2081 replies to this topic

[Mister E]

Not in those words.

I haven't, period.

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.

Well right there you are defending bad animation.

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!"

I have read BATMAN: THE LONG HOLLOWEEN and DARK VICTORY more then once.

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?

There is nothing wrong with myth or fantasy, it's just that super heros are far too simple and one dimensonal to ever dive into anything nearly as complex as non-super hero comics. The lines are always drawn in super hero comics between ultimately what is good and what is bad. Yes there are some gray areas but you have to admit that is the minority overall. In funny animal comics and other non-super hero comics, they deal with the mundane but in a fantastic way and the stories are far less predictable. Also there is alot more of a gray area.

[Harmsway]

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?)

I love Adam West's Batman. Wonderful entertainment. And I actually consider it a pretty good representation of the comics at that time, too.

[Harmsway]

Based off everything I've seen and read, I just don't find Catwoman compelling.

Have you read LONG HALLOWEEN/DARK VICTORY or HUSH? I think those contain the best Catwoman, and it would be the one that Nolan would almost undoubtedly draw upon. If you haven't, you might want to check those out (especially the first two).

Given the current worldwide focus on the environment and global warming, I'd actually like to see Nolan's take on Poison Ivy.

It's just me, perhaps, but I've never liked Poison Ivy as a character, so I'm admittedly not very keen on seeing her appear in future films. The whole eco-lover thing just doesn't sit well with me as a strong motivation. Maybe Nolan could come up with a convincing take on her, but I do have a hard time imagining a role for her to play in this third film that would mesh with everything else that has to go down.

And this is the difference between us, I don't think anything should be held back for future installments, and that's Nolan's belief, as well: "But I felt in doing a sequel that it would be a big mistake to try and hold anything back for future films. You have to put everything you can into this movie and try to make it as great as it can be."

Furthermore, in all liklihood, Nolan's only going to do three of these films. His exhaustion is already starting to show in his conversations with interviewers. After BEGINS, there was still excitement on his part to follow with a sequel, even though he was coy. After THE DARK KNIGHT, the impression is more that he doesn't really know whether or not he wants to bother. And therefore, I think it's best that Nolan tackles everything he can during his tenure. I'm desperate to see Catwoman done faithfully and well.

And no, I don't really want to see this become another Bond franchise. It'll get repetitive, and probably wildly vary in quality. I want this franchise to be tight, connected, continuing only when something truly spectacular can be brought to the table. In this particularly series, I could see a maximum six films that spanned Batman's entire career, from its genesis to its end.

But it's probably best for Nolan's Batman to conclude with a trilogy, thereby wrapping up Nolan's vision under his supervision. Even though I think there are director's out there who would probably be able to continue Nolan's franchise without mucking it up, it's probably safe to see it as his domain. I think Nolan has a very personal hold on this franchise, and I'd like to see it begin and end with him.

Then the future of Batman's cinematic outgoings will be various interpretations from other directors, each director taking a different film. It could produce some really interesting results.

I would say that there's four major Batman villains: the Joker, Two-Face, Catwoman, and the Riddler.

Let's not forget Penguin, who's definitely one of the major foes (and easily adaptable to Nolan's world, despite Nolan's comments to the contrary). Indeed, you could make a strong case that the big iconic, recognizable four are actually Joker, Catwoman, Riddler, and Penguin, and that Two-Face is on a slightly lower rung.

[tdalton]

And no, I don't really want to see this become another Bond franchise. It'll get repetitive, and probably wildly vary in quality. I want this franchise to be tight, connected, continuing only when something truly spectacular can be brought to the table. I could see a series of six films that spanned Batman's entire career, from its genesis to its end, but I wouldn't want any more than that.

I'm not saying that the Batman franchise should go on as far as Bond has while staying with this one current storyline. I think that somewhere between six to seven films would be ideal. The reason that I would say to hold back a character or two would be because I would like to see the KNIGHTFALL storyline factor in towards the end of the franchise, and the path that the production team is on would make adapting that very difficult to do. But I'm definitely with you that the franchise should not go on very far past six films or so (I'd say that 8 would probably the best absolute limit before another reboot or refocus of the franchise would become necessary).

