The Dark Knight

3rd in Domestic Gross....soonn to be 2nd in just a week or so....then we'll see how long it takes to actually beat Titanic for #1 ever Worldwide.

It'll happen, the thing is 2nd Domestic and it hasn't even been out for very long...Titanic will finally lose the crown.
 
i dunno kyle i can see the move starting to slow down unless theres an influx of bad movies and peopoel just keep going to the dark knight just cuz. but i see it maybe topping out around 530 or 560.
 
spidey said:
i dunno kyle i can see the move starting to slow down unless theres an influx of bad movies and peopoel just keep going to the dark knight just cuz. but i see it maybe topping out around 530 or 560.
Click to expand...
I think studio estimates are around the same.
 
New batman film - 1989 version is better

New batman film - 1989 version is better

I just saw The Dark Knight.

I thought it was interesting in that it was more about multiple characters than say a film just about Batman and the joker per se.

They may as well have named it Adventures In Gotham City, because not much of the film was strictly about Batman or the Joker.

I also thought it was hard to follow and I didn't like it how they borrowed the Spiderman 3 approach by bogging the story down with all these multiple villains and subplots.

Does anyone share my thoughts?
 
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.
 
Both of them have flaws. In my opinion, the Burton film is definitely an "auteur" film. Burton's Bruce Wayne is very much in line with most of the male leads in his movies- out of place, excentric, not accepted- an outsider. Nolan, however, seems much less attached to his characters, opting for the political/criminal/social drama. His directing is "detached", unemotional, and this probably gives space for the audience to "think" about the movie during the story development. You don't "feel" for bruce Wayne, or the Joker, or the good and the Bad- not even for Dent and MaggieRomance/tragedy. You get it like it is- crude, unemotional, violent- more mature, perhaps? Maybe so, but with this, at least for me, It made the exact same effect as in "The Prestige". I couldn't care much for the characters. The "Last emotional scene", with Gordon and Dent, just didn't felt much emotional at all- because I just didn't feel attached to Gordon, or Dent, or his family. It was just, well, a dramatic scene that "worked" but that's it- it worked. it didn't wow, it didn't made me "experience" something beyond, more emotional, more intense.

While the dialoge and acting in the 1989 Batman was over the top, Jack Nicholson and Michael Keaton where both excelent. Jack Nicholson's joker was not, as some say, comical. The character was portrayed as a twisted, menacing psychopath. Excelent performance. I liked much more Burton's take on Wayne than Nolan- Nolan's Bruce Wayne is an all powerful Bastard. So powerful, in fact (by powerfull i mean economically and socially), that it seems like he "owns" Gotham. He could have much easily ended Gotham's crime scene by being Bruce Wayne the Mogul than "Batman". Burton's Wayne was a billionaire, but not as influencial, with a much lower profile. I could see this bruce Wayne with the necessity of being Batman.

The original 1989 Batman was plaged with "campy"one liners and dialogue, that didn't age well compared to the "Dark Knight". The Dark Knight writting is much better.

However, another point in favour for Burton's films- but specially for Batman Returns- Is Gotham City. Burtons "Batman Returns" Gotham is a fully realized expressionistic Goth City- a place where the Batman character fits perfectly. in the Dark Knight, however, Everything is so "Realistic", including Heath's Joker, that Batman just, well seems ridiculously out of place. Why the cape? The Bat Horns? The whole suit doens't fit well with the realism of everything else.

Bottom line, IMO, both films have flaws, but are enjoyable films nevertheless. Both have very different takes on the Characters and World, having their pluses, and minuses. I would say if you added Burton's Gotham Vision and sensibility for the Bruce Wayne character with the Nolan Brothers excelent writting, you would probably end up with the Ultimate Batman film.
 
I'll say I enjoyed Burton's take on it, more so than Nolan's. Both were heavily flawed in the eyes of the inner kid who grew up reading the comics, but as mentioned before, Gotham was more authentic in Burton's film, as was the Batmobile. The movies went downhill from there. As far as Bruce Wayne, I'm not a fan of Bale's, and as unlikely as Keaton was, he made it work.

I'll also agree, that the trend in Comic movies is to clump in a bunch of villains and plots, without developing the characters fully. I still haven't seen DK yet, I'll wait till the DVD comes out so I can't comment specifically on this film.

With Spiderman 3 this was definitely the case, and not only did they just toss in the villains, they screwed with the characters. That was the studio, not the Director. Eddie Brock was glossed over in the last two films, then all of a sudden he is in the forefront as Venom. That should have been it's own story arc over two or three films at least.
 
It may not need it's own thread, but to bring the other movies into the Dark Knight thread would tend to take it off topic I think.
 
Capt Quirk said:
It may not need it's own thread, but to bring the other movies into the Dark Knight thread would tend to take it off topic I think.
Click to expand...
Ummm... it's already been compared to the 89 version in the Dark Knight thread about a dozen times.
One or two more times won't kill it. :)

EDIT: Looks like it was merged with the big one. :D
 
Last edited:
It's hard to compare them since they're so different though. I guess it just depends on which you prefer. I recently re-watched the '89s Batman, and it definitely wasn't how I remembered it. I think people are remembering it as something better than it really is. It's a decent, entertaining movie though. I prefer Nolan's Batman universe because it feels so much more plausible to me. He made batman (and the villains) believable. Someone said earlier in the thread (unintentional rhyme) that they felt Burton's Gotham was more authentic, but I disagree. IN fact I feel it's quite the opposite. It's very artificial, which I think was deliberate on Burton's part. See, I prefer the Nolan Gotham because it feels like a real living, breathing city, as opposed to a bunch of models, matte paintings and sets (which are kind of charming in the '89 Batman). But I prefer the realism to the stylization. I love Jack Nicholson, but I'm not really crazy about his Joker, not because it's better or worse than Ledger's, but because he's more like a goofy Al Capone. I prefer Ledger's unpredictable, suicidal, anarchist Joker. I just find it more engaging, and entertaining at the same time. It's really a matter of taste, which is not to say to like one or the other is to have better or worse taste, just different.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top