What is the deal with The Dark Knight?

[Tinneh]

So you didn't like the movie because you have a short attention span?

Look, I don't normally reply to jibes like that, but this time I will.

I thought the Dark Knight was too long, not because I have a short attention span, but because moviemaking should be an art.

It should tell the story in an engaging manner, without too much self-indulgence.

To me, and I do realise that this is a subjective opinion, the movie was TOO LONG. It did not have the depth of content to justify the length of the movie. In this, it was self-indulgent. It was like the director was having too much fun watching the antics of the villans and the gadgets and the explosions, to realise that the story was over-long, over-stretched and overly convoluted.

That's just my opinion though. I'm glad that there are many people who did enjoy the movie. In fact, I am sad I didn't do the same...

Fixed that quote box for you.

 

[chaos order]

personally i think hush would be the best villiain for the next film. hes already dark and gritty

 

[RaphaelsRedemption]

So you didn't like the movie because you have a short attention span?

Look, I don't normally reply to jibes like that, but this time I will.

I thought the Dark Knight was too long, not because I have a short attention span, but because moviemaking should be an art.

It should tell the story in an engaging manner, without too much self-indulgence.

To me, and I do realise that this is a subjective opinion, the movie was TOO LONG. It did not have the depth of content to justify the length of the movie. In this, it was self-indulgent. It was like the director was having too much fun watching the antics of the villans and the gadgets and the explosions, to realise that the story was over-long, over-stretched and overly convoluted.

That's just my opinion though. I'm glad that there are many people who did enjoy the movie. In fact, I am sad I didn't do the same...

Fixed that quote box for you.

Thanks, mate

 

[Casual Shinji]

The problem I had with The Dark Knight is the same problem I have with every Chris Nolan film: I just don't care about any of these overly serious characters.

It's well directed - except for the fight scenes and the third act - but most of the time it seems Nolan is trying his best not to make a Batman movie. Ledger plays a great insane vilain, but it didn't feel like the Joker. Maybe I'm a stubborn old fart concerning this, but I want my comic book movies to feel..."comic booky".

 

[Jeralt2100]

As for what the other person was saying about DiCaprio, I think he just meant that if he were to be cast as Riddler he might surprise everyone with a solid performance in the role. When Ledger was cast as Joker there was a lot of trepidation around how he'd approach the role, and in the end he did an excellent job. So there's hope that DiCaprio /could/ pull off a similar performance as Riddler.

The problem with the Riddler is that (prior to Hush) he's such a shit villain. The Joker and the Scarecrow both work well in a gritty reboot - both are very dark characters, mostly centred around madness and fear. The Riddler is centred around crappy puzzles that anyone with half a brain can solve in about 30 seconds. What's he going to do, rob a bank and compulsively leave clues so Batman winds up catching him ten minutes into the movie?

I'd go for Killer Croc, personally. Maybe Bane, but I think a lot of his impact would be lessened because no way is the film actually going to show him crippling Batman. It would take him years to get over, and studios don't want their properties out of action for that long.

Although Joker had some darker tendencies in his later appearances, he was first conceived as a character who pulled crimes in exactly the same manner that Riddler did, minus the riddles. He was absolutely goofy, not dangerous. Comedic in a sad sort of way. I can only guess at what would be done to make him a plausible and truly threatening villain, but keep in mind Batman in this setting is hardly the brilliant detective he is in the comics. Riddler could easily be far more intelligent than Batman because of that. I don't see Riddler as being the main focus of the film, and perhaps not even a villain we lay eyes on more than a handful of times from the shadows of some hideout. He's a mastermind, someone who works behind the scenes and toys with the Batman and the other principle characters, luring them each toward some endgame that only he sees. Then at the end of the film, all the clues are pieced together for the audience and you see the true genius of what he's been able to do.

Nolan used that methodology for The Prestige and it worked pretty well. I'm sure he has his ideas, and if Riddler really is going to be in the film I see him as a potential for hidden menace and manipulation rather than a direct conflict with Batman himself.

 

[Mr Smith]

While I don't think it was the greatest movie of all time as some do, I still think both The Dark Knight and Batman Begins are right up there with the greats. The reason being, for me, is that a lot happens in both movies and there's always something going on right from the start to the finish. This compared to most movies that spend a good part of the first act setting things up, have one or two events and then the movie finishes. I'm hoping that the third installment continues with the same formula set by the first two, regardless of who the villain turns out to be (personally, I'm hoping for an appearance by Harley Quinn.)

