2081 replies to this topic

[DaveBond21]

Have I ever said "You haven't seen Coal Black and the Seben Dwarfs ? You don't know jack about animation !" No, I have not.

Not in those words.

I say you don't know anything about animation when you defend FAMILY GUY or SOUTH PARK by saying it should look vomit inducing on purpose.

Well, for the record, I've never defended the animation of FAMILY GUY. But yes, I don't know a whole lot about animation. So any judgments I make there can be entirely ignorant. Including my defense of SOUTH PARK's animation (which, however, I never did claim was actually good, just that it enhanced the humor of the show in some fashion). But I admit my lack of knowledge, and so I would never make any absolute judgments about that area.

Your comment that superheroes can never deal with thematic material in any significant way reeks of ignorance. Especially if you haven't read the works that most claim actually accomplish that, and instead choose to put your foot down and say "No matter what you say, it can't be done! I just know it!"

And to come at this from another angle, why can't superheroes do it? Because they're big and silly? I don't get that. All fantasy is big and silly, but that doesn't keep it from being a consistently powerful genre. After all, superheroes enter the territory of modern day myth, and myth is a powerful thing. Why, then, are superheroes excluded from being able to touch on anything of significance?

Stop it, both of you.......


...you're like boys with toys.....

[Harmsway]

Anyway, more fantastic reviews pouring in.


Dark Horizons claims that "It really isn't a comic book movie, this feels more like a great Michael Mann movie - literally a film of Heat calibre. The sole common complaint is that's it's a few minutes too long, but the story is so tight that it's difficult to see where you could trim anything out of it."

Emanuel Levy chimes in: "At least two notches above Batman Begins, this follow-up represents Christopher Nolan's most accomplished and mature work, and mind you, he is one of the few Hollywood directors who have never made a bad picture."

JoBlo had this to say: "In fact, this is one of the few superhero films that is absolutely Oscar worthy. This is as good of a Best Picture as any film could be."

And then we have Newsarama: "Weaving a plot of complexity and depth that pits well-drawn characters against each other in a battle of anarchy against order, sanity against insanity and life against death, The Dark Knight excels on nearly every level and delivers that most rare of movie gems — a spectacle that succeeds in challenging its genre and its audience, creating an experience that will completely satisfy and thrill filmgoers of all types."

[Andrew]

Two awesome new TV spots...

[Harmsway]

Stop it, both of you.......


...you're like boys with toys.....

Somehow, you saying that isn't anywhere near as sexy as Izabella Scorupco saying it.

But I'll listen all the same.

[danman007]

TV Spot 10

TV Spot 11

TV Spot 12 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Lo578I-HIA

TV Spot 13 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PiZ-e0k50yc

[Harmsway]

Two awesome new TV spots...

Unbelievably cool.

[DaveBond21]

Stop it, both of you.......


...you're like boys with toys.....

Somehow, you saying that isn't anywhere near as sexy as Izabella Scorupco saying it.

But I'll listen all the same.

I'm glad I didn't get dressed up as her for nothing.

[Jim]

Have I ever said "You haven't seen Coal Black and the Seben Dwarfs ? You don't know jack about animation !" No, I have not.

Not in those words.

I say you don't know anything about animation when you defend FAMILY GUY or SOUTH PARK by saying it should look vomit inducing on purpose.

Well, for the record, I've never defended the animation of FAMILY GUY. But yes, I don't know a whole lot about animation. So any judgments I make there can be entirely ignorant. Including my defense of SOUTH PARK's animation (which, however, I never did claim was actually good, just that it enhanced the humor of the show in some fashion). But I admit my lack of knowledge, and so I would never make any absolute judgments about that area.

Your comment that superheroes can never deal with thematic material in any significant way reeks of ignorance. Especially if you haven't read the works that most claim actually accomplish that, and instead choose to put your foot down and say "No matter what you say, it can't be done! I just know it!"

And to come at this from another angle, why can't superheroes do it? Because they're big and silly? I don't get that. All fantasy is big and silly, but that doesn't keep it from being a consistently powerful genre. After all, superheroes enter the territory of modern day myth, and myth is a powerful thing. Why, then, are superheroes excluded from being able to touch on anything of significance?

It's an interesting argument, this.

I am sure that there are some complex comic books. It's not so much what it says about the comics, but that it says much about us that many can only absorb such themes if they have a big dollop of Batman or whoever served up with them.

I wonder if the producers of such things consider us idiots, that unless it's surrounded by explosions and silly clown men matters, that we cannot understand such things. Worries me that they may be right.

