Could TDK have been a better movie if done by someone other than the Nolans?

[[]D[]/\/\[]D @ Nite/So-tite]

I'm a big fan of TDK and I think it's definitely one of the best movies ever made, but I wanted to know if some here thought it could have been an even better movie if done by another creative team.

[Stobkolben]

I suppose it's possible, but for all intensive purposes another team would lead to yet another reboot. I would guess that Nolan's rather pragmatic and was probably working out the concept for TDK and the next film while filming Batman Begins. If that's true I think we would have really lost out by getting new direction for TDK.

[carabas]

The Nolans wrote the script (with Goyer), so no, there wouldn't even be a Dark Knight without the Nolans.

[bannermanonemillion]

Uh...no. It wouldn't have. Next? Anyone seen Terminator Salvation? Not bad really, but not as fun as Star Trek.

[vcassel]

The Nolans wrote the script (with Goyer), so no, there wouldn't even be a Dark Knight without the Nolans.

i agree with this. if you're asking whether the basic plot would have been handled better by someone else, well the whole idea for the plot came from the nolans so it would have been a completely different movie from the bottom up. as far as anyone else handling the project better i think maybe not. the nolans already had the experience of making the first one and the trust of the cast under their belts. and i can't think of any other filmmakers who've worked as deeply in creating modern noir as the nolans.

[Sn4tcH]

A Nolan script directed by David Fincher might be okay, but I still don't think it would have been better.

[Mia]

D[]/\/\[]D @ Nite/So-tite;9020795']I'm a big fan of TDK and I think it's definitely one of the best movies ever made, but I wanted to know if some here thought it could have been an even better movie if done by another creative team.

I didn't like TDK. But I honestly can not say that it would have been a better film had it been done by a better creative team. I think that the fillm would have been better if someone else had been involved in writing the script. Watching the film I felt for the most part that I was being lectured rather been told a story, given the amount of speaches that piled out of everyone's mouths. It was as if Nolan and his brother were trying to show everyone how intellectual they were. I also think that had Ledger cut down on the mugging for the camera and the constant cackling I would have been more impressed, as it was I didn't find him scary. I also tend to think that another creative team would have focused the film on Batman rather than the Joker--although I still think the Joker would have still ended up upstagging him.

[Mia]

A Nolan script directed by David Fincher might be okay, but I still don't think it would have been better.

The funny thing is the only Nolan film I have really liked is Batman Begins. He's supposed to be this great director but his stuff has never impressed me.

[Sn4tcH]

I would say Nolan makes a lot of really cool movies. I don't think he's a made a true cinema classic yet. Stuff like Memento, Prestige, and TDK are good, maybe even great, but hardly classic. I think he can make a classic, and he hasn't yet. TDK was far from perfect but luckily the actors allow it to live on what I feel is a higher plain than other comic films. Nolan's still new, and I don't think he's made a complete junker of a film yet, and the worst thing you could probably say about him is that he is a poor mans Fincher. I think he has great things coming though, and he's got balls enough to make a sci-fi epic, as his follow up to TDK, and I'm very much looking forward to it.

But I also consider TDK one of my top 3 favorite films.

Watching the film I felt for the most part that I was being lectured rather been told a story, given the amount of speaches that piled out of everyone's mouths. It was as if Nolan and his brother were trying to show everyone how intellectual they were.

I admit, a lot of the speeches were a bit much. Gordons speech to his son seems kind of cheesey after repeat viewing. I imagine his son pulling on his sleeve in the middle of speech and saying, "Okay, I'm bored now..."

I also think that had Ledger cut down on the mugging for the camera and the constant cackling I would have been more impressed, as it was I didn't find him scary.

Agree to disagree in this case. As much as I am the type of person to condemn the oscars for being worthless and Hollywood patting themselves on the back, I feel Ledger deserved his award, along with dozens of others he recieved as well. Best villain I've seen since Hannibal Lecter.

I also tend to think that another creative team would have focused the film on Batman rather than the Joker--although I still think the Joker would have still ended up upstagging him.

I've heard this arguement, but again, disagree. You focus on Batman again, it's just Batman Begins II. We already had a whole film dedicated to Bruce Wayne and his psyche, and it's great. I wouldn't want the same film again.

