Dark Knight

Post by **Ghegs** » Wed Aug 27, 2008 8:20 am

Skykid wrote:I'll use this thread to tell everyone not to watch Batman: Gotham Knight, the new anime DVD featuring six different Japanese directors.
It's an incredibly wasted opportunity, and utterly duff.

Eh, I watched it few weeks ago and while it didn't offer anything special, it was a nice way to kill some time during work.

D · Post by D » Wed Aug 27, 2008 9:09 am

Even though they are very short stories (not even stories, just some events) It was very cool to see 6 different representations of Batman. Now if all those animation houses would just make features, that would be great. Not worth the blu ray purchase unless you can find it very cheap.

Lordstar · Post by **Lordstar** » Wed Aug 27, 2008 10:06 am

Ghegs wrote:
Skykid wrote:I'll use this thread to tell everyone not to watch Batman: Gotham Knight, the new anime DVD featuring six different Japanese directors.
It's an incredibly wasted opportunity, and utterly duff.
Eh, I watched it few weeks ago and while it didn't offer anything special, it was a nice way to kill some time during work.

and theres me thinking that when you go to work you have to work.

so ive been going about it all wrong

Post by **Ghegs** » Wed Aug 27, 2008 11:46 am

Lordstar wrote:and theres me thinking that when you go to work you have to work.

so ive been going about it all wrong

Clearly. Gotta keep up the motivation for work with some R&R every now and then.

Skykid · Post by **Skykid** » Wed Aug 27, 2008 3:49 pm

D wrote:Not worth the blu ray purchase unless you can find it very cheap.

Blu ray? No chance. DVD...wouldn't bother.

Torrent?

Go get it!

(If anyone wants to buy the DVD anyway, they can have it for £6 before I ebay it off. just PM me.)

Tempest · Post by **Tempest** » Wed Aug 27, 2008 7:35 pm

jp wrote: But now? I'm sorry, Batman R.I.P. and Final Crisis are both jokes. Neither are written coherently and Final Crisis most CERTAINLY does NOT live up to the "Crisis" name.

And I doubt it ever will.

For better or worse, that's Grant Morrison's M.O. to a tee. He writes these non-linear story arcs that never make sense until you read everything. ind of like a Jigsaw Puzzle, you have to work a bunch of parts together to realize whether it's good or not. We won't be able to tell how all this is coming together until the very end of Final Crisis #7. Awesome way to write a story, terrible way to write a comic published on a weekly/bi-weekly basis.

As far as RIP goes, I'm not sure if it's the stupidest story ever or the coolest. Again, that's Morrison for you.

jp wrote:But, like I said, I went in completely blind and subscribed to both FC and SI, initially I was digging Final Crisis but wasn't so impressed with Secret Invasion (also subscribed to ALL tie-ins for both), but now?

As someone who has actually read ALL of Secret Invasion to this point, its better. Its better than Civil War, and honestly, its pretty damn good. Some of the tie-ins are pointless, but some of them are damn solid, and I dig 'em. And I'm enjoying the main story. Its well done. Its not crap like Civil War. So... props to Bendis.

It's not hard to be better than Civil War, so that's not saying a whole lot

. I dunno, it's very possible that my own annoyance with Bendis is affecting how I see this whole thing. Bendis to me always seems to enjoy nothing more than the sense of satisfaction he gets from messing with readers heads by giving them tips on stuff then making the reveal incredibly stupid or obscure (but almost always disappointing either way) then going "Ha HA! Bet you didn't see THAT coming!" One example was Ronin. When he did New Avengers he had an Avenger in there who was decked out in ninja gear and in full mask named Ronin. He dropped hints saying it was a familiar face and we'd have to wait and see, and then when he does unmask her, it's a minor league FEMALE (The character up to this point was drawn male and we later find out she was wearing padding and a voice changer to fool everyone including the Avengers) Daredevil villain-turned-hero. Lame. Wow Bendis, you're sooooooo smart. After seeing that I just noticed the same kind of guessing game in all his work. Guess who lost their mutant powers after M-Day? Guess who's going to side with who during Civil War? Guess who's gonna be a Skrull? Guess if Captain America is really dead? I swear to God if I have to read about another clone/Skrull/Life Model Decoy plot to bring Cap back or fool someone into thinking Cap is back, I'm going to lose it.