Not an issue of whether this medium should contain the message - no reason why not, if that's what they want to do - but more that this medium is increasingly the only perceived way that the great moronic public can take such issues on. We are being horribly patronised, and are complicit in it.

This Batman film looks like it has a lot of nice explosions in it, and silly clown men. I am sure that it also has "themes". I look forward to the nice explosions and silly clown men. Do they do "kapow!" and "biff!" any more? I liked that.

[Harmsway]

I am sure that there are some complex comic books. It's not so much what it says about the comics, but that it says much about us that many can only absorb such themes if they have a big dollop of Batman or whoever served up with them.

Well, sure. But it's always been that way. The tales that are both popular and great are those that manage to entertain and provoke at the same time. Shakespeare was a master at that. And I'm not at all convinced that it's a bad thing.

But then again, I'm not sure I buy into the "serious storytelling > silly, fantasy storytelling" dichotomy.I know it's common, especially among educated folks, but I'm of something of a spirit with G. K. Chesterton and George MacDonald and C. S. Lewis and Tolkien. Fairy tales and myth are sublime, effective storytelling, which is why they endure.

Not an issue of whether this medium should contain the message - no reason why not, if that's what they want to do - but more that this medium is increasingly the only perceived way that the great moronic public can take such issues on.

Is it, though? I've yet to see folks claiming that superhero flicks or summer entertainment are the vessel by which the general public can be reached for serious thought. Quite the opposite, in fact.

We are being horribly patronised, and are complicit in it.

I must say, I'm a bit confused.

Am I understanding you properly that we (being the generic public, rather than individuals) are being patronized because the studios are figuring the majority of us won't be interested in or can't handle the more serious, intellectual material (say a 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY or THERE WILL BE BLOOD)?

And we are complicit because we perpetuate this?

[tdalton]

Quite so (though the "Jigsaw Riddler" is perhaps a bit too close to their spin on the Joker, and so it might be best to go in a non-grunge direction).

That could be an interesting direction to take the Riddler. Another, I think, would be to have the Riddler be someone who works more behind the scenes, pulling the strings and having others do the heavy work for him. I still don't see, however, how the Riddler could carry an entire film as a main villain, but if he were to work with another villain like he did in BATMAN FOREVER (although, obviously, done in a much better and much more serious way) then he could be a good character to see on the screen.

As for future villains for BATMAN 3, as was said somewhere earlier in the thread, Nolan could go ahead and take a lesser known Batman villain and put him in the spotlight for the next film. I would suggest the Black Mask villain, perhaps as someone working in league with whoever the other, more well-known villain of BATMAN 3 would be.

[Safari Suit]

It's an interesting argument, this.

I am sure that there are some complex comic books. It's not so much what it says about the comics, but that it says much about us that many can only absorb such themes if they have a big dollop of Batman or whoever served up with them.

I wonder if the producers of such things consider us idiots, that unless it's surrounded by explosions and silly clown men matters, that we cannot understand such things. Worries me that they may be right.

I feel as if it's nearer the opposite; a feeling that we shouldn't enjoy explosions and silly clown men unless it's surrounded by "deep" themes.

Edited by Safari Suit, 04 July 2008 - 09:46 AM.

[tdalton]

Here's a link to an in-depth article about THE DARK KNIGHT from EW.com:

Inside 'The Dark Knight'

[Harmsway]

It is the artwork that is best served by the medium, and as such any change in media, such as a movie, has to replicate the art as best as it can.

I strongly disagree. That is one route a film version can take, but it is not the only valid route. In moving to live action, a creator can push to imagine the cinematic equivalent of what's on the page, rather than recreating it exactly. After all, the whole goal of adaptation isn't just the recreate, but to successfully transfer from one medium to the other.

As Christopher Nolan said, "To me, that's what comic books are—it sparks your imagination with words, pictures, colors, light and shape. Just as when you adapt a novel, you do not consider the superficial form of the novel, you push to imagine the cinematic equivalent. Why should comic books be any different?"

[sharpshooter]

As Christopher Nolan said, "To me, that's what comic books are—it sparks your imagination with words, pictures, colors, light and shape. Just as when you adapt a novel, you do not consider the superficial form of the novel, you push to imagine the cinematic equivalent. Why should comic books be any different?"

Exactly right.

[Harmsway]

Here's a link to an in-depth article about THE DARK KNIGHT from EW.com:

Inside 'The Dark Knight'

Great article.

[Skudor]

I would be very pleased if they brought back Catwoman in Batman Begins 3 - but they need to make her oooze sexuality. I'm not even sure I can think of an actress that would fit the part as I'd like it.