As far as holding villains back, I'm not saying that characters should be held back just for the sake of saving them for sequels, but rather I would find it more interesting for the production team to reach into the vault of Batman villains and bring forward some of the lesser known villains (i.e. not the Joker, Two-Face, Riddler, Penguin, or Catwoman) and make them the centerpiece, or at least a very major part, of a film. In terms of narrative, let's say that the current franchise spanned 6 films, and they front-loaded the first three with all of the recognizable villains (Joker, Two-Face, Catwoman, Riddler) and left the final three films to the lesser known villains, it would appear as though, no matter how well done the other characters were done, that the franchise was losing steam as it went because the villains became less and less marquee. Granted, that could be viewed as holding back for sequels, but I would look at it more as setting aside villains we've already seen in favor of those which are just as good, but haven't yet gotten their time on the big screen.

[sharpshooter]

It probably has no bearing to the film, for Nolan himself doesn't know the direction of the third film yet, but there is a book called Batman: Inferno that is set a year after Begins, and appears to be set after the events of The Dark Knight, judging by Vicki Vale saying

Spoiler

"Hearing that Two-Face or the Joker is definitely off the streets will let us all sleep better at night,") Interestingly, Harvey Dent does not appear in the novel, but he is mentioned as having "been undergoing psychiatric treatment in Arkham."

[DamnCoffee]

The Dark Knight score has been leaked. PM me if you would like the link.

[Arbogast777]

A couple bits of footage HERE and HERE.

Edited by Arbogast777, 05 July 2008 - 03:54 PM.

[DamnCoffee]

THANKS FOR THIS!

[Jim]

Feel like I've seen it now.

Good; saves me the trouble.

I thought it was reasonable but shockingly pretentious. Christian Bale was predictably po-faced, Mr Ledger was tremendous and Michael Caine was amusing. The make-up on the Dent person was gruesome and there were a lot of explosions.

It set out to be more challenging that Indiana Jones but wasn't half as much fun. If I remember anything else about it I'll let you know. Quite violent, really.

[coco1997]

Wait, you've seen it already, Jim?

[Jim]

Wait, you've seen it already, Jim?

No, but I feel like I've seen enough to avoid having to.

[coco1997]

Isn't that a bit pretentious, Jim?

[Jim]

Isn't that a bit pretentious, Jim?

Yes, shockingly. Cheerfully admitted.

Why so serious?

[Harmsway]

[Jim]

Just trying to see if I can be quoted as an authoritative source on whatever Batman fora there are out there, assuming there are some, given that we've had to suffer rubbish from other sites on here about Quantum of Solace.

[Arbogast777]

And just for the record, that is Sen. Patrick Leahy, a self described "Batman fan," in the first clip I posted above...

[Qwerty]

A couple bits of footage HERE and HERE.

More enticing clips.

[tdalton]

Based off everything I've seen and read, I just don't find Catwoman compelling.

Have you read LONG HALLOWEEN/DARK VICTORY or HUSH? I think those contain the best Catwoman, and it would be the one that Nolan would almost undoubtedly draw upon. If you haven't, you might want to check those out (especially the first two).

Which graphic novel would you suggest for someone just starting out reading the graphic novels? Would one of the titles that you mention above be the best place to start or is there a novel that serves more as a starting point?

[Harmsway]

Which graphic novel would you suggest for someone just starting out reading the graphic novels? Would one of the titles that you mention above be the best place to start or is there a novel that serves more as a starting point?

It depends. If you want to start off chronologically, BATMAN: YEAR ONE is the place to start, but you must continue on with the superior BATMAN: THE LONG HALLOWEEN and BATMAN: DARK VICTORY. It makes a very nice, tidy, and strong "origin trilogy."

But if you're just looking to buy only one graphic novel that will give you a good starting point, go with BATMAN: THE LONG HALLOWEEN. It's a really fun read with some of my favorite artwork to ever be featured in a comic book. And despite its chronological ties to YEAR ONE (and especially DARK VICTORY, which is its direct sequel), it plays very independently. It's my favorite of the Batman graphic novels. And as added incentive, it was also Christopher Nolan's inspiration.

[tdalton]

Which graphic novel would you suggest for someone just starting out reading the graphic novels? Would one of the titles that you mention above be the best place to start or is there a novel that serves more as a starting point?