Secondly, I feel like the focal point of the film is Harvey Dent. The film plays like it's Batman and Gordons point of view, watching the story of Harvey Dent unfold, and the Joker simply plays the part of a catalyst for the downfall of Dent into Two-Face. But I know I'm the minority on this one, I've yet to find someone to agree with me. Everyone just says "Oh, the Joker's the main villain" and I simply disagree. He's like the mini-boss building up to the boss of the game, IMO.

[Abeja]

I liked the Prestige. Im sure eventually someone would have come along and made something like BB or TDK. Im glad I didnt have to wait. I enjoyed Gotham Knights awhole lot too. I ordered in On Demand the night before I saw TDK.

[vcassel]

The funny thing is the only Nolan film I have really liked is Batman Begins. He's supposed to be this great director but his stuff has never impressed me.

well, that doesn't mean he isn't still a great director. i think the fact that on this movie alone he pulled off some really terrific action sequences without a second unit, got a critically loved performance out of an overlooked, underused actor, and was able to perfectly juxtapose two crazy, driven "freaks" was testament to this. i mean sure, to each their own, but i think i'm in the majority in thinking this. not that that always means anything. but for the purposes of continuing the batman movie franchise down this direction i think it does.

[vcassel]

I would say Nolan makes a lot of really cool movies. I don't think he's a made a true cinema classic yet. Stuff like Memento, Prestige, and TDK are good, maybe even great, but hardly classic. I think he can make a classic, and he hasn't yet. TDK was far from perfect but luckily the actors allow it to live on what I feel is a higher plain than other comic films. Nolan's still new, and I don't think he's made a complete junker of a film yet, and the worst thing you could probably say about him is that he is a poor mans Fincher. I think he has great things coming though, and he's got balls enough to make a sci-fi epic, as his follow up to TDK, and I'm very much looking forward to it.

But I also consider TDK one of my top 3 favorite films.

well of course time will be a better indicator of whether his stuff become cinema classics than a thread placed here, but i think that memento with its critical acclaim and very high ratings and tdk with those very same things plus its amazing box office performance will stand the test of time and become must watches.

[gryhpon]

no one else could have made it better

[Mia]

I would say Nolan makes a lot of really cool movies. I don't think he's a made a true cinema classic yet. Stuff like Memento, Prestige, and TDK are good, maybe even great, but hardly classic. I think he can make a classic, and he hasn't yet. TDK was far from perfect but luckily the actors allow it to live on what I feel is a higher plain than other comic films. Nolan's still new, and I don't think he's made a complete junker of a film yet, and the worst thing you could probably say about him is that he is a poor mans Fincher. I think he has great things coming though, and he's got balls enough to make a sci-fi epic, as his follow up to TDK, and I'm very much looking forward to it.

To each his own. I'm not that impressed with his stuff.


I
Agree to disagree in this case. As much as I am the type of person to condemn the oscars for being worthless and Hollywood patting themselves on the back, I feel Ledger deserved his award, along with dozens of others he recieved as well. Best villain I've seen since Hannibal Lecter.

I didn't say that he didn't deserve his award. He deserved it just as much as Johnny Depp for Pirates of the Caribean and Kevin Klein for A Fish Called Wanda. I just meant that I did not find him scary or intimidating.



I've heard this arguement, but again, disagree. You focus on Batman again, it's just Batman Begins II. We already had a whole film dedicated to Bruce Wayne and his psyche, and it's great. I wouldn't want the same film again.

Secondly, I feel like the focal point of the film is Harvey Dent. The film plays like it's Batman and Gordons point of view, watching the story of Harvey Dent unfold, and the Joker simply plays the part of a catalyst for the downfall of Dent into Two-Face. But I know I'm the minority on this one, I've yet to find someone to agree with me. Everyone just says "Oh, the Joker's the main villain" and I simply disagree. He's like the mini-boss building up to the boss of the game, IMO.

They can do a Batman centered film without rehashing Batman Begins. If they wanted to make a movie on the Joker. They should have titled it as such and not mislead people into thinking that it was a sequel to Batman Begins or even a Batman film. When it really wasn't.

