that are a better cinematic experience.
loonattic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-07-2013, 23:44
Conor the Bold
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 1,755
Like the fantastic four...

Just goes to show there is no accounting for taste.
Conor the Bold is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-07-2013, 23:59
Trsvis_Bickle
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 8,881
I stopped reading when you started off with "If your definition..."

Er, why exactly? Elnombre has written a well-argued, articulate post. You clearly don't have a counter-argument to his points or else you would have articulated it.
Trsvis_Bickle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-07-2013, 00:35
lordo350
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,208
Everyone is entitled to their opinion and all, but in all honesty the movies you have cited that you liked better are different movies, very different indeed.

Which is a problem. Nolan's Batman trilogy are based on comic books, but it was a common conception that comic book movies were going to be goofy and silly, but bundles of fun. Nolan changed that with Batman, but because he made a hell of a lot of money, producers are scrambling about trying to make the superhero movies that SHOULD be goofy and fun, such as Spider-man and hell, even Superman, more like Batman. And it's falling flat on its arse. Man of Steel's biggest problem was the tone. It tried too much to be like the Dark Knight. There was no sense of fun, or adventure. In all honesty, the more I think about that film, the more I dislike it for that very reason.

The Dark Knight is, for me, an almost perfect film. I'm not saying it is perfect. There are a few plot holes. The whole finger print bullet thing I never really understood at all. Batman uses it to find an address overlooking a parade that just happened to be going right under it, the address of a man who shot two men called "Harvey Dent" or something? Little confusing.

But, even without the Heath Ledger aspect, the film is spot on. The action is awesome. The characters and cast are superb. The story flows well and the general structure of the film is, on the whole, spot on. I've always seen this as a movie that really challenges you. It will, I think, be a cult classic remembered just as fondly 30 years from now, just like the original Superman. I think Nolan has secured himself a spot in history for this film alone.

The Harvey Dent suddenly changes character argument is one I don't understand. Hints at what is to come are dropped throughout the movie. Dent hates corruption and has a primary goal to abolish it. He sees corrupt cops in Gordon's unit everywhere, yet thinks Gordon is a fool for simply ignoring it out of necessity. And, he loves Rachel. When he thinks her life is in danger, we see the hint of the Two-Face villain underneath when he captures the crazy guy. His neat little coin trick is the best form of interrogation he can come up with at the time. The Joker sees a darkness in him, and knows exactly what to do to bring it out.

When he kidnaps both him and Rachel, they both have a 50/50 chance of survival and he survives with half his face burned off. That alone would drive anyone crazy. Add that the love of his life has been murdered. Add that he feels this could have been avoided if the corrupt cops had been gotten rid of. When he starts his act of revenge he is driven insane by grief and want for justice. He doesn't go on a random killing spree; these are people he feels are responsible for Rachel's death. As they were happy to leave her with a 50/50 chance of survival, he does the same to them. The only thing that doesn't really make sense is that he seems happy to kill Gordon's son, but if you think about it, it kind of does. Dent's family was taken from him, which he blames Gordon for. So, he's going to take his, so Gordon has to feel his pain.

There you go. Two paragraphs about Two-Face, in a film people think is just all about the Joker. Could I write two paragraphs about Doctor Doom, or Lizard Man, who's story arc started promising but eventually became "join me Spiderman! No? Then I'll do it anyway and you have to stop me!"? No.

This is why I think this movie just simply stands in a different genre to just another comic book movie. That's not to say the traditional comic book movie is bad; the Avengers has proven that format can also make a bloody brilliant movie as well. Batman Begins and TDKR are awesome movies, but they are in the more traditional format of comic movies. There are not really any thought provoking aspects in these things, as good as they are. With TDK, for me, it's a masterpiece.
lordo350 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-07-2013, 01:24
thedarklord _
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Birmingham
Posts: 290
I think TDK and in particular Heath Ledger's performance is put on a ridiculous pedestal and I say this as a fan of TDK trilogy. You can't seem to talk about TDK without someone mentioning 'Heath Ledger's legendary performance!' Having said that, Ledger's performance was certainly very good and would've been a worthy nomination/win in any year, though no different to any other good performance of the last few years from other actors. The fanboyism of The Joker really rocketed after Ledger's death.

