The Dark Knight

All movies are flawed, TDK rocked! End of story.

I have some casting ideas for Batman 3 (which WILL be made)

The Joker - Edward Norton

The Penguin - Philip Seymour Hoffman

thoughts?
 
Brandon Rice said:
All movies are flawed, TDK rocked! End of story.

I have some casting ideas for Batman 3 (which WILL be made)

The Joker - Edward Norton

The Penguin - Philip Seymour Hoffman

thoughts?
Click to expand...
The Penguin/Philip Seymour Hoffman thing is being rumored on the Internet. I was never a fan of that villain myself, but if anyone could pull it off it would probably be him.
 
Michael Anthony Horrigan said:
The Penguin/Philip Seymour Hoffman thing is being rumored on the Internet. I was never a fan of that villain myself, but if anyone could pull it off it would probably be him.
Click to expand...

Penguin was the original idea for a villain for Batman Begins. Bob Hoskins was supposed to play him, but Nolan vetoed the Penguin for a villain because he didn't think he was "realistic"
 
Brandon Rice said:
All movies are flawed, TDK rocked! End of story.
Click to expand...

I think a better argument is that the flaws don't matter. Nolan tapped into a fundamental story archetype and made it really resonate for today's times. The same way Lucas did with the first Star Wars film in 77. Star Wars has stilted dialogue, cardboard characters and some weak acting, but those flaws don't matter to the big picture. I would say the same about Titanic, and although I don't care for that film as much, I can concede that the film works on some level.
 
Batutta said:
I think a better argument is that the flaws don't matter. Nolan tapped into a fundamental story archetype and made it really resonate for today's times. The same way Lucas did with the first Star Wars film in 77. Star Wars has stilted dialogue, cardboard characters and some weak acting, but those flaws don't matter to the big picture. I would say the same about Titanic, and although I don't care for that film as much, I can concede that the film works on some level.
Click to expand...
Good analogy. I agree completely. :)
 
David Jimerson said:
I think mileage varies widely on that one.
Click to expand...

Well, all art is subjective at the end of the day, but the flaws in The Dark Knight don't detract from my enjoyment of the movie at all. The film was successful at the story it was telling and the themes it was encapsulating. And I was emotionally involved. When a film doesn't involve me on some emotional or intellectual level, then flaws bother me, and it's usually not involving me because it has some pretty BIG flaws to start with. This film is such a meaty steak, it completely satisfies me, even if it's a little charred around the edges.
 
Capt Quirk said:
I believe that is a direct quote from some B Grade movie Director.
Click to expand...

We all strive for perfection, and I'm sure Nolan was aiming for it. But the collaborative process of filmmaking makes that nearly impossible so imperfections creep in. I was just stating that the flaws that I saw don't amount to much. Somebody referenced No Country for Old Men and how brilliant it was, and while I like that film a lot, the ending of that film bothered me much more than any minor flaw to be found in The Dark Kight.
 
Batutta said:
We all strive for perfection, and I'm sure Nolan was aiming for it. But the collaborative process of filmmaking makes that nearly impossible so imperfections creep in. I was just stating that the flaws that I saw don't amount to much. Somebody referenced No Country for Old Men and how brilliant it was, and while I like that film a lot, the ending of that film bothered me much more than any minor flaw to be found in The Dark Kight.
Click to expand...

But you can hardly call that a flaw. You may not have agreed with the choice they made, but it wasn't the result of a plot hole or the kinds of things people are calling flaws in the batman film.
 
Brandon Rice said:
And I didn't like NCFOM at all.
Click to expand...

Quit backing me up Brandon. You're not doing me any favors!...I'm just so vociferous in defending this film because there is so much that is good about it, that to dwell on what's not so good is like kicking a great woman out of bed because she has a hangnail.
 
Saw TDK and please do not compare this to NCFOM. That film was the work of true film masters. It had structure, and if you missed it watch it again.

I am not saying TDK was trash. But it was far from being a piece of mastery. Just because the movie is banking does not make it the work of a auteur.

- Has a chance to shoot IMAX, then half of the images in IMAX are out of focus, I know it may have been difficult but come on.

- The dialog was just awkward.

The structure of the film was very poor, resembled Spiderman 3 to me.
 