[Harmsway]

I would be very pleased if they brought back Catwoman in Batman Begins 3 - but they need to make her oooze sexuality.

Yes. And not campy sexuality, either.

[Skudor]

I would be very pleased if they brought back Catwoman in Batman Begins 3 - but they need to make her oooze sexuality.

Yes. And not campy sexuality, either.

Absolutely not. She needs to be hot in a way that Pfeiffer wasn't and that Berry could have been but wasn't either. That's why casting is key - she needs to be the equivalent of Angelina Jolies face - instant turn on.

[tdalton]

I know that Nolan is looking to bring Catwoman in for a third film, if there is a third film, but I can't say that it's something that I'd be all that interested in seeing. Michelle Pfeiffer's version is most likely never going to be matched, and there are other villains that have had less than stellar portrayals in the previous films that I'd like to see get put on the screen by Nolan (i.e. Bane, Poison Ivy, and the Riddler).

If they do include the character, I'd much rather see it as a minor villain in the film rather than one of the featured villains. Perhaps having her be someone who commits thefts on the behalf of another villain (Black Mask, perhaps) with the Riddler involved in it somehow as well.

[Harmsway]

Michelle Pfeiffer's version is most likely never going to be matched, and there are other villains that have had less than stellar portrayals in the previous films that I'd like to see get put on the screen by Nolan (i.e. Bane, Poison Ivy, and the Riddler).

I disagree.

First, Pfeiffer's Catwoman, while excellent, is hardly unsurpassable. Indeed, the version of the character she played isn't even really the character as she is known in the comics. If Heath Ledger can match Jack Nicholson by doing something different, another actress can match Pfeiffer by doing the same.

And Catwoman's ten times the character that Bane, Poison Ivy, and the Riddler are. Of all the leftover villains to tackle, she's easily the most compelling. And that's because she's Batman's only really great love interest, and presents a stark contrast to many of the other damsels Wayne finds himself involved with. They're really two of a kind.

If we're looking for Nolan to touch upon the essential characters of the Batman universe, Catwoman must be featured. She's a must-have.

If they do include the character, I'd much rather see it as a minor villain in the film rather than one of the featured villains. Perhaps having her be someone who commits thefts on the behalf of another villain (Black Mask, perhaps) with the Riddler involved in it somehow as well.

Having Catwoman being a straight villain would be a waste. Heck, she shouldn't even be as much of a villain as she was in BATMAN RETURNS. And Catwoman's not a lackey, she's her own gal with serious issues about being controlled. To do her right, she has to be out for herself.

If they do Catwoman, they have to do her right. Full-on, consistent romance between Selina Kyle and Bruce Wayne, and their uneasy friendship in their other lives.

[DamnCoffee]

I would be very pleased if they brought back Catwoman in Batman Begins 3 - but they need to make her oooze sexuality.

Yes. And not campy sexuality, either.

And not Halle Berry!

[tdalton]

If Heath Ledger can match Jack Nicholson by doing something different, another actress can match Pfeiffer by doing the same.

I was never one that thought Jack Nicholson's Joker was untouchable anyway. Was it a good portrayal? Yes, but I never thought that it was an untouchable performance in the way that many have held it up as being over the nearly two decades its been since BATMAN.

As for Catwoman, I see where you're coming from, but I just can't say that I find the character all that compelling. I know that virtually everyone else disagrees, but I'm not a fan of the character and would much rather see other villains get their time on screen rather than Catwoman.

[Harmsway]

I was never one that thought Jack Nicholson's Joker was untouchable anyway. Was it a good portrayal? Yes, but I never thought that it was an untouchable performance in the way that many have held it up as being over the nearly two decades its been since BATMAN.

Same here. But I don't think Pfeiffer's Catwoman is quite untouchable, either. It's a great performance, but it's not the performance (especially given how Burton's schizophrenic, semi-supernatural, bizzaro take on the character is very removed from the source material).

As for Catwoman, I see where you're coming from, but I just can't say that I find the character all that compelling.

I wasn't aware you read Batman comics. What's your exposure to the character?

[tdalton]

As for Catwoman, I see where you're coming from, but I just can't say that I find the character all that compelling.

I wasn't aware you read Batman comics. Do you? If so, what's your exposure to the character?

I've read a few (emphasis on "few"), but it's been a very long time, but I've tried to stay better informed about the comics by reading more about them (if that makes any sense) and looking at Batman message boards so that I would be more informed about the whole thing so that I could see where Nolan was going with his adaptation and also so that I could be more informed when discussing the subject.