For me the true drama of TDK always came from Batman, Dent and Gordon. It was always meant to be about those characters (Oldman gives the best performance in the film IMO).
thedarklord _ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-07-2013, 03:18
ThereCanBeOnly1
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: The Shire
Posts: 459
I'm not sure if I've ever seen the whole movie. I fell asleep the first time I sat down to watch it. I've seen most of Ledger's scenes though and I think he was brilliant. I don't know why licking his lips a lot is a bad thing. It didn't matter to me that his performance was nothing like the comics. I've been told Nicholson's was close and I loved his performance, despite never having read the comics.

My favourite Batman movies are the Tim Burton ones.
ThereCanBeOnly1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-07-2013, 11:03
MediaMan5
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 315
I think TDK and in particular Heath Ledger's performance is put on a ridiculous pedestal and I say this as a fan of TDK trilogy. You can't seem to talk about TDK without someone mentioning 'Heath Ledger's legendary performance!' Having said that, Ledger's performance was certainly very good and would've been a worthy nomination/win in any year, though no different to any other good performance of the last few years from other actors. The fanboyism of The Joker really rocketed after Ledger's death.

For me the true drama of TDK always came from Batman, Dent and Gordon. It was always meant to be about those characters (Oldman gives the best performance in the film IMO).
Your point is flawed, you contradict yourself in bib. You need to create a more coherent argument for your point to be valid.
MediaMan5 is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 02-07-2013, 22:56
Conor the Bold
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 1,755
Your point is flawed, you contradict yourself in bib. You need to create a more coherent argument for your point to be valid.
I agree.

Original point reframed

You know what, you can't seem to talk about...
The Godfather, Raging Bull, Apocolypse Now, Citzen Kane
Without somebody mentioning
Pacino's, De Niro's, Brando's, Welles's "lengandary performance!". Having said that, their performance was certainly very good and were or would have been worthy winners/nominations in any year.

Tip for the OP, when you have great actors doing great performances, people are going to talk about it...
Conor the Bold is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-07-2013, 23:32
jalal
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 426
We had plenty of great films last decade, but TDK was one of the highlights for me. Enjoyed it immensely!

Never been a fan of comic book films but I really like how this was more of a crime thriller than your usual predictable Marvel film.
jalal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-07-2013, 04:59
thedarklord _
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Birmingham
Posts: 290
Your point is flawed, you contradict yourself in bib. You need to create a more coherent argument for your point to be valid.
Not quite, I acknowledge it was a good performance but it was always put on a pedestal after Ledger's death. I know some really wanted to push for his performance to be put in the Best Actor category at awards shows which I thought was odd as he clearly not leading and he's not in the film that much. I hate using this word but it is 'overrated', though a really good overrated performance.

Maybe I'm just being bitter and cynical, I don't know But back in 2008 It felt as if I was the only wanting to see a Batman film whereas everyone else was psyched to see The Heath Ledger show.

I don't think there's that much of a gap in quality in terms of story between all 3 films but that's just my opinion.
thedarklord _ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-07-2013, 16:53
elnombre
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 2,862
I stopped reading when you started off with "If your definition..."

Sorry, we're not giving out medals for being unable to muster a coherent response today.
elnombre is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-07-2013, 16:58
Delboy219
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Scotland
Posts: 2,903
Sorry, we're not giving out medals for being unable to muster a coherent response today.
Rudeness is kinda her thing. Best to just ignore the passive aggressive nastiness.
Delboy219 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-07-2013, 18:02
Helbore
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 9,857
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'm not sure where you get most of this from. Yes, it isn't exactly like the Joker of the comics, I'll give you that. But then neither are Ra's, Scarecrow or Bane. Nolan's Batman films all have their own slant on the story and don't necessarily follow the comic interpretations of characters and events. Rachel, for all her importance in the films, wasn't even a comic-book character.

As for everything else, I'd say the film totally contradicts your opinion of the character. From the opening bank heist to the Joker sitting in the cab of a lorry declaring "I like my job!" I'd say the film gave a good impression of a man who was enjoying the chaos of his crimes. Heck, he killed his own men in the bank heist by setting them on each other, just for shits and giggles. He proved later he couldn't give a toss about money, so it wasn't so he could keep all the cash for himself. It was purely because it amused him.