It also seems to me that while DC's tie-ins are more about the way all the different facets of the Cross-Over affect different people (Like the issues with the Society, the OMACs etc) and them tieing in at the end, Marvels idea is to present one big problem and force everyone to deal with it (You are going ot get involved in Civil War and you will LIKE IT! Unless you're the X-Men, then you're just going to do nothing and like it), usually rather sloppily,

jp wrote: Trinity (oh. my. God. it. sucks. so. bad), Batman/Superman, and then that one God awful Batman and Robin thing that Miller is writing.

Well I don't think anyone will argue that Miller isn't Batshit loco. Or should I say, the GODDAMN Batshit loco.

jp wrote: As for Brand New Day, I actually avoided Amazing Spider-Man thanks to folks like you. EVERYONE was dissing on Brand New Day and One More Day and oh my God they retconned blah blah.

For me it was less of the retcon itself and more the why and the how of it. You know the reason they made it Mephisto doing this whole mess? Because, and I quote from Joe Quesada himself "It's Magic, and we don't have to explain it." That's it. Why is Spider-Man on the New Avengers if he didn't unmask then have a change of heart? Did he still go through that black outfit stage? Magic, magic magic. Plus the whole concept of Mephisto wanting Peter and MJ's "love" was re-goddamn-diculous. All because it wouldn't be good for the kids to see Spider-Man get a divorce. No, it would be much better to have him make a deal with a demon. I don't mind a pathetic and lonely Peter Parker, but to do it like that was terrible.

Skykid · Post by **Skykid** » Wed Aug 27, 2008 7:50 pm

Did anyone read Batman: Under the Hood?

I really enjoyed the writing in that, if the final moments were a little confusing to say the least. As with any mini-series put into novel format, it's jarring when the artist changed too - but most weren't too bad.

jp · Post by jp » Wed Aug 27, 2008 9:34 pm

I agree with ya Tempest! The way they did One More Day was kind of... out there. Like I said, it needed to be done, but I don't think they did it the best way they could.

And yeah, I'm not too familiar with Bendis. I know most people hate him. But as a newcomer, I'm enjoying Secret Invasion alright. I just can't wait for it to be over so my subs aren't $35 a week.

Frederik · Post by **Frederik** » Mon Sep 01, 2008 10:56 pm

Finally got to see it, and I really enjoyed it.

And there were plenty of priceless moments - that pencil "magic trick" at the beginning made the whole audience go "Uuuuuuh!".

Skykid · Post by **Skykid** » Mon Sep 01, 2008 11:21 pm

FrederikJurk wrote:Finally got to see it, and I really enjoyed it.

And there were plenty of priceless moments - that pencil "magic trick" at the beginning made the whole audience go "Uuuuuuh!".

That's the best bit.

Herr Schatten · Post by **Herr Schatten** » Tue Sep 02, 2008 7:53 am

I saw it last weekend and thought it was great.

I only wish it had ended some minutes earlier. The Joker escaping from custody would have been a sufficient ending, IMO. The whole Two-Face story felt rather tacked-on and rushed. I'd rather have seen another movie with him as the villain. It's a missed opportunity to show more of this interesting character. Not quite as much of a waste as the similarly tacked-on Venom bit in Spiderman 3, but it's on the way there.

Otherwise there's little to complain. The story was good, the dialogue was good and the acting ranged from competent (Eckhart, Bale) to fantastic (Ledger).

I hope the movie marks a renaissance of intelligent action flicks. After I endured, out of pure boredom, the status quo of contemporary action cinema in the form of The Mummy 3, which was pretty much a festival of dumbness, mindnumbingly bad writing, similarly bad acting, and expensive yet cheap looking CGI, watching The Dark Knight felt like drinking chamomile tea after having suffered from a bad abdominal influenza.

