Go  |
New |
Find |
Notify |
|
Reply |
|
Admin |
New PM! |
"Forum Moderator"
Super Bad-Ass Jedi
|
quote: Originally posted by tabuno:
the director decided to avoid would have been the various psychological states that Rachael likely went through...all missing.
What are you talking about? I don't remember the exact time on the detonation device, but it wasn't that long of a period of time (I'm thinking minutes), between when they woke up in the warehouse and when the bomb went off. Realistically, how many psychological states do you think she had time to go through? I thought that was a great scene, because it kept cutting between Rachel, Dent, Batman, Gordon, and the Joker and made for a tense, climatic sequence. Dragging it out would've added nothing to it.
-----
Use all your well-learned politesse or I'll lay your soul to waste.
|
| |
| Posts: 5630 | Location: Michigan | Registered: 19 June 2005 | |
|
Jedi
|
quote: Monkey_Boy Jedi
Posted 25 July 2008 06:59 AM
One thing I've noticed about ya, Tabuno: Ya know what ya hates!
I can see what ya mean by wanting to spend more time with the charcters, but the flick was long enough without hammering in the points that you keep bringing up. It had quite a large brain for a big summer blockbuster already. Start trying to "smarten it up" even more and you're going to lose the target audience. It is supposed to be more action than drama, ya know? I believe they got their points across just fine without compromising what the movie was supposed to be. I mean, I thought we had plenty of time between Rachel and Harvey in the warehouse. Any longer, and it woulda turned into Trinity's death scene in "The Matrix: Revolutions". Nobody wants to sit and watch a coupla talking heads in an action movie when something exciting is just moments away. At least I don't. Besides if Rachel and Harvey got to say everything they wanted to each other, I don't think her death woulda had as much of an impact. Taking us through it quickly made it a bit more confusing and tense when you suddenly see Batman come through the door and it's Dent instead of Rachel. I just don't think lingering on the scene any longer woulda been a good thing. In another movie, it might could work, but not in this one.
It must be something about how my brain works, but just the first half of the movie I was overwhelmed by the action, too much, one after another, bang, bang, bang...Even an action movie like The Bourne Identity (2002) had good pacing. You have a good solid point about losing the target audience, it's a difficult balance. Yet I still believe that there was too many scenes, too ambitious a project that the movie could been edited taking out a number of secondary and unncessary scenes and expanded the quality of more quiet suspense. You don't always have to have a lot of action going on to make a movie thrilling, tension-filled, sometimes quite the opposite...it is the long-prolonged agony of anticipation that can rip the terror out of your soul. Alien (1979) had some great scenes interspersed by action, the hunt of the alien in the quiet of the cargo ship Nostromo. |
| |
| Posts: 1042 | Location: Utah, United States | Registered: 22 July 2005 | |
|
"Forum Moderator"
Super Bad-Ass Jedi
|
quote: Originally posted by tabuno:
It must be something about how my brain works, but just the first half of the movie I was overwhelmed by the action, too much, one after another, bang, bang, bang...
Still puzzled. This film was much less gratuitous with the action scenes than any other superhero film in recent memory, and it seemed like all of the big action scenes came in the second half. It spent way more time with quality dialogue, which set it apart from just about everything else in the genre. I ask again, are you positive you actually saw this movie? You're not just reviewing the trailer, right?
-----
Use all your well-learned politesse or I'll lay your soul to waste.
|
| |
| Posts: 5630 | Location: Michigan | Registered: 19 June 2005 | |
|
Know-It-All
|
quote: I ask again, are you positive you actually saw this movie?
I'm positive I want to see it again. 
I'm gonna walk away and start over again.
|
| |
| Posts: 346 | Location: Tucson | Registered: 10 December 2007 | |
|
"Forum Moderator"
Super Bad-Ass Jedi
|
quote: Originally posted by jsmusicbox:
Oscar worthy performances.