Based off everything I've seen and read, I just don't find Catwoman compelling. Granted, I'm aware that it's a very unpopular opinion due to the fact that she's probably the second or third most popular Batman villain (the only others I would put up there would be the Joker, who is unquestionably #1 I would think, and possibly Two-Face, although I'd be willing to say that Catwoman is more popular than he is).

Given the current worldwide focus on the environment and global warming, I'd actually like to see Nolan's take on Poison Ivy. It could prove to be very interesting, and it would be relevant whereas Catwoman could be adapted at any time time in the future.

Spoiler

Also, given what we know about the ending of THE DARK KNIGHT, I'm not sure Nolan should go with one of the few remaining "major" Batman villains for BATMAN 3. I would say that there's four major Batman villains: the Joker, Two-Face, Catwoman, and the Riddler. The fate of the Joker remains unclear due to Ledger's unfortunate passing (although I think that they should recast for the third film because I can't imagine Ledger would want all the hard work he put into creating the character for Nolan's franchise to go unfinished, assuming that the character was originally planned to return for BATMAN 3), Two-Face can't be used any longer, which really leaves only the Riddler and Catwoman. I would rather that those characters be held back and allow a lesser known villain to be moved to the forefront, perhaps characters like Black Mask and Bane could finally be featured (although I'm not sure how Bane could be adapted, but I'd still like to see it happen if possible). I also wouldn't mind seeing Harley Quinn get adapted for Nolan's films

[Agent 76]

As for Catwoman, I see where you're coming from, but I just can't say that I find the character all that compelling.

I wasn't aware you read Batman comics. Do you? If so, what's your exposure to the character?

I've read a few (emphasis on "few"), but it's been a very long time, but I've tried to stay better informed about the comics by reading more about them (if that makes any sense) and looking at Batman message boards so that I would be more informed about the whole thing so that I could see where Nolan was going with his adaptation and also so that I could be more informed when discussing the subject.

Based off everything I've seen and read, I just don't find Catwoman compelling. Granted, I'm aware that it's a very unpopular opinion due to the fact that she's probably the second or third most popular Batman villain (the only others I would put up there would be the Joker, who is unquestionably #1 I would think, and possibly Two-Face, although I'd be willing to say that Catwoman is more popular than he is).

Given the current worldwide focus on the environment and global warming, I'd actually like to see Nolan's take on Poison Ivy. It could prove to be very interesting, and it would be relevant whereas Catwoman could be adapted at any time time in the future.

Spoiler

Also, given what we know about the ending of THE DARK KNIGHT, I'm not sure Nolan should go with one of the few remaining "major" Batman villains for BATMAN 3. I would say that there's four major Batman villains: the Joker, Two-Face, Catwoman, and the Riddler. The fate of the Joker remains unclear due to Ledger's unfortunate passing (although I think that they should recast for the third film because I can't imagine Ledger would want all the hard work he put into creating the character for Nolan's franchise to go unfinished, assuming that the character was originally planned to return for BATMAN 3), Two-Face can't be used any longer, which really leaves only the Riddler and Catwoman. I would rather that those characters be held back and allow a lesser known villain to be moved to the forefront, perhaps characters like Black Mask and Bane could finally be featured (although I'm not sure how Bane could be adapted, but I'd still like to see it happen if possible). I also wouldn't mind seeing Harley Quinn get adapted for Nolan's films

I agree tdalton.

Although I find Heath's work on the Joker AMAZING, I think the character shouldn't be taken away for sometime. It would be a beautiful homage to his work that other actor, say Johnny Depp/Joaquin Phoenix, take on the role.

[Loomis]

We are being horribly patronised, and are complicit in it.

I must say, I'm a bit confused.

Am I understanding you properly that we (being the generic public, rather than individuals) are being patronized because the studios are figuring the majority of us won't be interested in or can't handle the more serious, intellectual material (say a 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY or THERE WILL BE BLOOD)?

And we are complicit because we perpetuate this?

Jim is, I think, just saying that comic book superhero movies have become a bit heavy, although you could argue that this trend started way, way back with SUPERMAN, which many, many years ago the late, great British critic Leslie Halliwell dismissed (in the regularly updated compendium of reviews that used to be called Halliwell's Film Guide and is now called something like Halliwell's DVD Guide*) as a:

Long, lugubrious and only patchily entertaining version of the famous comic strip, with far too many irrelevant preliminaries and a misguided sense of its own importance.

Really, the post-SUPERMAN comic book superhero flicks have more or less all been like that. Halliwell's review of SUPES could just as easily be a review of Ang Lee's HULK, or BATMAN BEGINS, or SPIDERMAN, or---- well, can't think of too many other superhero movies off the top of my head at the moment, but you get the idea.