Ceph · Post by **Ceph** » Fri Jan 16, 2009 10:30 pm

Just saw The Dark Knight, and first and foremost, it's overrated (9.0 on imdb at the time of this writing, 5th highest rated movie of all time, lol).

Admittedly, it's pretty good for a comic book action flick, but it certainly is neither flawless nor groundbreaking in any way. It's a standard fare modern day action movie that is not as stupid as most of what Hollywood regurgitates. But it's overly long, some of the subplots are redundant (Hong Kong), and there are several things that simply don't make sense, for instance the deus ex machina cell-phone sonar (which was completely unnecessary and was only included because it looked cool), the way the city and the police reacted to the Joker's terror, the way the people on those ferries behaved, and the ending. Ok, Batman wants Harvey to remain a hero in the public image, but exactly why does he, Batman have to be the one to take the fall?
I wonder if I was I the only one who noticed that this version of the Joker was quite shallow. Who was that guy? What was his raison d'être? How did he manage to do all he did? And by the way, why didn't the police make the Joker wash his face after arresting him?! Jack Nicholson, now that was an awesome Joker. Oh, and that Two-Face CGI-makeup looked awful. And what's with Bale's Batman-voice?

Again, The Dark Knight is not a bad movie, especially considering how totally braindead most action movies are, and I enjoyed it more than Batman Begins- but it's not one of the best movies ever made. Not even close.

Minzoku · Post by **Minzoku** » Sat Jan 17, 2009 12:45 am

http://pics.livejournal.com/jen_aside/pic/000zd7cs

KindGrind · Post by **KindGrind** » Sat Jan 17, 2009 1:03 am

Ceph wrote: I wonder if I was I the only one who noticed that this version of the Joker was quite shallow. Who was that guy? What was his raison d'être? How did he manage to do all he did?

Backstory on the Joker would be unnecessary. I feel less is more here. The fact that he tells different stories for the scars kinda reinforces the obscure past. I thought Nicholson wasn't a very good joker. He was too cheerful and slick for my tastes. The scene with the parade with him dancing has got to be one of the weakest scenes of the movie. Rather grotesque. Never in the movie is he seen as brutal. On several occasions, on the other hand, we feel Ledger's Joker is off the hook, and fights like a dog.

Otherwise, you hit the nail on the head with your post. Batman's voice, mostly upon second viewing, annoyed the hell out of me. This is certainly not one of the top 5 movies of all time, and doesn't belong in my top 100. Still a very entertaining watch, though.

Edit: Typo.

Post by **BulletMagnet** » Sat Jan 17, 2009 1:30 am

Minzoku wrote:http://pics.livejournal.com/jen_aside/pic/000zd7cs

Currently stealing.

RGC · Post by **RGC** » Sat Jan 17, 2009 2:13 am

Lordstar · Post by **Lordstar** » Sat Jan 17, 2009 2:28 am

KindGrind i agree about the bats voice. I had no idea he smoked so heavily.

CMoon · Post by **CMoon** » Sat Jan 17, 2009 2:57 am

Ceph wrote: It's a standard fare modern day action movie

I disagree with this. Which doesn't mean I disagree with your whole post, but Dark Knight is not 'standard' anything...if nothing else, it is closer to the French Connection than any modern films. Dig a little deeper in your cinematic experience and you'll find this film is stretching back, veering away from modern hollywood.

Again, The Dark Knight is not a bad movie, especially considering how totally braindead most action movies are, and I enjoyed it more than Batman Begins- but it's not one of the best movies ever made. Not even close.

And here I DO agree with you. I really like DK and I'd like to catch it again upon its reissue, but whenever you label anything as the top 5 or top 10 or even top 100, you face great difficulty. For myself, that means I want to see cinematic innovation, incredible acting, a great plot and an excellent soundtrack. MOST film don't offer all of those things, and you talk about the rather obvious legendary films, you get labeled as a film snob. Of course, those films are legends BECAUSE they did all those things. Expecting it from any film isn't out of line, and making the claim (as you do) that DK isn't a top 5 (or whatever) film is dead on. I just think it is something more than a standard modern action film--there is (I think) an undercurrent you missed.