 

[Jordan_17]

I honestly think it's the Halo effect. If Halo had gotten average reviews, people would just say "meh" and forget about it, but because it's popular and got perfect scores all of a sudden it's "Absolutely terrible" and "one of teh worst gaems evar!". If the Dark knight had gotten let's say 7-8/10 reviews then I doubt you'd be here calling it boring and anti-climactic.

You were 15 when you saw it. That's pretty much the problem.

EDIT: I didn't mean this as an insult to 15 year olds, necessarily. I'm not sure my 15 year old self would have liked it and I doubt many of my friends at 15 would.

I can see where this guy is coming from and I sort of agree. I was 14 when I first saw it and liked it. I didn't love it, but I did like it. I was 15 when I re-watched it and I absolutely loved the pants of that film. I re-watch it every couple of months and it has never lost its appeal.

Also, I don't care what people say, Heath Ledger was absolutely amazing in that film.

 

[AcacianLeaves]

hate it when people think something is a plot hole because they can't figure it out.

People already hated Batman for bringing the Joker upon them, just see the press release scene again. Harvey, however was a symbol of hope for Gotham, an example of a "real" warrior against crime.

That's true, however at the beginning of the movie it's shown that people are so inspired by Batman that they are literally taking to the streets and fighting criminals. A rise in vigilante justice would logically mean a rise in actual support for justice, which could at least partially explain the unusually quick rise to power of Harvey Dent. If Dent is gone, it seems to me like someone else inside the system would step up.

The mob was behind Joker's back from what I could gather. And maybe those nut-cases really liked him. And, after all, this is a comic book movie. No need to start nitpicking at this level and start calling everything a plot hole.

That's dangerously close to the "it's just a comic book movie, it doesn't need to make sense" argument that made so many previous comic book movies utter trash.

Scarecrow thing, not a plot hole, and why did Rachel Dawes even exist? Are you serious?

Scarecrow thing may not be a plot hole but its still a point of the movie that bothered me. The thing with Rachel Dawes is she only existed so she could die and give Batman a reason to fight crime. He already has that in his parents, that's kind of his character. She wasn't ever a really a compelling love interest, and since she's dead that whole side-plot went nowhere. I just don't feel like they utilized her in a meaningful way.

The Batman's voice, I think it was explained, is a voice box as it is. If it wasn't explained, it's really easy to deduct that from hearing him speak any louder than a whisper in TDK. Also, what kind of another voice box would you prefer? He needs to intimidate people, not just hide his real voice.

It was never explained that he used a voice box, and he's clearly not using a voice box. It just needed to be toned down a smidge.

 

[Paksenarrion]

You wanna know how it got th'oscars?

Get it? "th'oscars"?

the oscars?

those scars?

What were we talking about again?

 

[Jeralt2100]

I know I'll need to give examples of 'plot holes' and 'odd character actions' so here goes. Why exactly does Batman need to take the blame for Harvey's actions? He's dead. He'd be no more a symbol for the city to rally behind than Batman would. How is the Joker able to orchestrate all this with nobody to help him except for unreliable nut-cases? Why didn't they use the awesome Scarecrow more? What was the point of Rachel Dawes even existing? If Batman needs to disguise his voice, why doesn't he use a $5 voicebox rather than damage his vocal chords with a ridiculous growl?

I hate it when people think something is a plot hole because they can't figure it out.

People already hated Batman for bringing the Joker upon them, just see the press release scene again. Harvey, however was a symbol of hope for Gotham, an example of a "real" warrior against crime.

The mob was behind Joker's back from what I could gather. And maybe those nut-cases really liked him. And, after all, this is a comic book movie. No need to start nitpicking at this level and start calling everything a plot hole.

Scarecrow thing, not a plot hole, and why did Rachel Dawes even exist? Are you serious?

The Batman's voice, I think it was explained, is a voice box as it is. If it wasn't explained, it's really easy to deduct that from hearing him speak any louder than a whisper in TDK. Also, what kind of another voice box would you prefer? He needs to intimidate people, not just hide his real voice.

There are multiple reasons for Batman taking the fall for Dent's killings. Part of it was not wanting to tarnish Dent's name, yes, but if you recall when he was interrogating Falcone how he was not afraid of Batman because he knew Batman wouldn't break his own rules and Joker had no compunction....well, now Batman is known by the public to be a murderer. Don't you think that fear will make it easier for him to control the mob and to wring information from them when he needs to? Common thugs would be scared shitless about him now, not knowing whether he'll just beat them up or kill them for what they've done.