When I first heard that, I thought it was a lot of hype due to Ledger's death, but his performance is very good. I think there's a lot of temptation with actors to get really over-the-top and hammy when acting in a big summer blockbuster, but Ledger really plays the role exactly right. It's exactly the right mix of creepy, evil, crazy, and humor, and it's consistent throughout. Even more than his much lauded performance in Brokeback Mountain, his Joker really convinced me we lost a top notch actor. Plus if Johnny Depp can get a nomination for doing a Keith Richards impersonation for two hours in Pirates of the Carribean (a far worse film), Ledger should get a nod here.
-----
Use all your well-learned politesse or I'll lay your soul to waste.
|
| |
| Posts: 5630 | Location: Michigan | Registered: 19 June 2005 | |
|
Jedi
|
quote: Monkey_Boy Jedi
Posted 25 July 2008 06:59 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Tabuno:
As regards to your comment, personally I feel that Batman in this movie has crossed the line and become part evil in order to combat evil.
That's actually what I like about Batman. He MUST cross the line because he's dealing with an escalating evil and he's just a regular guy. He's not Superman or Captain America. He's not from another planet with a whole line of super-abilities, nor has he been "upgraded" in any way physically. He has to fight dirty to get the job done, but he won't kill. You should at the very least find that admirable.
Why didn't you have these same feeling with Burton's "Batman"? That Batman killed without remourse and his Bruce was a very cold individual. He actually crossed the line in his very first movie (and continued to cross it in the second by killing The Penguin)! That's what I couldn't stand about Burton's Batman. He had no respect for life. Nolan's does and his Bruce is still Batman when the cape & cowl are off. You understand what this Batman is trying to do (bring Gotham to the level his father saw it at), while with Burton's, it's just revenge for what happened to his parents. We don't really know anymore about it than that.
I think you do have a strong point, at least until I get around to seeing those older Batman movies again. But the one thing I seem to recollect is the differences in the portrayal, tone of Burton's version. It was more stylistic and exaggerated so that while it was nasty and mean, it still retained a sense of the fantastic comic-book feel so that there was necessarily some distance between the audience and the characters - this wasn't a depiction of reality...this was a imaginary story. Christopher Nolan on the other hand offers us a Batman that seems much closer to reality and closes the gap between the audience and the characters on the screen...making the evil much more personified and immediate. Mr. Nolan's Batman could actually be a real person out there, not just some imaginary comic-book character. Batman's evil becomes evil incarnate not just some imaginary character on the screen that we can so easily dismiss. It's as if the evil of the Joker also came off the screen with terrible consequences. |
| |
| Posts: 1042 | Location: Utah, United States | Registered: 22 July 2005 | |
|
Jedi
|
quote: EricG75 "Forum Moderator"
Super Bad-Ass Jedi
Posted 25 July 2008 10:31 AM
quote:
Originally posted by tabuno:
It must be something about how my brain works, but just the first half of the movie I was overwhelmed by the action, too much, one after another, bang, bang, bang...
Still puzzled. This film was much less gratuitous with the action scenes than any other superhero film in recent memory, and it seemed like all of the big action scenes came in the second half. It spent way more time with quality dialogue, which set it apart from just about everything else in the genre. I ask again, are you positive you actually saw this movie? You're not just reviewing the trailer, right?
Between you and odysseyandoracle, it seems that I have been watching another movie. I can't argue something I felt...but I will just have to see the movie again and make a mental note of the action sequences now that I know what it is I'm looking for specifically. |
| |
| Posts: 1042 | Location: Utah, United States | Registered: 22 July 2005 | |
|
Jedi
|
quote: Originally posted by Tabuno:
Batman's evil becomes evil incarnate not just some imaginary character on the screen that we can so easily dismiss.