Udderdude · Post by **Udderdude** » Sat Jan 17, 2009 3:16 am

I guess my extreme reaction earlier in this thread really was a backlash at the OMG BEST MOVIE EVAR brigade. It really isn't bad for a popcorn flick, but the fact that it keeps trying to present itself seriously, yet keeps making ridiculous situations and unnessecary drama, just hurts it overall. Everyone seems to have a posthumous erection for Heath Ledger as well. I still think history will not be kind to this movie, it will be remembered as one of the most overrated action flicks ever made.

Ceph · Post by **Ceph** » Sat Jan 17, 2009 9:14 am

Isn't serious comic book super hero movie a contradiction in terms?

A movie that takes itself seriously makes me look at it in a serious way, forcing me to notice nonsensical elements I might otherwise have ignored. Perhaps not something a super hero movie could ultimately want.

To put it bluntly, this is a movie about a grown man in a bat costume. At least Keaton's performance reflected that the whole thing is (a little) nuts. That's why I didn't need the orign story from Batman Begins either: In order to successfully suspend your disbelief, this may be something you should better not examine too closely. And there simply is no sensible explanation about where Batman's toys come from and why Superman can fly.

EDIT: Errors

Skykid · Post by **Skykid** » Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:24 am

Ceph wrote:Isn't serious comic book super hero movie a contradiction in terms?

A movie that takes itself serious makes me look at it in a serious way, forcing me to notice nonsensical elements I might otherwise have ignored. Perhaps not something a super hero movie could ultimately want.

To to put it bluntly, this is a movie about a grown man in a bat costume. At least Keaton's performance reflected that the whole thing is (a little) nuts. That's why I didn't need the orign story from Batman Begins either: In order to successfully suspend your disbelief, this may be something you should better not examine too closely. And there simply is no sensible explanation about where Batman's toys come from and why Superman can fly.

Christ, we're in total agreement!

GaijinPunch · Post by **GaijinPunch** » Sat Jan 17, 2009 1:52 pm

You both need to smoke a LOT more weed before you go to the movies. Movies are in every case in the action genre, extensions of reality. If it was stuff that could happen in real life, nobody would go watch it.

evil_ash_xero · Post by **evil_ash_xero** » Sat Jan 17, 2009 2:52 pm

I completely disagree that a superhero movie can't be more dramatic and serious.

Superhero comics like Watchmen, The Long Halloween, Batman: Year One, Daredevil: Born Again, and Miracleman are serious as a heart attack, and take themselves quite seriously. Why can't films?

I don't think every film needs to be as serious as TDK, but I am really quite tired of the "wink wink, yeah, this IS silly isn't it?" attitude that used to be so prevalent in older superhero films.

A lot of people nowadays are able to take these films as seriously as the fans have for years, and I think it's great.

s/m

Ceph · Post by **Ceph** » Sat Jan 17, 2009 3:05 pm

I didn't say such a movie can't be serious, I just said that if it wants to be taken seriously, then it should better be void of silliness ("ridiculous situations and unnessecary drama", as Udderdude called it). You can either be serious or silly, not both at once. I can immerse myself in a movie like Dark Knight, but when the silliness gets too strong, my suspension of disbelief is supsended (eg. when Batman uses 30 Million sonar cell phones, or when Two-Face rolls his CGI-eye).

