|
Post by Kroot bringing Justice on Jan 12, 2010 19:20:09 GMT -5
I prefer scripts to art direction. Nolan>Burton That said, Batman Returns was pretty good. I mean really good, one misunderstood by wussy parents out there. First Batman though was blah. Weak script, Batman not the star of his own movie, etc. Oh and Bat Dance. Honestly thought TDK had a crappy script. I really didn't like how the Joker had no motivation other then some kinda whacked out evil zen thing. He seemed very one denominational, it just seemed like they wrote the Joker to be cool for the sake of being cool. Ledger did a good job making him into a cool character, but at the end of the day Joker came off like a marketing tool to used boost the box office among teen age males, and occasionally show up say something clever and blow sh*t up. He was almost like the writers cool evil Marry Sue. Welcome to how the Joker has been since forever.
|
|
|
Post by Apricots And A Pear Tree on Jan 12, 2010 19:23:12 GMT -5
Honestly thought TDK had a crappy script. I really didn't like how the Joker had no motivation other then some kinda whacked out evil zen thing. Anarchy. I mean that whole speech by him with Dent at the hospital sums him up. And that terrible visual of him burning that giant mountain of money. He seemed very one denominational, it just seemed like they wrote the Joker to be cool for the sake of being cool. Ledger did a good job making him into a cool character, but at the end of the day Joker came off like a marketing tool to used boost the box office among teen age males, and occasionally show up say something clever and blow sh*t up. He was almost like the writers cool evil Marry Sue. And what of the first Batman where Joker had a full-fledged origin story, yet the hero himself gets one measley flashback to explain everything? THE HERO IS NOT THE STAR OF HIS OWN MOVIE!!! Besides, Anytime someone has tried to give an origin to "explain" Joker, they always failed. I mean when not even the great Alan Moore can do it, well that says something. [/quote]
|
|
|
Post by toddpolt on Jan 12, 2010 19:30:21 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by FrankGotch on Jan 12, 2010 19:30:12 GMT -5
Honestly thought TDK had a crappy script. I really didn't like how the Joker had no motivation other then some kinda whacked out evil zen thing. Anarchy. I mean that whole speech by him with Dent at the hospital sums him up. And that terrible visual of him burning that giant mountain of money. He seemed very one denominational, it just seemed like they wrote the Joker to be cool for the sake of being cool. Ledger did a good job making him into a cool character, but at the end of the day Joker came off like a marketing tool to used boost the box office among teen age males, and occasionally show up say something clever and blow sh*t up. He was almost like the writers cool evil Marry Sue. And what of the first Batman where Joker had a full-fledged origin story, yet the hero himself gets one measley flashback to explain everything? THE HERO IS NOT THE STAR OF HIS OWN MOVIE!!! Besides, Anytime someone has tried to give an origin to "explain" Joker, they always failed. I mean when not even the great Alan Moore can do it, well that says something. [/quote] I think that Batman having his parents violently killed in front of him at young age is a pretty good origin story. Do you really need to see tedious training like in Batman Begins before jumping into the fun story lines? As for the whole Anarchy speech, yeah I got it, and its weak. Like I said up post it seems the Jokers only true motivation is to be a cool bad guy who will appeal to the teen early 20's male audience. Its like the Joker knows hes a marketing tool in a movie.
|
|
|
Post by toddpolt on Jan 12, 2010 19:31:52 GMT -5
I think that Batman having his parents violently killed in front of him at young age is a pretty good origin story. Do you really need to see tedious training like in Batman Begins before jumping into the fun story lines? As for the whole Anarchy speech, yeah I got it, and its weak. Like I said up post it seems the Jokers only true motivation is to be a cool bad guy who will appeal to the teen early 20's male audience. Its like the Joker knows hes a marketing tool in a movie. First you don't want an origin, then next you want one. You're confusing me.
|
|
Goldenbane
Hank Scorpio
THE G.D. Goldenbane
Posts: 7,331
|
Post by Goldenbane on Jan 12, 2010 19:37:30 GMT -5
Of all the Batman movies, Batman Begins was BY FAR the worst of the bunch. At least Batman and Robin had some sensical (if not goofy) action visuals. Batman Begins was a sloppy CUT AWAY CUT AWAY CUT AWAY(!!!!!!!!!!) mess when it came to action. Also, the "amazing adventures of Bruce Wayne" just don't do it for me as a movie. I don't want to see Wayne, Kent, Parker, Stark, or Banner...I want to see their alter egos.