As for his lack of a sense of humour, I'd point again to his "I like my job," line, his now-infamous manic laugh, the pencil magic-trick, leaving "his card" for the mob, his jumping on an unconscious Batman after his mask electrocutes a henchman, his clapping at Gordon's promotion, his "I just want my phonecall," and his enjoyment at getting his head bashed about by Batman in the interrogation suite. There's plenty of evidence that he did have a sense of humour. It was dark and twisted (as it should be), but to say he had no sense of humour is just plain wrong.

As for your final point about the relationship between Joker and Batman - did you actually listen to the dialogue? They clearly made that point. The Joker drummed that point in time and again from the interrogation onwards. He told Batman outright this in the interrogation. He wants to stop Batman's identity being revealed simply because he wants to keep him around. His final "you really are incorruptible, aren't you," line was all about them being opposite sides of the same coin, unlike Dent who Joker managed to break.

You can dislike his style and portrayal, that's fine. You can prefer other interpretations, be they in comic or film form. That's all personal taste and opinion and no-one will ever be able to "win" such an argument, because taste is subjective. But most of the points in your argument are just factually wrong. That's not opinion - the movie contradicts them.
Helbore is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-07-2013, 21:06
Pistol Whip
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: North West
Posts: 9,292
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.
Having read that it makes me wonder if you've actually seen the film. Or if you have did you actually take any notice of it or listen to the dialog in it?

Agree with Helbore 100%
Pistol Whip is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-07-2013, 22:02
theonlyweeman
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 6,042
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'm sorry, you're upset because Chris Nolan didn't just copy a graphic novel frame for frame into film? And the actors acted according to the film, and not the comic. Direct adaptations do not make good movies. Zack Snyder's Watchmen is an incredibly faithful adaptation of the graphic novel, especially the Ultimate Cut. But it's an awful movie, because the plot isn't explained very well, characters aren't ever introduced, it somewhat assumes a working knowledge of the graphic novel, since the relationships aren't really explained, half the film is flashbacks.

Graphic Novels/Comic Books don't really make good films, things have to change for the benefit of the film, and if you can't handle that don't watch them...
theonlyweeman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-07-2013, 22:54
ritch
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,505
I'm not sure where you get most of this from. Yes, it isn't exactly like the Joker of the comics, I'll give you that. But then neither are Ra's, Scarecrow or Bane. Nolan's Batman films all have their own slant on the story and don't necessarily follow the comic interpretations of characters and events. Rachel, for all her importance in the films, wasn't even a comic-book character.

As for everything else, I'd say the film totally contradicts your opinion of the character. From the opening bank heist to the Joker sitting in the cab of a lorry declaring "I like my job!" I'd say the film gave a good impression of a man who was enjoying the chaos of his crimes. Heck, he killed his own men in the bank heist by setting them on each other, just for shits and giggles. He proved later he couldn't give a toss about money, so it wasn't so he could keep all the cash for himself. It was purely because it amused him.

As for his lack of a sense of humour, I'd point again to his "I like my job," line, his now-infamous manic laugh, the pencil magic-trick, leaving "his card" for the mob, his jumping on an unconscious Batman after his mask electrocutes a henchman, his clapping at Gordon's promotion, his "I just want my phonecall," and his enjoyment at getting his head bashed about by Batman in the interrogation suite. There's plenty of evidence that he did have a sense of humour. It was dark and twisted (as it should be), but to say he had no sense of humour is just plain wrong.

As for your final point about the relationship between Joker and Batman - did you actually listen to the dialogue? They clearly made that point. The Joker drummed that point in time and again from the interrogation onwards. He told Batman outright this in the interrogation. He wants to stop Batman's identity being revealed simply because he wants to keep him around. His final "you really are incorruptible, aren't you," line was all about them being opposite sides of the same coin, unlike Dent who Joker managed to break.

You can dislike his style and portrayal, that's fine. You can prefer other interpretations, be they in comic or film form. That's all personal taste and opinion and no-one will ever be able to "win" such an argument, because taste is subjective. But most of the points in your argument are just factually wrong. That's not opinion - the movie contradicts them.
Thats a good post
ritch 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 04:41.