It depends. If you want to start off chronologically, BATMAN: YEAR ONE is the place to start, but you must continue on with the superior BATMAN: THE LONG HALLOWEEN and BATMAN: DARK VICTORY. It makes a very nice, tidy, and strong "origin trilogy."

But if you're just looking to buy only one graphic novel that will give you a good starting point, go with BATMAN: THE LONG HALLOWEEN. It's a really fun read with some of my favorite artwork to ever be featured in a comic book. And despite its chronological ties to YEAR ONE (and especially DARK VICTORY, which is its direct sequel), it plays very independently. It's my favorite of the Batman graphic novels. And as added incentive, it was also Christopher Nolan's inspiration.

Thanks.

I plan on checking those out soon.

[sharpshooter]

It depends. If you want to start off chronologically, BATMAN: YEAR ONE is the place to start, but you must continue on with the superior BATMAN: THE LONG HALLOWEEN and BATMAN: DARK VICTORY. It makes a very nice, tidy, and strong "origin trilogy."

I'd definitely say these three are the stand out Batman graphic novels. TLH and DV are my two favourites. Haunted Knight is another Loeb/Sale graphic novel but isn't in the league of their other two. It features great art still. I also love The Dark Knight Returns, you might want to check that one out. Oh, and The Killing Joke and Arkham Asylum....

[Harmsway]

I also love The Dark Knight Returns, you might want to check that one out.

As much as it's a sacred cow, I don't like THE DARK KNIGHT RETURNS.

[sharpshooter]

Yeah? What don’t you like about it? I think TDKR is definitely one of the most mammoth landmark works in comic book record. Although the story is not canon, I’d say it's an incredible bit of gritty fiction that every comic book fan should read and make part of their collection.

[Harmsway]

Yeah? What don’t you like about it? I think TDKR is definitely one of the most mammoth landmark works in comic book record.

I think THE DARK KNIGHT RETURNS is sloppy and self-important. The story is an absolute mess. It doesn't help that Miller's sadistic Batman is quite unlikable, and nowhere near as noble or heroic as the character should rightly be. There's a reason that the comics have been trying to recover from what THE DARK KNIGHT RETURNS did to the character in the late 80s and early 90s.

This isn't to say there aren't good moments. The Joker bits are pretty darn good, Batman riding on a horse in a post-EMP Gotham City is way cool, and the climactic Superman/Batman battle is a fun climax (although Miller's portrayal of Superman is insulting, and the whole political commentary that gets wedged in through their struggle is entirely lame). They just don't redeem the whole.

I appreciate it as an event in the Batman comic history, and I appreciate what it helped accomplish in changing the medium (though there are other works that I think did a much better job of furthering the medium from around the same time). I just don't think it holds up.

[Harmsway]

THE HOLLYWOOD REPORTER weighs in on THE DARK KNIGHT (and it's yet another very positive take):

Film Review: The Dark Knight
Bottom Line: One nervy blend of top entertainment and thoughtful character study.

By Kirk Honeycutt

Jul 6, 2008

"The Dark Knight"

Opens: Friday, July 18 (Warner Bros.)

"The Dark Knight" is pure adrenaline. Returning director Christopher Nolan, having dispensed with his introspective, moody origin story, now puts the Caped Crusader through a decathlon of explosions, vehicle flips, hand-to-hand combat, midair rescues and pulse-pounding suspense.

Nolan is one of our smarter directors. He builds movies around ideas and characters, and "Dark Knight" is no exception. The ideas here are not new to the movie world of cops and criminal, but in the context of a comic book movie, they ring out with startling clarity. In other words, you expect moralistic underpinnings in a Martin Scorsese movie; in a Batman movie, they hit home with renewed vigor.

None of this artistic achievement denies the re-energized Warner Bros./DC Comics franchise its commercial muscle. Those bags of money in the movie's opening bank heist are nothing compared with the worldwide boxoffice haul "Dark Knight" will take from theaters. Repeat viewings are a certainty.

Repeat viewings might also be a necessity. That adrenaline rush comes at a cost: With the film's race-car pace, noise levels, throbbing music and density of stratagems, no one will follow all the plot points at first glance. Not that the story with its double crosses and ingenious plans isn't clear, but to enjoy the full glory of these urban battlefield strategies, multiple viewings are required.