I just came from seeing it a third time... and I have no idea where this "Evil Batman" is in the movie. At what moment did he "cross the line"?  Do you mean when he "let" 5 people die? Because he didn't let them die, The Joker killed 'em. What good would it have really done if he came forward? We know The Joker wasn't really planning on stopping. Was it when he beat the SWAT team senseless? He was actually PROTECTING the hostages! Could it have been when he knocked The Joker around in the police interrogation room? He never appeared to lose control of his emotions. Sure. He knocked him around pretty good, but at no time did I suspect that Batman was about to kill him. Could it be because his legend is now darker? I just don't see it. As for your take on Harvey Dent, this third time around, I didn't see him making a drastic change that didn't fit his character. He loved Rachel. He was angry with everyone involved with her death. The man was apparently driven by revenge. He only went after those he blamed. No one else. This wasn't insanity (well, it was, but I'm sure you know what I'm gettin' at  ). This was personal. I don't think the coin really mattered at all. It was more a scare tactic. Sumpthin' to make his prey sweat. He let The Joker live more because he KNEW it was the mobsters who "took him off the leash", not because the coin told him to. He coulda found another reason to flip that coin and I'm sure The Joker woulda let him. Like I said before, it wasn't The Joker's words that made any difference in his mind. With the female officer, I'm thinkin' he went on ahead and killed her after hitting her with his gun since Gordon says he killed 2 cops. (If the second cop wasn't her, then they must blame him for the cop The Joker killed in his hospital room.) He knew what he was gonna do the moment he woke up and realized Rachel was dead. This is kinda obvious (to me) when he's talking to Gordon (before The Joker shows up). That conversation didn't go too well.At least that's how I saw it this time. Maybe you should give it another go, Tab-man.  By the way, did anyone else get a Batman cup when they went? I was lucky enough that the theater didn't get their cups in time for the midnight showing and now have THOUSANDS left! I got one when I went opening day and I just bought one for my nephew. (I'd like to send a TYPE OUT to my boy, Marcus James!) "I can't live the buttoned down life like all of you! I want it all: the terrifying lows, the dizzying highs, the creamy middles! Sure, I might offend a few of the blue-noses with my cocky stride and musky odor - oh, I'll never be the darling of the so-called 'City Fathers' who cluck their tongues, stroke their beards, and talk about what's to be done with this Monkey_Boy?!" |
| |
| Posts: 2606 | Location: Springfield, Oh! Hi ya, Maude! | Registered: 01 January 2007 | |
|
Jedi
|
quote: Monkey_Boy
Jedi
Posted 26 July 2008 12:47 PM Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Tabuno:
Batman's evil becomes evil incarnate not just some imaginary character on the screen that we can so easily dismiss.
I just came from seeing it a third time... and I have no idea where this "Evil Batman" is in the movie. At what moment did he "cross the line"? Do you mean when he "let" 5 people die? Because he didn't let them die, The Joker killed 'em. What good would it have really done if he came forward? We know The Joker wasn't really planning on stopping. Was it when he beat the SWAT team senseless? He was actually PROTECTING the hostages! Could it have been when he knocked The Joker around in the police interrogation room? He never appeared to lose control of his emotions. Sure. He knocked him around pretty good, but at no time did I suspect that Batman was about to kill him. Could it be because his legend is now darker? I just don't see it.
As for your take on Harvey Dent, this third time around, I didn't see him making a drastic change that didn't fit his character. He loved Rachel. He was angry with everyone involved with her death. The man was apparently driven by revenge. He only went after those he blamed. No one else. This wasn't insanity (well, it was, but I'm sure you know what I'm gettin' at ). This was personal. I don't think the coin really mattered at all. It was more a scare tactic. Sumpthin' to make his prey sweat. He let The Joker live more because he KNEW it was the mobsters who "took him off the leash", not because the coin told him to. He coulda found another reason to flip that coin and I'm sure The Joker woulda let him. Like I said before, it wasn't The Joker's words that made any difference in his mind. With the female officer, I'm thinkin' he went on ahead and killed her after hitting her with his gun since Gordon says he killed 2 cops. (If the second cop wasn't her, then they must blame him for the cop The Joker killed in his hospital room.) He knew what he was gonna do the moment he woke up and realized Rachel was dead. This is kinda obvious (to me) when he's talking to Gordon (before The Joker shows up). That conversation didn't go too well.
quote: At least that's how I saw it this time. Maybe you should give it another go, Tab-man.