The best of the Batman movies, imo, will always be Batman '89. It was dark, yet one could still sit back and have fun with it. I think the Nostalgia Critic summed it up best: In Batman '89 we knew all about Joker and almost nothing about Batman...thus Batman was made cooler. In The Dark Knight we knew almost nothing about the Joker and everything about Batman...thus Joker was made cooler.
While I definately loved The Dark Knight, I've grown to despise the lust fest it gets and the proclaimation that it's "the greatest super hero movie ever committed to film!!" When I saw it, I loved it...but I thought Iron Man was easily just as good. Instead, a great movie like Iron Man was thrown to the way side by the fanboys so they could drool over "dark" shit, and the media could weep over Ledger's tragic death.
Iron Man was just as good as Dark Knight but for completely different reasons.
|
|
|
Post by Solid Stryk-Dizzle on Jan 12, 2010 19:54:31 GMT -5
I agree with the Iron Man bit.
I loved that movie. Can't wait for the sequel.
|
|
hollywood
King Koopa
the bullet dodger
The Green Arrow has approved this post.
Posts: 11,122
|
Post by hollywood on Jan 12, 2010 20:11:54 GMT -5
Joker was one-dimensional in The Dark Knight. If I'm not mistaken, even the filmmakers said so.
His motivation? We never found out. We know he was an anarchist and he was crazy, but we don't know why. And that's because, at the end of the day, TDK is Harvey Dent's story. Moreso than Batman or Joke, it's the story of Harvey's tragic downfall.
Count me as one of those who prefers the 1989 Batman film and Jack Nicholson's preformance over Ledgers...but still enjoyed the hell out of TDK and Batman Begins.
|
|
|
Post by toddpolt on Jan 12, 2010 20:40:17 GMT -5
Of all the Batman movies, Batman Begins was BY FAR the worst of the bunch. At least Batman and Robin had some sensical (if not goofy) action visuals. Ice Skates in Bat Boots. Batman Begins was a sloppy CUT AWAY CUT AWAY CUT AWAY(!!!!!!!!!!) mess when it came to action. Man, I bet you haven't been able to watch action movies then in recent years. As in the past decade. Also, the "amazing adventures of Bruce Wayne" just don't do it for me as a movie. I don't want to see Wayne, Kent, Parker, Stark, or Banner...I want to see their alter egos. The idea of these origin movies is that first story, its how said hero becomes the hero. The sequels is then just all-out adventures. I guess you could just do all-out adventure from the get go (which was what Burton's Batman did), but there is something really enjoyable when an origin picture is done right. Superman, Batman Begins, Iron Man, whatever. I'm reminded of "Star Wars." I mean remember how long that took to set its pieces together, establishing who and what is in danger, the nobody kid from nowhere becoming a hero by luck and circumstances, him meeting Indiana Jones and a giant dog. Then by luck and circumstances, all led to make an improv rescue mission at a fortress. The best of the Batman movies, imo, will always be Batman '89. It was dark, yet one could still sit back and have fun with it. Define "fun. I think the Nostalgia Critic summed it up best: In Batman '89 we knew all about Joker and almost nothing about Batman...thus Batman was made cooler. And Nostalgic Critic also thought Ledger's Joker was better. And he's right. Some arguments can be a double-edge (sharp) sword. The Nolan Batman "voice" can be annoying. Also the best Joker "Joker" is neither Nicholson or Ledger. The best was Mark Hamill from Batman TAS. He nails perfectly the fine line between entertainly funny and legit psychotic killer. While I definately loved The Dark Knight, I've grown to despise the lust fest it gets and the proclaimation that it's "the greatest super hero movie ever committed to film!!" When I saw it, I loved it...but I thought Iron Man was easily just as good. Instead, a great movie like Iron Man was thrown to the way side by the fanboys so they could drool over "dark" s***, and the media could weep over Ledger's tragic death. Hey, did you know Citizen Kane is the "greatest" movie ever? Does that stop