"Dark Knight" revolves around notions of the yin and yang between Hero and Villain and of those gray areas where social conscience and individuality collide. Thinking logically, Nolan and his co-writer/brother Jonathan, working from a story by Christopher Nolan and David S. Goyer, imagine that the heroism of Bruce Wayne's Batman (a returning and very buff Christian Bale) is a double-edged sword. (A theme the current "Hancock" toyed with but badly mucked up.) Cleaning up the streets of Gotham City turns the crime cartels into an even more dangerous beast that, once cornered, resorts to its own doomsday machine: the maniacally clever and criminally amoral Joker (the late Heath Ledger). And vigilante justice is nonetheless "justice" from outside the law. So who or what polices him?

Running for cover, the mob head (Eric Roberts) first takes refuge with a Hong Kong crime mogul (Chin Han). Then when Batman takes him down, he and his fellow mobsters hold their noses and in desperation settle on a man who knows no rules and plays everyone against one another. The Joker relishes the assignment precisely because of his "admiration" for the Dark Knight. In one key confrontation, the Joker purrs to Batman, like a bride to a groom, "You complete me." The criminal clown, his makeup designed to emphasize his facial deformations, sees in a man dressed up in a bat suit "a freak like me."

Seemingly on the side of good are the city's White Knight, District Attorney Harvey Dent (Aaron Eckhart); his girlfriend/Assistant DA Rachel Dawes (Maggie Gyllenhaal) -- and, if you recall from "Batman Begins," Bruce Wayne's longtime love -- and police Lt. Jim Gordon (Gary Oldman). But loyalties are easily dislodged by threats or money. The Joker's true purpose, besides amusing himself trying to outwit Batman, is to see if he can "turn" the White Knight to his dark side.

One wishes Nolan had cast a different actor than Eckhart as this White Knight. Although very good at playing duplicitousness and irony -- witness "Thank You for Smoking" -- Eckhart never quite seems the crusader presumably intended. He will, of course, turn into Two-Face, but you sense this propensity too early.

The Joker, though, sees everyone as two-faced, even Batman, in his estimation. When confronted by pure evil -- and there is a kind of purity to the Joker's rule of no rules -- what can a vigilante do but violate his own moral code? The Joker means to push Batman beyond those limits.

With six major action sequences shot with Imax cameras, Nolan pushes his own cinematic envelope. If the action in "Batman Begins" received ho-hum reviews in some quarters, this won't happen with "Dark Knight." Batman flies around the skyscrapers of Gotham and Hong Kong, rips through any number of villains with his martial arts, tears through streets in his armor-clad, two-wheeled Bat-Pod and has more tech backup than James Bond. While all modern movie action is visual-effects driven, the stunt work in "Dark Knight" looks like it's happening on the streets and not in a computer.

Bale again brilliantly personifies all the deep traumas and misgivings of Batman's alter ego, Bruce Wayne. A bit of Hamlet is in this Batman. Ledger's performance is a beauty. His Joker has a slow cadence of speech, as if weighing words for maximum mischief and contempt. He moves languidly as if to savor his dark deeds, his head and body jerking at times from an overload of brain impulses.

Michael Caine's butler extraordinaire, Alfred, and Morgan Freeman's scientific genius, Lucius, have settled into their dutiful roles as oases of the expected when all else is unexpected. Gyllenhaal is not exactly wasted, but she can't do much with a tissue-thin heroine. Oldman as the all-too-human cop is a quiet triumph in superb character acting.

[Skudor]

I really am no Batman fan - but I find myself far more hyped about TDK than QOS. It just seems like a really great movie (and come to think of it, this sentiment is built purely on marketing...).

[sharpshooter]

I've been waiting for this film for god knows how long. It always seemed so distant, like it would never arrive. Well folks, it is nearly here. I am by far more excited for TDK than QoS. The reviews are glowing. It arrives in Australia on the 16th. Bring it on.

[AngryPolarBear]

Poor me being on vacation the 23rd of July. I don't think I've ever had bigger expectations for a film before, but I do think Nolan will deliever. He always do.

[The Dove]

The Dark Knight has gotten a 100% "fresh" rating on rottentomatoes.com!!!

[Navy007Fan]

Here is a review of TDK from Jett at Batman-On_Film.