Monkey_Boy you are probably the only one to convince me since I've been posting to consider a second go around on any movie I've discussed. Ok. Maybe the second person. Now I have something to actually ponder if I do. Thanks! I'm still not completely persuaded, but I can't in good faith really continue defending Batman as evil argument anymore. Fascinating, maybe your hopeful outlook is contagious. I may have to start calling you Jesus or something. |
| |
| Posts: 1042 | Location: Utah, United States | Registered: 22 July 2005 | |
|
Upwardly Mobile Participant
|
quote: I think you do have a strong point, at least until I get around to seeing those older Batman movies again. But the one thing I seem to recollect is the differences in the portrayal, tone of Burton's version. It was more stylistic and exaggerated so that while it was nasty and mean, it still retained a sense of the fantastic comic-book feel so that there was necessarily some distance between the audience and the characters - this wasn't a depiction of reality...this was a imaginary story. Christopher Nolan on the other hand offers us a Batman that seems much closer to reality and closes the gap between the audience and the characters on the screen...making the evil much more personified and immediate. Mr. Nolan's Batman could actually be a real person out there, not just some imaginary comic-book character. Batman's evil becomes evil incarnate not just some imaginary character on the screen that we can so easily dismiss. It's as if the evil of the Joker also came off the screen with terrible consequences.
It seems to not be the case for you but for me the way you described The Dark Knight is exactly what I look for in a movie. I actually find it harder to care about a movie that seems detached and unrealistic. I think most directors actually aim to "close the gap between the audience and the characters on the screen...making the evil much more personified and immediate" in any movie with a villain. This makes it easier for me to understand your problems with the movie, so even though you didn't like it that much at least you are taking the right approach. |
| |
| Posts: 54 | Location: Austin | Registered: 25 November 2007 | |
|
Jedi
|
quote: IndieFolkExperimentalLover Enthusiast
Posted 26 July 2008 09:52 PM
You guys are complicating this movie beyond belief!
A movie that has exploded this big on the stellar screen has a lot to be said about it. There are big-block buster mindless movies and then are fan-based movies that have at their core a long history and almost a legacy of details about as rich as real people's lives. Batman is probably no exception. The science and art of movie-making is indeed very involved and what may seem straight-forward and completely free of excessive technical complexity represents thousands of artistic decisions. It's one of those what looks easy, is definitely not easy. Just like figure skating, it may look easy, but a lot of practice, science, and theory is involved in taking complicated physics, art, music, and performance into a seamlessly, effortless experience. |
| |
| Posts: 1042 | Location: Utah, United States | Registered: 22 July 2005 | |
|
Jedi
|
quote: Midnight Participant
Posted 26 July 2008 06:11 PM
quote:
I think you do have a strong point, at least until I get around to seeing those older Batman movies again. But the one thing I seem to recollect is the differences in the portrayal, tone of Burton's version. It was more stylistic and exaggerated so that while it was nasty and mean, it still retained a sense of the fantastic comic-book feel so that there was necessarily some distance between the audience and the characters - this wasn't a depiction of reality...this was a imaginary story. Christopher Nolan on the other hand offers us a Batman that seems much closer to reality and closes the gap between the audience and the characters on the screen...making the evil much more personified and immediate. Mr. Nolan's Batman could actually be a real person out there, not just some imaginary comic-book character. Batman's evil becomes evil incarnate not just some imaginary character on the screen that we can so easily dismiss. It's as if the evil of the Joker also came off the screen with terrible consequences.
It seems to not be the case for you but for me the way you described The Dark Knight is exactly what I look for in a movie. I actually find it harder to care about a movie that seems detached and unrealistic. I think most directors actually aim to "close the gap between the audience and the characters on the screen...making the evil much more personified and immediate" in any movie with a villain.
This makes it easier for me to understand your problems with the movie, so even though you didn't like it that much at least you are taking the right approach.
