The Dark Knight

I honestly didn't notice much of a difference. But I think they have the same realistic intentions, so I'll just lump them both together.
 
yeah i didnt have any problems plus were in different parts of gotham than the last one. were the last one was in the lower districts and the center of gotham now we are in different location besides the mcu. so nothing was compromised. besides the narrows were not needed because they never crossed the island to it. i think people see a big difference is becuase the last one was spent not much in the main city but in the narrows, docks and the past of bruce. and so much of gotham is seen in daylight in this one.
 
jpeck said:
Definitely do not agree.

I find the 1989 Batman to be way overrated, as is most of Burton's work.

Neither of them are GREAT films.
Click to expand...
I agree. I definitely enjoyed TDK more than than Burton's. Seems like people either love Burton's work or hate it. I don't love it.

I never liked ANY of the Batman films until Batman Begins. I was able to overlook the problems with TDK and just go with it. What the hell, it's a comic book...I don't expect too much.
 
My principle problem with Dark Knight was that it was too tightly packed together with subplots. So much was happening in TDK that I'm not sure if the movie itself knew what it was really about. I didn't know what the film was about either, other than a film about a million different things happening and chaos happening from the word go. I can understand the theme of the film being about "a world with no rules", as the tagline suggested, but I felt that it was more about "a plot with no rules." I just felt the plot was really messy.

I sell insurance, and when promoting insurance I tend not to promote the bells, whistles and special features and other associated artificial cherries on the top that somehow "make" the product. I felt that the Dark Knight lacked a central focus, and was mostly about stunning the audience with explosions and eye candy.
 
if the plot was so messy, then how come it comes off to the other people real easily and it even tell u at the end that you can bring people down to a criminal level then society is lost as a whole. but there is still something worth fighting for thus why batman is who he is.

seems pretty easily told just alot going on which i love. I didn't feel bored because so much was going on. if the film had less going on people would find it boring I think and that not the nolan way. he was to keep it moving and you watching or you'll miss something.
 
For my tastes, TDK was infinitely better. I tend to love political dramas and I appreciated Nolan's efforts to bring that into a "super-hero" movie. Some of the political/social stuff was a bit heavy-handed, but, all in all, I still left excited that pop culture was making an effort to do more than titilate and entertain. It did titilate and entertain, but had more to chew on as well. I would say Burton is more interested in psychology and Nolan is more interested in sociology (or mass psychology). At the end of the day, they're both popcorn flicks, but the TDK felt slightly more nutritious.
 
The 1989 film and subsequent sequels all sucked. Never got the appeal of this franchise. Nolan has made it respectable.
 
I agree with a previous post. The world of The Dark Knight was so real that it made a man running around in a cape look silly (as it would in real life). In Batman Begins (and even the first Batman - 1989) the world seemed a little more fantasy and, therefore, more open to guys in capes.

Batman Begins was set in Gotham. The Dark Knight was set in Chicago (and Hong Kong). Nolan should keep Batman fantasy and leave crime dramas to Scorcese.
 
That's where I disgaree somewhat PK

My issues with the original Batman films were the comicy strange worlds (especially Burton's). I want a real world, like the original Superman had it.
 
PK Gillock said:
I agree with a previous post. The world of The Dark Knight was so real that it made a man running around in a cape look silly (as it would in real life). In Batman Begins (and even the first Batman - 1989) the world seemed a little more fantasy and, therefore, more open to guys in capes.
Click to expand...
Nah, the guys trying to be like Batman looked silly, the Dark Knight looked cool. :thumbsup:

Nolan actually established that quite well in the opening.
 
PK has a very valid point, one that I never fully given thought to.I liked the way Burton reshaped reality to fit the fantastic plot of a guy in a cape fighting crime. In a sort of alternate Universe, Batman fits in... in a fashion. In the real world setting, he sticks out like a turd in the punch bowl. "Oh, Nolan makes it seem realistic" just doesn't work, because if you or I saw a guy in a cape, we would laugh and assume he was a nut job. Punisher on the other hand, would be believable. Ultimately, you and I realize it is a fantasy film, so why not reshape the world to fit?
 
Capt Quirk said:
PK has a very valid point, one that I never fully given thought to.I liked the way Burton reshaped reality to fit the fantastic plot of a guy in a cape fighting crime. In a sort of alternate Universe, Batman fits in... in a fashion. In the real world setting, he sticks out like a turd in the punch bowl. "Oh, Nolan makes it seem realistic" just doesn't work, because if you or I saw a guy in a cape, we would laugh and assume he was a nut job. Punisher on the other hand, would be believable. Ultimately, you and I realize it is a fantasy film, so why not reshape the world to fit?
Click to expand...
Totally disagree. If I saw a guy like that doing the sh*t that he does I wouldn't think anything other than bad ass. Cape or no cape.

Throw in the gadgets and vehicles and it takes it to a whole new level. Of course, seeing him in broad daylight might be different, but seeing him at night would scare the crap out of most people.
 
I think after the success of Iron Man and The Dark Knight and the total rejection of CGI spectacles like Speed Racer, I think its clear audiences want their comic book action movies to have more realism to them. Now I don't mean conceptual realism, just visual realism. The Dark Knight reminded people of the pleasure of seeing action, stunts and landscapes that look completely convincing.
 
David Jimerson said:
Actually, I'd put his fealty to the Order of the Bat on a par with anyone's.
Click to expand...
Really?

From Wiki
Miller's version did more to return Batman to his roots as a tough and controversial figure who employs dubious methods of justice as originally conceived by Bob Kane and Bill Finger. This story has a Batman who is not afraid to break an enemy's bones and, in the case of the Joker, seriously considers breaking his No Kill rule — though the Joker actually causes his own death in a way to make Batman appear responsible.
Click to expand...

Sounds a lot like the movie I just watched.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top