It also serves as a warning to the police who are still 'on the take' from organized crime. If everyone believes Batman killed a few bad cops, it might scare the rest away from that kind of activity.

 

[Cherry Cola]

You don't see why the movie is so popular. That's your problem.

I don't think the movie is as good as most people say it is, but I'm not completely baffled by that.

Mr. Hubilub, why is there a pineapple in your avatar?

OT: I liked it, saw it when I was 19, I think.

I believe the real question is: why isn't there a pineapple in yours?

 

[TiefBlau]

Why do people think that movie is so good? I don't understand. I thought it was long, boring, anti-climatic, and I couldn't understand anyone. Maybe I'm just a 90 year old trapped in a 16 year old's body (I was fifteen when I saw it) but I don't see what all the rage is about in that movie.

That you thought it was long and boring is exactly what's wrong.

Maybe you came in expecting whizz-boom explody shit and were instead treated to hours of people talking. I don't know, and quite frankly, I can't sympathize with you, because I found every minute of the movie incredibly engaging. It's not the best movie I've ever seen in my life, but it's definitely great, and Heath Ledger's performance of the Joker is absolutely unforgettable.

 

[Soxafloppin]

I'm a massive Batman fan boy so it could have been THE WORST FILM EVAR and i would have loved it, but im pretty sure that i wasnt blinded by that point and find it hard to fault the film.

 

[Vrex360]

It too agree that it isn't the best movie ever but as it stands I still thought it was damned good.
However, truth be told I don't think there is any 'deal' with the Dark Knight, you either like it or don't like it and people shouldn't need to explain their fandom for certain things. We should just accept it.
I mean I don't like Final Fantasy, I don't feel the need to ask FF fans why they think it's so good, I just accept that they like it.

 

[Nautical Honors Society]

Why do people think that movie is so good? I don't understand. I thought it was long, boring, anti-climatic, and I couldn't understand anyone. Maybe I'm just a 90 year old trapped in a 16 year old's body (I was fifteen when I saw it) but I don't see what all the rage is about in that movie.

ALSO I know I'm like 2 years late or whatever, but this was brought up by a thread about batman 3 and how DiCaprio would play the riddler and this one guy was saying how it could be like Heath Ledger as the Joker or something.

Nothing is the deal with the Dark Knight. It is a movie, some people dislike it and some people like it. It doesn't really matter.

OT: I love it because of the great acting, directing, soundtrack, script, atmosphere, effects, and action.

 

[Jeralt2100]

As for what the other person was saying about DiCaprio, I think he just meant that if he were to be cast as Riddler he might surprise everyone with a solid performance in the role. When Ledger was cast as Joker there was a lot of trepidation around how he'd approach the role, and in the end he did an excellent job. So there's hope that DiCaprio /could/ pull off a similar performance as Riddler.

The problem with the Riddler is that (prior to Hush) he's such a shit villain. The Joker and the Scarecrow both work well in a gritty reboot - both are very dark characters, mostly centered around madness and fear. The Riddler is centered around crappy puzzles that anyone with half a brain can solve in about 30 seconds. What's he going to do, rob a bank and compulsively leave clues so Batman winds up catching him ten minutes into the movie?

I'd go for Killer Croc, personally. Maybe Bane, but I think a lot of his impact would be lessened because no way is the film actually going to show him crippling Batman. It would take him years to get over, and studios don't want their properties out of action for that long.

I love how you ripped apart that Redemption shitter, but here's where you fall apart, mostly because you have limited imagination. The Riddler could be leading Batman into a revelation about a conspiracy, the last riddle could be an elaborate trap that forces Bruce to reveal himself, and it's entirely possible Nolan's Riddler would be too smart to ever be caught. And after the ending to TDK, the trap would be devastating.

I don't know if DiCaprio could pull the role off or not. I'm just stating what the argument was from the other thread. Ledger wasn't well received when he was announced as Joker and I can only imagine that DiCaprio wouldn't be well received if he was announced as Riddler. I'd MUCH rather see Robin Williams play the part as a jaded older man who's extremely intelligent and very dark. He's done that before, in Insomnia, and it could work in the style I suggested in my second post very well without the silliness normally associated with Riddler.

 

[Cerrax]

The whole script is goddamn genius. The dialogue is powerful and penetrating, without being heavy-handed or preachy. Very classic lines too.

Though I have a poster of Batman with the entire ending monologue from The Dark Knight on my wall, so I may be a bit biased