[vcassel]

They can do a Batman centered film without rehashing Batman Begins. If they wanted to make a movie on the Joker. They should have titled it as such and not mislead people into thinking that it was a sequel to Batman Begins or even a Batman film. When it really wasn't.

er, i don't know of many people who felt mislead. anyone other than you actually. it's not like batman merely had a cameo roll in this film. the joker had less screen time than batman/bruce wayne. and the only reason for the joker is to show his similarities and differences from batman and to give him a real challenge, to take him to the next place he needs to be.

[Sn4tcH]

well of course time will be a better indicator of whether his stuff become cinema classics than a thread placed here, but i think that memento with its critical acclaim and very high ratings and tdk with those very same things plus its amazing box office performance will stand the test of time and become must watches.

Totally! I agree. It's hard to explain what I mean by "cool movie" and "cinema classic". A cinema classic is something along the lines of The Godfather, Raging Bull, Taxi Driver... etc. Stuff that's like this undeniable thing and even if you don't like it, it's probably not the films fault. Like I don't "get" Taxi Driver, but I understand it's importance, and I understand that me not "getting it" doesn't make it bad. Of course, how many people walk out of a movie and instead of saying "I don't get it" simply say "It's bad." Wow, back on topic...ish

A "Cool movie" to me is something like Kill Bill, TDK, Lord of the Rings... etc. Stuff that will stand the test of time, and generally you can kind of let your brain go (or even make you think), and recommend to genre fans. I think "genre" is the key word. Sci-fi, Kung-Fu, Comic... genres. I think maybe a true "cinema classic" can't be defined by a genre. Of course... I'm not sure what genre you would put Memento into either...

Edit: One other thing I forgot to say. I would never consider Titanic or Shrek 2 cinema classics... I don't even consider then "cool" or even "good" movies, so box office gross can't really define these things.

[Endless Flight]

I still like the two Burton films better.

[vcassel]

Totally! I agree. It's hard to explain what I mean by "cool movie" and "cinema classic". A cinema classic is something along the lines of The Godfather, Raging Bull, Taxi Driver... etc. Stuff that's like this undeniable thing and even if you don't like it, it's probably not the films fault. Like I don't "get" Taxi Driver, but I understand it's importance, and I understand that me not "getting it" doesn't make it bad. Of course, how many people walk out of a movie and instead of saying "I don't get it" simply say "It's bad." Wow, back on topic...ish

A "Cool movie" to me is something like Kill Bill, TDK, Star Wars... etc. Stuff that will stand the test of time, and generally you can kind of let your brain go (or even make you think), and recommend to genre fans. I think "genre" is the key word. Sci-fi, Kung-Fu, Comic... genres. I think maybe a true "cinema classic" can't be defined by a genre.

i agree with you on taxi driver, i just didn't get it. the same with raging bull. i'm actually studying film and as part of that a few weeks ago i rented birth of a nation which i guess is a must watch because of it being the emergence of visual narrative. it was really one of the worst movie watching experiences i've ever had. and it didn't have anything to do with it being racist. it was just so dreadfully boring. doesn't mean it's not still a classic and one of the most important films if not the most important film of all time.

i disagree with your second paragraph though. i don't think being a genre film is mutually exclusive and barring from being a classic. i think many people consider star wars as classic films and indeed they are required viewing in many film schools. the fact that they were pioneering in visual effects and very happily recieved and remembered by the public i think cements their positions as classics. like i said, time will tell whether tdk will become a classic piece of cinema but i'd bet on it.

[vcassel]

Edit: One other thing I forgot to say. I would never consider Titanic or Shrek 2 cinema classics... I don't even consider then "cool" or even "good" movies, so box office gross can't really define these things.

of course it doesn't define these things but i feel that it definitely stands as a factor whose importance depends from film to film.

[Sn4tcH]

That was kind of a spilling of consciousness, thinking out loud really. I don't even really agree with my own statement. I said Star Wars wasn't a cinema classic before I edited it to say LOTR. And Star Wars is a cinema classic simply because it CHANGED cinema. So, I'll stick more on topic instead just spouting off whatever I'm thinking at the time.

TDK RULES!