you or me from saying its not and move on? So more people (i.e. nerds) were more impressed by TDK. So what? Its not like Iron Man died in theatres as a result or lost out on any major Oscar. Iron Man was a giant hit (not TDK size, but whatever), got great reviews, and automatically turned a great talented-but-druggie-troubled actor into a global major superstar. And he deserved it. And outside of Ledger, TDK didn't get any major non-tech Oscar nod. I mean look at "Avatar." At this rate, it could very well topple another James Cameron picture to become the biggest hit of all time. Is it the greatest movie ever? NO. Is it the best of the 2000s? NO. Is it even the best of 2009? NO. Last year was a movie I surprisingly found myself enjoying, and to a certain technical sense, sorta impressed. Yet "Speed Racer" didn't just crash and burn in theatres, critics hated it too. I mean they HATED IT. Its unfortunate, but thats how these things happen. Or a 2007 release like Zodiac, I think arguably is the best movie that year (asides from NCFOM and TWBB). That flopped too. Iron Man was just as good as Dark Knight but for completely different reasons. Both are great movies. I might give the edge to TDK for reasons that has nothing to do what box-office or whate nerds/critics think. But I won't disgrudge anyone who prefers Iron Man. Though interesting that nobody has seriously nailed Iron Man or practically being Iron Man Begins in plotting and structure. Think about it.
|
|
Bub (BLM)
Patti Mayonnaise
advocates duck on rodent violence
Fed. Up.
Posts: 37,742
|
Post by Bub (BLM) on Jan 12, 2010 20:55:41 GMT -5
To be honest, I fail to see how his statement is pretentious in the slightest. He's outright dismissing the idea of super hero or comic book films ever being anything more than silly pop entertainment. How is that not pretentious? False. I'm an avid reader of comic books, and never claimed that the films shouldn't be serious. My entire point was that it shouldn't be so serious that it's never, ever fun. Batman is one of the grittier universes in comics, but characters like the Joker inject some excitement into the mix as well. At least they should. I go around this forum all the time and blast comic book movies for not staying true to the source material, so I find it ridiculous that you just assumed that I think comic book movies need to be "silly pop entertainment". Wrong. They need to feel like the source material. The Dark Knight did not.
|
|
|
Post by Citizen Snips on Jan 12, 2010 21:02:46 GMT -5
I don't want to see Wayne, Kent, Parker, Stark, or Banner...I want to see their alter egos. I'll agree on Batman and Superman being loads more fun in their super-identities, but I think Tony Stark's a fun character when done well, and Peter Parker and Bruce Banner are absolutely essential to Spider-Man and The Hulk (I will grant that by Spider-Man 2, the movies basically became The Loves and Losses of Peter Parker, and thus became less interesting). Which reminds me about the debate on pretentious comic book movies from a few pages back.... Ang Lee's Hulk makes The Dark Knight look about as pretentious as Bill & Ted's Bogus Journey. I'm also a bit lost when it comes to the whole "This movie got the character right or wrong" arguments, considering Batman and The Joker have appeared in DOZENS of different incarnations in the comics themselves. Which Joker is the "right" one in the comics, Jeph Loeb's or Grant Morrison's? Is Frank Miller's Batman "wrong", since he's nothing like Mark Waid's? Doesn't really make sense to me.
|
|
BK From WV
Hank Scorpio
Claims to have sense of humor, probably stole it
I'm Here
Posts: 5,612
|
Post by BK From WV on Jan 12, 2010 21:02:55 GMT -5
I'll take any of the Batman movies over Nolan's versions. His versions bore me. After Batman Begins,I really had no desire to watch The Dark Knight but after hearing everyone talk about it,I decided to give it a chance. Heath Ledger's Joker wore thin on me really quick and Christian Bale bored me as much as he did in Begins. I can see why people like Nolan's versions but they're just not for me.