Lordstar · Post by **Lordstar** » Sat Jan 17, 2009 3:27 pm

Superhero comics like Watchmen, The Long Halloween, Batman: Year One, Daredevil: Born Again, and Miracleman are serious as a heart attack, and take themselves quite seriously. Why can't films?

the writers, Comics have such a lush back catalog to go back on for ideas and inspiration.

evil_ash_xero · Post by **evil_ash_xero** » Sat Jan 17, 2009 5:18 pm

Ceph wrote:I didn't say such a movie can't be serious, I just said that if it wants to be taken seriously, then it should better be void of silliness ("ridiculous situations and unnessecary drama", as Udderdude called it). You can either be serious or silly, not both at once. I can immerse myself in a movie like Dark Knight, but when the silliness gets too strong, my suspension of disbelief is supsended (eg. when Batman uses 30 Million sonar cell phones, or when Two-Face rolls his CGI-eye).

Well, that's where I differ. I like seeing Two Face and a man in a bat suit presented as intense drama. I know, that sounds funny. Anyway, I just see it in the comics, and I like seeing it on the screen.

Ed Oscuro · Post by **Ed Oscuro** » Sun Jan 18, 2009 12:40 am

RGC wrote:Sure, the dude remembered to lick his lips every thirty seconds, but that doesn't make him Lawrence Olivier.

I can't imagine Olivier playing this role any better - although I don't know much about his work.

Udderdude · Post by **Udderdude** » Sun Jan 18, 2009 4:53 am

evil_ash_xero wrote:I completely disagree that a superhero movie can't be more dramatic and serious.

Superhero comics like Watchmen, The Long Halloween, Batman: Year One, Daredevil: Born Again, and Miracleman are serious as a heart attack, and take themselves quite seriously. Why can't films?

I don't think every film needs to be as serious as TDK, but I am really quite tired of the "wink wink, yeah, this IS silly isn't it?" attitude that used to be so prevalent in older superhero films.

A lot of people nowadays are able to take these films as seriously as the fans have for years, and I think it's great.

s/m

If they want to be taken seriously, then the silly nonsensical crap has to go. They can't say "OMG THIS IS SUCH A SERIOUS THRILLING EPIC CRIME MOVIE" and then turn around yelling "WHAT DID YOU EXPECT IT'S BASED ON A COMIC BOOK" when someone points out it's ridiculous. They can't have it both ways.

evil_ash_xero · Post by **evil_ash_xero** » Sun Jan 18, 2009 11:12 am

Udderdude wrote:
evil_ash_xero wrote:I completely disagree that a superhero movie can't be more dramatic and serious.

Superhero comics like Watchmen, The Long Halloween, Batman: Year One, Daredevil: Born Again, and Miracleman are serious as a heart attack, and take themselves quite seriously. Why can't films?

I don't think every film needs to be as serious as TDK, but I am really quite tired of the "wink wink, yeah, this IS silly isn't it?" attitude that used to be so prevalent in older superhero films.

A lot of people nowadays are able to take these films as seriously as the fans have for years, and I think it's great.

s/m

If they want to be taken seriously, then the silly nonsensical crap has to go. They can't say "OMG THIS IS SUCH A SERIOUS THRILLING EPIC CRIME MOVIE" and then turn around yelling "WHAT DID YOU EXPECT IT'S BASED ON A COMIC BOOK" when someone points out it's ridiculous. They can't have it both ways.

Well, honestly, I didn't really think any of TDK was overly ridiculous. I guess it matters what you mean by "ridiculous".

The notion of superheros is always going to be somewhat "ridiculous", so either you always point out that it's unrealistic and somewhat silly, or you just by it and tell you story as seriously as you want, and hope the audience buys it. With TDK, I see a FEW people, such as a couple on these message boards who can't get past the serious drama in a Batman movie, but overall, the world's critics and fans have just eaten this movie up in a way that surprises me quite a bit.

So, I guess they don't need to adjust anything really, as to see it's been critically successful, and financially huge.

I guess the world at large is ready for the serious comic book film, despite some folks thinking that is just a ridiculous concept. Well, we have taken sci-fi and fantasy quite seriously for a while now, why not superheroes?

I mean, Battlestar Galactica is one of the darkest shows on television. Should they lighten it up because the concept of robots overthrowing their masters is "silly"?

s/m

RGC · Post by **RGC** » Sun Jan 18, 2009 11:44 am