[Choppa]

I would guess that Nolan's rather pragmatic and was probably working out the concept for TDK and the next film while filming Batman Begins.

He didn't and it was pretty clear. He even said so in an interview.

[Jorriss]

There are A LOT of talented directors out there so I think it'd be foolish to say 'No, couldn't be done!' but I wouldn't bet on it.

[carabas]

I also tend to think that another creative team would have focused the film on Batman rather than the Joker--although I still think the Joker would have still ended up upstagging him.
It's a Joker story. If the Joker doesn't absolutely steal every scene he's in, and if his actions do not absolutely drive the narative, you're just not doing it right.

Also, Batman Begins aside, has there ever been a Batman film in which Pointy-Ears didn't play second or third banana to his villains?

[Sn4tcH]

Also, Batman Begins aside, has there ever been a Batman film in which Pointy-Ears didn't play second or third banana to his villains?

Some people say Batman '89. Those people are wrong.

[celticguy]

To each his own. I'm not that impressed with his stuff.




I didn't say that he didn't deserve his award. He deserved it just as much as Johnny Depp for Pirates of the Caribean and Kevin Klein for A Fish Called Wanda. I just meant that I did not find him scary or intimidating.




They can do a Batman centered film without rehashing Batman Begins. If they wanted to make a movie on the Joker. They should have titled it as such and not mislead people into thinking that it was a sequel to Batman Begins or even a Batman film. When it really wasn't.

I am not a fan of some of his movies but I think BB and TDK are both good movies. Although TDK could have been edited a little tighter.

Prestige is junk, Insomnia is far inferrior to the original, and Memento is not much beyond it's gimmick.

I don't think anyone who saw the marketing would have felt misled on the plot of the movie.

If someone else directed, and I assume wrote a different script, it could have been a better movie but it could have been worse too.

[comicsmetal]

I do not know,it could be.I like the Nolan films but one thing I hated about TDK the ending with the whole boat scean.Also in Batman begins and the microwave to put the fear toxin in water supply in Gotham city.

If Nolan and his brother stop with the intellectual crap(which I do not mind in his other films )then it will have been a better movie.


This is a Batman flim not a Art house movie.

[comicsmetal]

I still like the two Burton films better.

I agree somwhat but I am biased because I grew up with the Burton films.What was flawed in that series was in the first movie were batman parents were killed by the Joker,it really mess up the Batman mythos to me and joker having the orign.

TDK has some flaws but the Burton flims were not that good.

[comicsmetal]

I am not a fan of some of his movies but I think BB and TDK are both good movies. Although TDK could have been edited a little tighter.

Prestige is junk, Insomnia is far inferrior to the original, and Memento is not much beyond it's gimmick.

I don't think anyone who saw the marketing would have felt misled on the plot of the movie.

If someone else directed, and I assume wrote a different script, it could have been a better movie but it could have been worse too.

Agree on the first one but strongly disagree with Memento that movie was a masterpiece.Ok maybe not but to some but I kind of like those types of movies.

[vcassel]

I do not know,it could be.I like the Nolan films but one thing I hated about TDK the ending with the whole boat scean.Also in Batman begins and the microwave to put the fear toxin in water supply in Gotham city.

If Nolan and his brother stop with the intellectual crap(which I do not mind in his other films )then it will have been a better movie.


This is a Batman flim not a Art house movie.I agree somwhat but I am biased because I grew up with the Burton films.What was flawed in that series was in the first movie were batman parents were killed by the Joker,it really mess up the Batman mythos to me and joker having the orign.

TDK has some flaws but the Burton flims were not good as well.

i'd rather have an intellectual movie about an intellectual crime fighter whose brilliance is inspired by sherlock holmes than something that is possibly dumbed down for the audience. if you're looking for a film big on smashing and short on philosophying ones actions than i believe the incredible hulk will suffice. it's pretty good in its own right.

what really bothers me about what you've said is that you'd prefer a non "art house" batman movie but you are biased towards burton's work. well you'll be hard pressed to find a more arty and creatively toyful mainstream director than burton. you'll be equally as hard pressed to find a comic book movie that stays true to the comics 100%. it's extremely difficult to condense some wide ranging and long arched events in a 2 hour film. especially with a character with such a long history as batman.