Your point is well-taken and usually that is what I am looking for in a movie. In the case of The Dark Knight while the movement towards realism away from just the graphic comic version also requires a certain favorable identification with the lead character as in real life...Perhaps, like a subjective experience of meeting a real person in real life, for some reason there is some level of attraction or repulsion. In this case Christian Bale's character is not somebody that I'd care to have as my friend. The Joker on the otherhand, as a social worker, is a much more intriguing character that I've had glimpses of in several of my clients. |
| |
| Posts: 1042 | Location: Utah, United States | Registered: 22 July 2005 | |
|
Jedi
|
quote: Originally posted by Tabuno:
Monkey_Boy you are probably the only one to convince me since I've been posting to consider a second go around on any movie I've discussed.
Good gravy! Really?!  quote: Ok. Maybe the second person.
Oh. Well, second's not so bad either! quote: I'm still not completely persuaded, but I can't in good faith really continue defending Batman as evil argument anymore. Fascinating, maybe your hopeful outlook is contagious. I may have to start calling you Jesus or something.
Well, my aim in life is to be Christ-like. I hope you can see it a little differently and enjoy it a tad more the next time. I'm glad I could persuade you into thinking about giving it another try. quote: Originally posted by IndieFolkExperimentalLover:
You guys are complicating this movie beyond belief!
That's the BEST PART of watchin' these kinda movies, you can come to a different conclusion each time! It's not really making the movie more complicated, it's adding more depth with each viewing. I'm not watching the "same movie" everytime I watch the same movie. Ya know? "I can't live the buttoned down life like all of you! I want it all: the terrifying lows, the dizzying highs, the creamy middles! Sure, I might offend a few of the blue-noses with my cocky stride and musky odor - oh, I'll never be the darling of the so-called 'City Fathers' who cluck their tongues, stroke their beards, and talk about what's to be done with this Monkey_Boy?!" |
| |
| Posts: 2606 | Location: Springfield, Oh! Hi ya, Maude! | Registered: 01 January 2007 | |
|
Jedi
|
quote: Monkey_Boy Jedi
Posted 27 July 2008 07:58 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Tabuno:
Monkey_Boy you are probably the only one to convince me since I've been posting to consider a second go around on any movie I've discussed.
Good gravy! Really?!
quote:
Ok. Maybe the second person.
Oh. Well, second's not so bad either!
quote:
I'm still not completely persuaded, but I can't in good faith really continue defending Batman as evil argument anymore. Fascinating, maybe your hopeful outlook is contagious. I may have to start calling you Jesus or something.
Well, my aim in life is to be Christ-like. I hope you can see it a little differently and enjoy it a tad more the next time. I'm glad I could persuade you into thinking about giving it another try.
You really pose a big challenge for me. If I go and see this movie AGAIN, I'm going to have memorize your good comments that I've printed out and numbered each topic that you raised before I go. Talk about a lot of homework and preparation. It almost, but not quite, takes the fun out of going to movies. |
| |
| Posts: 1042 | Location: Utah, United States | Registered: 22 July 2005 | |
|
Jedi
|
quote: EricG75 "Forum Moderator"
Super Bad-Ass Jedi
Posted 25 July 2008 10:31 AM
quote:
Originally posted by tabuno:
It must be something about how my brain works, but just the first half of the movie I was overwhelmed by the action, too much, one after another, bang, bang, bang...
Still puzzled. This film was much less gratuitous with the action scenes than any other superhero film in recent memory, and it seemed like all of the big action scenes came in the second half. It spent way more time with quality dialogue, which set it apart from just about everything else in the genre. I ask again, are you positive you actually saw this movie? You're not just reviewing the trailer, right?
Additionally, while pondering and reviewing this movie for a second time for the good/evil Batman/Bruce Wayne, I also might as well keep track of all or little of the action sequences that supposedly really almost fried my brain in the first half of the movie, much less the second half. Now I feel like I in cinema school having to go see movies and write up a paper.  |
| |
| Posts: 1042 | Location: Utah, United States | Registered: 22 July 2005 | |
|
|
Why do they do that these days?