Ematic said:
Saw TDK and please do not compare this to NCFOM. That film was the work of true film masters. It had structure, and if you missed it watch it again.
Click to expand...

And see I completely disagree... NCFOM was boring, tiresome... I was falling asleep, and structure? Come on... come on. BLAH.

BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH.

The one thing I judge all films by is emotion... what did I feel after watching the film...

NCFOM = "What? I don't get it. That's it?"

TDK = "Whoa... Batman took the blame, because that's what a true hero would do, even though now he's looked on as a villan... Whoa...."
 
Mark Harris said:
But you can hardly call that a flaw. You may not have agreed with the choice they made, but it wasn't the result of a plot hole or the kinds of things people are calling flaws in the batman film.
Click to expand...

My problem with the No Country ending wasn't so much the way it ended, but where. More of a technical thing. I would have preferred they just ended it on the crane shot of Bardem walking away. But you can make the same argument for the flaws in TDK, that they were choices you don't agree with.
 
Batutta said:
My problem with the No Country ending wasn't so much the way it ended, but where. More of a technical thing. I would have preferred they just ended it on the crane shot of Bardem walking away. But you can make the same argument for the flaws in TDK, that they were choices you don't agree with.
Click to expand...


Sure, you could say that, but I don't think it's true. I think the flaws in TDK are all the result of not thinking everything through. The ending in NCFOM might have not worked for all viewers, but there is no doubt in my mind that every single frame of that film was obsessed over and justified ad nauseum in the filmmakers' heads. Like all of their films, I think they know exactly what they want to do, and do it with just about perfect execution.

Again, my problem with the flaws in TDK was that there were too many times when they took me out of the film to think: "Well, why not just do X?" or "He did WHA???? with the cell phones?"

Not saying people shouldn't like TDK, but I think the flaws are pretty apparent and fundamental, and made much of the movie look sloppily executed to me.

But then again, I can't get past the fact that it has to be shockingly easy to beat up a guy in a suit that makes him move like the Michelin Man.
 
Mark Harris said:
But then again, I can't get past the fact that it has to be shockingly easy to beat up a guy in a suit that makes him move like the Michelin Man.
Click to expand...

Doesn't Fox say something about designing a new suit that lets him move more easily? Maybe that's not what you meant.


I agree with pretty much every criticism pointed out in this thread. But I'm starting to think Brandon has the best attitude for appreciating what is after all a comic book movie. If you were entertained for the duration and only started thinking about the plot holes on the way home or a few days later, maybe that's not necessarily a failure. Someone said something about that "Wait a second" moment in reference to the writing of the Terminator movie. The screenwriters knew the time travel stuff wouldn't necessarily hold up but it wouldn't detract from the enjoyment of the film because people wouldn't question it until they were in their car riding home. (What is that from? Anyone know?)

EDIT Just found it. It's in "Story" and I didn't quite get it right. McKee's point is that the screenwriters DID try to cover up the plot holes with Sarah Connor's line: "You know, you could go crazy thinking about this." Ha.
 
Last edited:
Jared Meyer said:
Doesn't Fox say something about designing a new suit that lets him move more easily? Maybe that's not what you meant.
Click to expand...

Yeah he does. But honestly, I didn't think it helped him all that much :)

I guess I just think that rubber suit is dumb. Say what you want about the Spiderman movies, at least Spidey moved like Spidey should move. Batman doesn't move like any incarnation of any comic book ( Not even Dark Knight).

He moves like he's pregnant or like he ate a lot of really bad cheese.

P.S. - And yeah, I don't think anyone should not like it if they do like it because of this stuff. But this is called "Film Discussion," and it's interesting to break down why something did or did not work.
 
Last edited:
Mark Harris said:
Yeah he does. But honestly, I didn't think it helped him all that much :)

I guess I just think that rubber suit is dumb. Say what you want about the Spiderman movies, at least Spidey moved like Spidey should move. Batman doesn't move like any incarnation of any comic book ( Not even Dark Knight).

He moves like he's pregnant or like he ate a lot of really bad cheese.
Click to expand...
That has been one of my biggest complaints about all the BatIncarnations on BatFilm. Michael Keaton moved like a plaintiff in a whiplash case. Nolan's design is a bit better, but he still moves like Sir BatKnight instead of BatMan.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top