[vcassel]

I am not a fan of some of his movies but I think BB and TDK are both good movies. Although TDK could have been edited a little tighter.

Prestige is junk, Insomnia is far inferrior to the original, and Memento is not much beyond it's gimmick.

I don't think anyone who saw the marketing would have felt misled on the plot of the movie.

If someone else directed, and I assume wrote a different script, it could have been a better movie but it could have been worse too.

i also disagree with you on memento. i feel that its "gimmick" is integral to its point. which i felt delt with similar themes of the roots of violence and revenge and whether justice is absolute or just in the mind as gasper noe's irreversible which is another film that unfolds in reverse chronological order. further, many medical experts have cited memento as one of the most realistic and accurate depictions of anterograde amnesia in any motion picture. not to mention that the critical response to this film was overwhelming. i believe memento will stand as a classic.

[Sn4tcH]

Batman Returns is by FAR more of a Tim Burton film than it is a Batman film, if that makes sense. It's all style, and it looks great... but as a Batman film it fails miserably.

[celticguy]

i also disagree with you on memento. i feel that its "gimmick" is integral to its point. which i felt delt with similar themes of the roots of violence and revenge and whether justice is absolute or just in the mind as gasper noe's irreversible which is another film that unfolds in reverse chronological order. further, many medical experts have cited memento as one of the most realistic and accurate depictions of anterograde amnesia in any motion picture. not to mention that the critical response to this film was overwhelming. i believe memento will stand as a classic.


I don't pick movies I like or dislike based on how the critics repsond. I have seen enough movies to decide for myself how I rate it.

I would not put it up as a classic, for me a classic is a movie others are measured against. I do not see that to be the case with Memento, which is ok I did not dislike it I just thought it was pretty light. Maybe at the end of the "oughts" it will be on a lot of top ten of the decades list it would not be on mine.

In the sub genre of unique story telling progression it falls in, I prefer Mulholland Drive or even The Killing to be more interesting

[[]D[]/\/\[]D @ Nite/So-tite]

I didn't like TDK. But I honestly can not say that it would have been a better film had it been done by a better creative team. I think that the fillm would have been better if someone else had been involved in writing the script. Watching the film I felt for the most part that I was being lectured rather been told a story, given the amount of speaches that piled out of everyone's mouths. It was as if Nolan and his brother were trying to show everyone how intellectual they were. I also think that had Ledger cut down on the mugging for the camera and the constant cackling I would have been more impressed, as it was I didn't find him scary. I also tend to think that another creative team would have focused the film on Batman rather than the Joker--although I still think the Joker would have still ended up upstagging him.

Do you have a specific writer in mind?

I would say Nolan makes a lot of really cool movies. I don't think he's a made a true cinema classic yet. Stuff like Memento, Prestige, and TDK are good, maybe even great, but hardly classic. I think he can make a classic, and he hasn't yet. TDK was far from perfect but luckily the actors allow it to live on what I feel is a higher plain than other comic films. Nolan's still new, and I don't think he's made a complete junker of a film yet, and the worst thing you could probably say about him is that he is a poor mans Fincher. I think he has great things coming though, and he's got balls enough to make a sci-fi epic, as his follow up to TDK, and I'm very much looking forward to it.

Is there still someone who could have made TDK a classic?

[Mia]

If Nolan and his brother stop with the intellectual crap(which I do not mind in his other films )then it will have been a better movie.


This is a Batman flim not a Art house movie.


Intellecutalism in films is fine with me. But it was done is such heavy handed hamfisted way in TDK that I just found it irritating (if not a little condescending).

I tried to re-watch the film a few weeks ago and just turned it off after the first ten minutes. And I found the film too dark. I don't mean dark in tone, I just meant visually dark and depressing.

[zur en arrh]

The movie was excellent, so no, I don't think it could have been better if someone else wrote/directed it. And at this point, after what Nolan has done with Batman Begins and The Dark Knight, it's gonna be a long time before I can personally accept another person making a Batman film.