|
|
|
Post by Mr. Emoticon Man, TF Fan on Jan 12, 2010 21:10:38 GMT -5
I don't want to see Wayne, Kent, Parker, Stark, or Banner...I want to see their alter egos. I'll agree on Batman and Superman being loads more fun in their super-identities, but I think Tony Stark's a fun character when done well, and Peter Parker and Bruce Banner are absolutely essential to Spider-Man and The Hulk (I will grant that by Spider-Man 2, the movies basically became The Loves and Losses of Peter Parker, and thus became less interesting). Which reminds me about the debate on pretentious comic book movies from a few pages back.... Ang Lee's Hulk makes The Dark Knight look about as pretentious as Bill & Ted's Bogus Journey. I'm also a bit lost when it comes to the whole "This movie got the character right or wrong" arguments, considering Batman and The Joker have appeared in DOZENS of different incarnations in the comics themselves. Which Joker is the "right" one in the comics, Jeph Loeb's or Grant Morrison's? Is Frank Miller's Batman "wrong", since he's nothing like Mark Waid's? Doesn't really make sense to me. A lot of Marvel's characters are just as interesting out of costume as they are in costume. The movies just need to find the right balance of both.
|
|
hollywood
King Koopa
the bullet dodger
The Green Arrow has approved this post.
Posts: 11,122
|
Post by hollywood on Jan 13, 2010 12:01:33 GMT -5
I'm also a bit lost when it comes to the whole "This movie got the character right or wrong" arguments, considering Batman and The Joker have appeared in DOZENS of different incarnations in the comics themselves. Which Joker is the "right" one in the comics, Jeph Loeb's or Grant Morrison's? Is Frank Miller's Batman "wrong", since he's nothing like Mark Waid's? Doesn't really make sense to me. You make a good point. I suppose the general idea is that the movie's version should reflect the current version appearing in the comics. In that respect, I think just about ever from did just that--with the obvious exceptions of the Schumacker entries.
|
|
|
Post by deadmanlfc on Jan 13, 2010 12:12:49 GMT -5
Yeah, I can't watch them either. I loved them as a kid, but now they seem like campy rubbish compared to the might of the Nolan movies.
|
|
Goldenbane
Hank Scorpio
THE G.D. Goldenbane
Posts: 7,331
|
Post by Goldenbane on Jan 13, 2010 12:33:18 GMT -5
Of all the Batman movies, Batman Begins was BY FAR the worst of the bunch. At least Batman and Robin had some sensical (if not goofy) action visuals. Ice Skates in Bat Boots. Man, I bet you haven't been able to watch action movies then in recent years. As in the past decade. The idea of these origin movies is that first story, its how said hero becomes the hero. The sequels is then just all-out adventures. I guess you could just do all-out adventure from the get go (which was what Burton's Batman did), but there is something really enjoyable when an origin picture is done right. Superman, Batman Begins, Iron Man, whatever. I'm reminded of "Star Wars." I mean remember how long that took to set its pieces together, establishing who and what is in danger, the nobody kid from nowhere becoming a hero by luck and circumstances, him meeting Indiana Jones and a giant dog. Then by luck and circumstances, all led to make an improv rescue mission at a fortress. Define "fun. And Nostalgic Critic also thought Ledger's Joker was better. And he's right. Some arguments can be a double-edge (sharp) sword. The Nolan Batman "voice" can be annoying. Also the best Joker "Joker" is neither Nicholson or Ledger. The best was Mark Hamill from Batman TAS. He nails perfectly the fine line between entertainly funny and legit psychotic killer. Hey, did you know Citizen Kane is the "greatest" movie ever? Does that stop you or me from saying its not and move on? So more people (i.e. nerds) were more impressed by TDK. So what? Its not like Iron Man died in theatres as a result or lost out on any major Oscar. Iron Man was a giant hit (not TDK size, but whatever), got great reviews, and automatically turned a great talented-but-druggie-troubled actor into a global major superstar. And he deserved it. And outside of Ledger, TDK didn't get any major non-tech Oscar nod. I mean look at "Avatar." At this rate, it could very well topple another James Cameron picture to become the biggest hit of all time. Is it the greatest movie ever? NO. Is it the best of the 2000s? NO. Is it even the best of 2009? NO. Last year was a movie I surprisingly found myself enjoying, and to a certain technical sense, sorta impressed. Yet "Speed Racer" didn't just crash and burn in theatres, critics hated it too. I mean they HATED IT. Its unfortunate, but thats how these things happen. Or a 2007 release like Zodiac, I think arguably is the best movie that year (asides from NCFOM