Can't say I feel especially complicit, though. Still, the comic book superhero flick that runs for more than two hours, takes a "dark" tone, and is directed by someone arty and acclaimed who on the face of it seems an extremely surprising and prestigious choice.... well, that kind of flick is very much the rule and not (as you might imagine if you'd paid no attention whatsoever to cinema since before SUPERMAN was released) the exception.

So, yeah, superhero flicks do tend to be heavy and heavygoing. For me, I'd always watch the Adam West Batman for pure entertainment. (As a Batman fan, does this horrify you, Harmsway, or do you approve, in the same way as us two Craig and CASINO ROYALE fans also give Moore's MOONRAKER the thumbs up?) However, I really can't wait for THE DARK KNIGHT, which I'm certain will be the franchise film of 2008.... after QUANTUM OF SOLACE and RAMBO, obviously.

*Basically, it's the British Leonard Maltin's Movie Guide. Been going for decades and very influential on this side of the pond, albeit perhaps not as influential as it was when Halliwell was still alive.

[tdalton]

Although I find Heath's work on the Joker AMAZING, I think the character shouldn't be taken away for sometime. It would be a beautiful homage to his work that other actor, say Johnny Depp/Joaquin Phoenix, take on the role.

That's how I think the return of the Joker should be handled. I've long thought that Joaquin Phoenix would make a brilliant replacement in the role (I think I may have mentioned him in a previous post but can't remember). I remember watching WE OWN THE NIGHT and thinking that Phoenix could be a very good choice to take over for Ledger in the role. They're roughly the same age (I think it's around a 3 or 4 year difference) and Phoenix is a very good actor in his own right. I think that Johnny Depp could be good as well, but I actually like him more as the Riddler than I do as the Joker, but either way he would be good.

[MR. BOND 93]

If anyone is excited about the soundtrack for this movie... PM me.

[Agent 76]

Although I find Heath's work on the Joker AMAZING, I think the character shouldn't be taken away for sometime. It would be a beautiful homage to his work that other actor, say Johnny Depp/Joaquin Phoenix, take on the role.

That's how I think the return of the Joker should be handled. I've long thought that Joaquin Phoenix would make a brilliant replacement in the role (I think I may have mentioned him in a previous post but can't remember). I remember watching WE OWN THE NIGHT and thinking that Phoenix could be a very good choice to take over for Ledger in the role. They're roughly the same age (I think it's around a 3 or 4 year difference) and Phoenix is a very good actor in his own right. I think that Johnny Depp could be good as well, but I actually like him more as the Riddler than I do as the Joker, but either way he would be good.

yes,

And what's your take on the "No Man's Land" series ?
I, for one, think that a series of movies could be made, based on those, they're very entertaining and how would a destroyed Gotham city, full of anarchy and the villains rulling the city, looks.

[tdalton]

Although I find Heath's work on the Joker AMAZING, I think the character shouldn't be taken away for sometime. It would be a beautiful homage to his work that other actor, say Johnny Depp/Joaquin Phoenix, take on the role.

That's how I think the return of the Joker should be handled. I've long thought that Joaquin Phoenix would make a brilliant replacement in the role (I think I may have mentioned him in a previous post but can't remember). I remember watching WE OWN THE NIGHT and thinking that Phoenix could be a very good choice to take over for Ledger in the role. They're roughly the same age (I think it's around a 3 or 4 year difference) and Phoenix is a very good actor in his own right. I think that Johnny Depp could be good as well, but I actually like him more as the Riddler than I do as the Joker, but either way he would be good.

yes,

And what's your take on the "No Man's Land" series ?
I, for one, think that a series of movies could be made, based on those, they're very entertaining and how would a destroyed Gotham city, full of anarchy and the villains rulling the city, looks.

I haven't read the "No Man's Land" series, but based off of your description of it and the brief rundown of it on Wikipedia, I think that it could be a very interesting storyline to tell on film, perhaps as a "sequel" of sorts to the current storyline the franchise is telling.

What I really want to see from BATMAN 3 is both a good story featuring great villains, but also the setting up of certain characters that would allow the franchise to keep going in a similar way to the Bond franchise, in that it could sustain itself for many more films rather than be just a trilogy or a 4 or five film series and have that be it. I think that it would be interesting if some potential future characters in the film got their introduction in the next film or two, or at least their alter-egos. Perhaps the introduction of Pamela Isley, Dr. Harleen Quinzel, Roman Sionis, Barbara Gordon, and other characters from the comics could be an interesting way to set up the franchise for some time to come.

Edited by tdalton, 04 July 2008 - 08:09 PM.