[Avenger08]

No. IT just couldnt have been. NO one else could haave pulled that movie off the way he did. He was one of the only directors ever to add a realistic interpretation and yet still stay perfectly true to the comics

[vcassel]

I don't pick movies I like or dislike based on how the critics repsond. I have seen enough movies to decide for myself how I rate it.

i never said you do or should. i'm giving reasons why it might be considered a classic. you don't get to pick what becomes a classic and neither do i. it's more of a collective consciousness sort of thing. although more lately it's a marketing thing conducted by studios in relation to promoting dvd versions so on the whole the idea of being a "classic" may be meaningless. still, the critics hold a larger amount of collective "votes" on the issue than the general public does i believe.

[Sn4tcH]

D[]/\/\[]D @ Nite/So-tite;9023106']Is there still someone who could have made TDK a classic?

I think it would have to be a different movie. A lot of classic films either have an important message, or change the way films are made.

So could it have been done better by someone other than the Nolans? If the Nolans still wrote it, it's possible that another director could have improved it by tightening up the film a little. Maybe give it a more distinct style.

Could anything make TDK a classic? No, I don't think so. The film is fun, and exciting, and it's awesome. But it doesn't say anything that effects anyone outside the characters to the film. There's nothing that we, the viewer, can really take away from the film other than really bad try at discussing national security. And Dark Knight did nothing new to change cinema, other than show us that comic book films, in the right hands, can achieve more than expected.

[celticguy]

i never said you do or should. i'm giving reasons why it might be considered a classic. you don't get to pick what becomes a classic and neither do i. it's more of a collective consciousness sort of thing. although more lately it's a marketing thing conducted by studios in relation to promoting dvd versions so on the whole the idea of being a "classic" may be meaningless. still, the critics hold a larger amount of collective "votes" on the issue than the general public does i believe.


I think TNT does or at least they keep telling me they are showing the new classic this or new classic that.

[vcassel]

I think it would have to be a different movie. A lot of classic films either have an important message, or change the way films are made.

So could it have been done better by someone other than the Nolans? If the Nolans still wrote it, it's possible that another director could have improved it by tightening up the film a little. Maybe give it a more distinct style.

Could anything make TDK a classic? No, I don't think so. The film is fun, and exciting, and it's awesome. But it doesn't say anything that effects anyone outside the characters to the film. There's nothing that we, the viewer, can really take away from the film other than really bad try at discussing national security. And Dark Knight did nothing new to change cinema, other than show us that comic book films, in the right hands, can achieve more than expected.

i regret that it seems that i may be campaigning to cbr-ers for the 'classic-ification' of the dark knight but i think that your last point is one of the reasons why this film should be remembered. when other comic book movies have regressed into schlocky hard to watch messes, tdk injected a lot of seriousness and excitment back into the genre and brought it a lot closer to being looked at as a serious drama. now, before you jump all over this last point please consider the "greek tragedy" of tdk and how serious it is taken. sure, a lot of comic book films take at least subconscious inspiration from greek tragedy but it is often done in an embarresed, tongue in cheek, and thus cowardly way.

other reasons why i feel this movie will be remembered:

it's inexorably tied to heath ledger's perhaps overhyped, but nonetheless resigned to legendary legacy as his breakout role.

it made a ridiculous amount of money! again, i don't see this as defining at all but i do consider it a factor that will be remembered.

many people consider it to be the godfather of our times. this is hyperbole of course but it goes to show how well recieved it was by the general public. which is great considering it is a genre movie, it's about a man dressed like a giant bat versus a man dressed like a clown, it may be too "intellectual" for its own good for some people.

[celticguy]

many people consider it to be the godfather of our times. this is hyperbole of course but it goes to show how well recieved it was by the general public. which is great considering it is a genre movie, it's about a man dressed like a giant bat versus a man dressed like a clown, it may be too "intellectual" for its own good for some people.

not that many first I have seen where those two movies came up in the same discussion.

Sadly the movie will be most remembered as Ledgers last movie.

As for the money I guess if you count when those top grossing movie list are looked at being remembered but those are really BS anyway since the prices of movies keeps going up.