and TWBB). That flopped too. Iron Man was just as good as Dark Knight but for completely different reasons. Both are great movies. I might give the edge to TDK for reasons that has nothing to do what box-office or whate nerds/critics think. But I won't disgrudge anyone who prefers Iron Man. Though interesting that nobody has seriously nailed Iron Man or practically being Iron Man Begins in plotting and structure. Think about it. Perhaps I should clarify on my distaste for Batman's action...in Rambo, Lord of the Rings, Star Wars, ect...the action (sometimes super cut away sometimes not) usually takes place in either a adequettely lit room, or even right out in broad day light. In Batman begins, it's a cut away cluster f*** in utter and total darkness...and I dunno...the cuts seem to come twice as fast to me than they do in the typical action fare. In Dark Knight, I felt the cuts in the action were much better because they didn't seem as fast and were much better lit. The last battle was terribly hard to follow, but I was ok with it because Batman had the odd eye thingys going and they were messing up...so it kinda added a bit of depth to the fight...as in you understood what was going on and why Joker was pounding on Batman. As far as the point about the secret identities...yes, I agree that if they are done well, I can handle a movie where the super hero has less screen time...but my main gripe by saying that was more against Tobey McGuire than really anyone else. It probably isn't his fault really, but I thought Parker was walked on WAY too much than he should have been. There's a thin line between "that dog gone Parker luck" and "being an utter and total loser." When he didn't stand up for himself against the pizza owner, the bitch in the office, or the jackass at the theatre, I started to become very annoyed with him.
|
|
|
Post by tap on Jan 13, 2010 13:43:03 GMT -5
Well, I've read criticisms elsewhere that Nolan doesn't know how to direct action sequences, hence why they look so sloppy in the Batman films. In Batman Begins, many of the early action scenes were meant to show Batman from the criminal's perspective, so it was intentionally disorienting. But a keen hand can make it disorienting yet still comprehensible, and I don't think Nolan's found that balance in the Bat-world yet. Yes, in TDK he improved but there wasn't a palpable sense of excitement to the editing, I found. I like Batman Begins a lot more than TDK but both films suffer from a really bland, boring colour palette. A lot of BB has this murky brown colour, so watching Batman do Bat-things more or less in a used toilet bowl isn't very appealing. And then, Nolan doesn't even stick to the aesthetic he established in the first film, opting instead to go for muted blue look for the whole film, to make it look "real," but nothing pops off the screen, visually. Even the Joker (whose look I like quite a lot even though I'm not as moved by Ledger's performance as most--here I quote David Bordwell, "Thus, as so often, does realism breed artifice." www.davidbordwell.net/blog/?p=2713) is restrained visually, his purple clothes offering the closest thing to some kind of relief from the oppressive atmosphere, an atmosphere that may work for the internal logic of the film, but permeates out into the viewer, or at least me, and makes the whole thing a real chore to watch. Sure, I can say that Ledger's Joker is better than Nicholson's. That's because I'm not fond of the 1989 Batman at all. Everything about that movie has aged horribly: the special effects, Nicholson's performance, Prince, the way the Joker was weaved into the origin story of Batman. I just don't like any of it. I think Batman Returns is the most "Batman" of all the live action movies, because it actually captures the psychology of the villains that none of the other films have. The Penguin was born to a rich family, only to be shunned and left for dead. He seeks revenge against the same aristocratic Gotham that now, thanks to Max Schreck, welcome him with open arms. His circus family and (*sigh* yes) his penguins are his true family. He will always be an outcast because he will always hold the resentment that he wasn't wanted and didn't belong. Selina Kyle, has, well, *ahem*, a pussy problem. She suffers from harassment at work because she's a woman, she can't get a date, her mother nags her about why she doesn't have a man in her life. She's a little girl in a woman's body--just look at her apartment. After being resurrected by cats (eh, I just go with it, even though it doesn't make logical sense, it makes metaphoric sense), she goes home and destroys the old Selina. She spray-paints the "conjugal bed" of the dollhouse and then, from a patwork of leather, makes her outfit. She is damaged goods, but she