[vcassel]

i'd like to add as well that's it's amazing how most viewers of the movie declare how realistic it is despite the plot's implausibility. that it's not noticed by many how ridiculous it is that the joker could have plotted any of that out so far ahead is not a fault of the filmmakers or the audience but testament to the deft storytelling slight of hand that the nolan's possess.

[Jorriss]

i'd like to add as well that's it's amazing how most viewers of the movie declare how realistic it is despite the plot's implausibility. \.
I don't think anyone takes realism, or a realistic approach, to mean it could actually happen in real life.

[comicsmetal]

i'd rather have an intellectual movie about an intellectual crime fighter whose brilliance is inspired by sherlock holmes than something that is possibly dumbed down for the audience. if you're looking for a film big on smashing and short on philosophying ones actions than i believe the incredible hulk will suffice. it's pretty good in its own right.

what really bothers me about what you've said is that you'd prefer a non "art house" batman movie but you are biased towards burton's work. well you'll be hard pressed to find a more arty and creatively toyful mainstream director than burton. you'll be equally as hard pressed to find a comic book movie that stays true to the comics 100%. it's extremely difficult to condense some wide ranging and long arched events in a 2 hour film. especially with a character with such a long history as batman.


As I said the Burton movies are what I grew up with so i am going to enjoy them more.I think you can be intellectual but you got to relize that action flick like Batman should at lest be fun and a good popcorn flick.If you have an intellectual flim but have atlest more actions in it then I am fine with it.Hey atlest it is better then Terminator Salvation,that movie is too action pack.

[Sn4tcH]

it's inexorably tied to heath ledger's perhaps overhyped, but nonetheless resigned to legendary legacy as his breakout role.

This may be the strongest arguement you have in all honesty. Let's look at a film like Silence of the Lambs. It's a normal, run of the mill, cop drama based off a pulpy book with no real artistic value. But one actor vaulted this film from shlock to a "classic" (you can argue this, sure). One actors performance can make a film, No Country For Old Men for example. A recent movie, that may not be classic yet, but could be and it's mostly because of the performance of one actor.

I feel Ledgers Joker is one of those roles.

[vcassel]

I don't think anyone takes realism, or a realistic approach, to mean it could actually happen in real life.

i do, but that wasn't my point

[Jorriss]

i do, but that wasn't my point
Perhaps I spoke too generally then. But things like, 'it's not noticed by many,' give the impression you think most actually take his realistic approach to mean we think it could of gone down this way in actuality. But of course there are tons of problems, I'm sure most thought, how did the Joker get those bombs in the hospital? and the bridge? and damn, this guy really reads people well planning to get locked up and then break out, with lau [sp?] and then subsequently lighting him on fire.

I don't know how to describe entirely what I mean by realistic approach but it's more along the lines of just taking the film seriously, and the tone.

Oh, and I say 'we' but basically I mean 'myself and what I suspect most others.' Bad habit I have =/

[celticguy]

This may be the strongest arguement you have in all honesty. Let's look at a film like Silence of the Lambs. It's a normal, run of the mill, cop drama based off a pulpy book with no real artistic value. But one actor vaulted this film from shlock to a "classic" (you can argue this, sure). One actors performance can make a film, No Country For Old Men for example. A recent movie, that may not be classic yet, but could be and it's mostly because of the performance of one actor.

I feel Ledgers Joker is one of those roles.

See i disagree No Country had several great performances one got all the ink but I could say the same for TDK Ledger gets all the praise but Bane, Caine and Oldman are solid and Eckhart is fantastic. One role can stand out but it takes more for a movie to endure or to be dicussed as great.

[celticguy]

I don't think anyone takes realism, or a realistic approach, to mean it could actually happen in real life.

it is realism in a certain context. It is not meant to be realistic as to what would happen if these people existed, but more in ok they do exist take that as a given.

[vcassel]

Perhaps I spoke too generally then. But things like, 'it's not noticed by many,' give the impression you think most actually take his realistic approach to mean we think it could of gone down this way in actuality. But of course there are tons of problems, I'm sure most thought, how did the Joker get those bombs in the hospital? and the bridge? and damn, this guy really reads people well planning to get locked up and then break out, with lau [sp?] and then subsequently lighting him on fire.

I don't know how to describe entirely what I mean by realistic approach but it's more along the lines of just taking the film seriously, and the tone.

Oh, and I say 'we' but basically I mean 'myself and what I suspect most others.' Bad habit I have =/

right, the thing i noticed after watching the film was how easily i ate the story up. everything just seemed so natural and i didn't question the joker's plot at all. now i consider myself a pretty smart guy, i'm currently studying film, and i've written a few spec scripts myself so i should know when i'm being played by good storytelling and visual narrative. but it wasn't until it was pointed to me online how utterly completely impossible joker's web would be to weave that i realized how well i had been tricked by a well told story.

[Knightmare27]

I seriously doubt anyone could have improved this movie it was spectacular in its scope. I also was immensely impressed with the guy who played Twoface in this movie. I never cared for him in the comics but I felt he seemed more of a protagonist than Bats in this case.

[Sn4tcH]

See i disagree No Country had several great performances one got all the ink but I could say the same for TDK Ledger gets all the praise but Bane, Caine and Oldman are solid and Eckhart is fantastic. One role can stand out but it takes more for a movie to endure or to be dicussed as great.

Eckhart is great, and Oldman had a scene in the film that even made me applaud. With that said, Curtis was great in Silence of the Lambs, and I LOVED Tommy Lee Jones in Old Country for Old Men. My point was though, that one great performance can elevate a great film, to classic simply because poeple HAVE to see the performance.

Bale played Batman kind of how he plays everyone else he plays, Caine played Alfred like you would expect him to. That's why they were hired, you expect those two to play the part a certain way. Eckhart's the same way, he's a great actor, but I doubt playing Dent really stretching his acting chops. Oldman on the other hand, he's a chameleon in any movie, the man's amazing, and I wish Gordon had more screen time.

But the last couple roles that Ledger played, he dissapeared. I do not look at the Joker or Ennis (from Brokeback Mountain) and see Ledger. Before these, I always saw him as kind of like a poor sap that was going to be doomed be in chick flicks and bad period films. I'm kind of having a hard time putting it into words...

[Sizzle]

One would have to view the film as not good to think it could of been done better. I would say that's a thought train in the minority.

While I enjoy the film quite a bit, it is a bit overcomplicated, much like Nolans effort before on the Prestige.

Right now, I can't imagine anyone currently active that could of pulled it off.

[Scott Taylor]

I didn't like TDK. But I honestly can not say that it would have been a better film had it been done by a better creative team. I think that the fillm would have been better if someone else had been involved in writing the script. Watching the film I felt for the most part that I was being lectured rather been told a story, given the amount of speaches that piled out of everyone's mouths. It was as if Nolan and his brother were trying to show everyone how intellectual they were. I also think that had Ledger cut down on the mugging for the camera and the constant cackling I would have been more impressed, as it was I didn't find him scary. I also tend to think that another creative team would have focused the film on Batman rather than the Joker--although I still think the Joker would have still ended up upstagging him.

Pretty much this is me as well. Plus, the movie was just too damned long. It definitely didn't focus enough on Batman for my tastes.

[Choppa]

I don't understand this notion that the movie didn't focus on Batman enough. Who did it focus on then?? He and Harvey are the only two characters that went through any kind of character arc. Gordon and the Joker stayed the same throughout the whole movie. If anything, the movie was more about Gotham City which should be front and center in a Batman movie since without Gotham there really is no Batman.

[Sn4tcH]

My biggest problem with the whole "not enough Batman" argument is that Batman Begins EXISTS! TDK is a sequel, we have a whole first film dedicated to the creation of Batman and the psyche of Bruce Wayne. The moments we get alone with Bruce in Dark Knight are TOTALLY sufficient, because they show how he is dealing with the problem at hand emotionally. We already know how his mind works thanks to Begins.

If part 3 wants to deal with the fallout of Batman losing his love and the man who he thought was the best thing to ever happen to Gotham City, that's fine. But as of TDK, what we got of Batman is sufficient.

[Jared]

If anything, I think the Nolan movies might be better if someone other than David Goyer was the comic fan co-screenwriter. I don't know this for certain, but I suspect that the microwave generator and magic cell phone hacking were his fault, because almost everything else he writes has glaring plot holes.