embraces it: "here me roar" (the slogan popularized by the woman's liberation movement). She cracks the whip (duh, get it), and can only find that connection she longs for in someone just as damaged, broken... Batman. These villains WORK as Batman villains. They don't need to tap into the current version of the character (because that would just make the film look so painfully dated), but instead they tap into the spirit of the character. Burton didn't do it with the Joker and Schumacher didn't do it with anyone (although he was on the right track with Mr. Freeze, but it's hard to have a serious storyline in a film that is so purposefully camp). Nolan didn't do it with Ra's al Ghul or Scarecrow (although the Scarecrow was pretty cool, I can admit that). And he certainly didn't do it with the Joker. It's not like the Joker NEEDS a backstory and given the history of the character, it's hard to pick out which origin story is true. But he needs some kind of motivation (even if it only makes sense to him). Like the Joker fish story. Makes all the fish of Gotham look like him so he can copyright the image and make tons of money. That makes sense to HIM, but it's also a storyline, something you can adhere a plot to. Nolan's Joker was all about "anarchy." That's not a storyline. That's not a plot. That's hardly even a theme. I said this elsewhere on the board recently about TDK: watching the Joker is like watching a force of nature. He's not even one-dimensional, he just functions as the role of "antagonist." They could have gone in some interesting place with the character and Batman (like the interrogation scene), but instead the Joker just escalates the moral games he plays. I started looking at my watch as soon as they introduced the ferry idea. The threats get bigger and bigger but the payoff remains diminutive. And I haven't even mentioned Nolan's Two-Face. I wish that Nolan brought Dent in with the first film just to set up the character, then push the character into the Two-Face role in TDK, then save the character for the third film. I really did like the end of TDK with Batman, Gordon, and Two-Face, because that's a dark place to go. But after all the Joker's long and drawn out shenanigans, it was too much, and the film suffers on the whole because of it. I'd rather have that it gets out as a rumour that Dent has killed 5 people and has become this villain Two-Face, shaking the city's confidence. Everyone in Gotham blames Batman for all the crap that has gone down. Mayor Garcia tries to save political face and says Batman is somehow responsible for Dent's crimes (or something like "had Batman turned himself in, Dent would have never victim of the Joker, therefore..."). Garcia says that the city will do everything it can to bring Dent in to save him (because his face is melted off), and that capturing Batman is priority number 1. That way, you still have a real downer of an ending, actually even more than the TDK. For the third film, Two-Face takes over all the crime factions of Gotham. With the remaining money, Two-Face escalates crime in Gotham by bringing lots of guns into the city (with the help of the Penguin, implied of course). Batman tries to stay ahead of Garcia's manhunt and the mob trying to pick off Batman; Gordon helps him out. I'd like to see something where Two-Face hires some muscle (Bane, Killer Croc, I dunno) to try to take out Batman, but fails. Keep the dark ending from TDK as the end for this film. That way, you introduce at least two possible villains who could come back for a fourth film (Penguin, and let's say Bane), or even Two-Face tries to rip off some Gotham science company with the help of an insider (someone who one day will become the Riddler) and Batman thwarts them, etc. That way, you leave yourself so many options of where the franchise could go, or you could bring back the Joker (recast, I would say Joseph Gordon-Levitt) for a fifth film. Etc. I only rewrote the end of TDK here as an example of why I couldn't buy Dent's rise and fall. It trims up TDK (which is sorely needed), it sets up future films, it's believable and hardly convoluted... but then again, I'm not a screenwriter.
|
|
Red Lion
Dennis Stamp
Put your mask on!
Posts: 4,002
|
Post by Red Lion on Jan 13, 2010 14:06:40 GMT -5
I disagree, all of the movies have their charm. Hell, I even like Batman & Robin in a "so bad it's good" kind of way!
Also, feel free to fire back, but I prefer Jack Nicholson's Joker.
|
|
|
Post by Solid Stryk-Dizzle on Jan 13, 2010 14:21:09 GMT -5
I will say this.
I have watched Batman and Robin more times than I have Dark Knight and if I had a choice. I'd pick B&R. That movie makes me happy whenever I watch it. Maybe I don't take my costumed superhero bizness as seriously as others but that movie is goofy fun.
|
|