Where does most of TDK's critisism come from?

[GothamAlleys]

Originally Posted by Fudgie

Superman '78 is the trend setter. Batman '89 was just riding on its coat tails.

Have you read the NY Times article above?

I dont see how at all. Superman was kid friendly and featured a guy in colorful spandex and his adventures. It wasnt about drug, mafia and prostitute ridden city and a psychologically scarred and complex person fighting against a guy who burns people alive and has great fun doing it

[BenReilly]

Originally Posted by jamesCameronOnl

I dont see how at all. Superman was kid friendly and featured a guy in colorful spandex and his adventures. It wasnt about drug, mafia and prostitute ridden city and a psychologically scarred and complex person fighting against a guy who burns people alive and has great fun doing it

Superman: The Movie was the first superhero film, to have been given the big budget blockbuster, serious treatment, with an all-star cast and crew.

At the time, such a notion was considered laughable and no one thought that a superhero film on that level could succeed. The fact that the producers, were able to get actors on the level of Marlon Brando and Gene Hackman to legitimize the project was incredible.

Now in regards to Nolan's Bat-films, Donner's Superman has been incredibly influential on him and his take on Batman.

Some comments from Nolan:

Spoiler!!! Click to Read!:

- Batman Begins was directly inspired by the Richard Donner Superman and Nolan pitched it as such. He called the Burton film “mad” and said that Donner’s structure and ensemble casting helped influence Begins. He believes that cast is the reason many of the superhero movies now have huge actors in all the small parts.

http://collider.com/christopher-nola...estival/31830/

He also took questions about his involvement in "Superman" ("I thought [David Goyer's] pitch was terrific and I didn't want it to not get done," but stressed he was only a producer on the project) and dished a little on "The Dark Knight," saying there was a direct connection to Richard Donner's "Superman" to his take on Batman: "I wanted to make the Batman film that would've been made in '78, '79...[Warner Brothers] never did the Dick Donner version of an extraordinary person in an ordinary world" with an esteemed cast filling out the supporting roles.

http://www.ifc.com/blogs/indie-eye/2...-3d-no-cel.php

That kind of talk makes Dark Knight director Christopher Nolan cringe. He still considers the original Superman the best comic-book movie ever made and doesn't buy that his Batman saga has brought a new pedigree to the genre.

http://www.usatoday.com/life/movies/...t-oscars_N.htm

[Happy Jack]

The approach Donner took is basically the template most directors have used, because it works so well.

[El Payaso]

Originally Posted by Fudgie

Superman '78 is the trend setter. Batman '89 was just riding on its coat tails.

Er... where/how was STM dark as B89 was? Where/how had it a flamboyant villiain or a fantasy city? Did B89 repeat the chronological origin narrative? No, B89 was its own thing. But yes, STM was the one who convinced the world superhero movies could be serious, grand and could have big names attached to them.

[Mister Meddle]

I criticized TDK a lot but when I do it's only nitpicking (regardless of that, I love the film) but that's because I pay attention to the closest details, not just in movies but everything in general. We're not all the same so don't expect everyone to have the same opinions.

[ALP]

Originally Posted by El Payaso

Er... where/how was STM dark as B89 was? Where/how had it a flamboyant villiain or a fantasy city? Did B89 repeat the chronological origin narrative? No, B89 was its own thing. But yes, STM was the one who convinced the world superhero movies could be serious, grand and could have big names attached to them.

This is the thing that just really set it apart for me. Almost all superhero films, no matter the tone, light or dark, spend the first 30 minutes to an hour giving us the main character's backstory and explain how they came to be. The B'89 setup is very rare. The superhero is already in costume when the film begins and explains who he is throughout the film in a small gradual process as opposed to the beginning.

[Ponyboy]

Originally Posted by DaCrissaMan02

Add an option for "Bale's Bat-Voice"

That's pretty much it. I like what Nolan has done with Batman, I really do. I just dislike nearly everything about Bale's portrayal.

[Ponyboy]

Originally Posted by Fudgie

Superman '78 is the trend setter. Batman '89 was just riding on its coat tails.

in what way? Superman and Batman are both mega-popular, iconic characters that stand on their own. The movies were over 10 years apart. Different tone, different generations really. One had nothing to do with the other. The only thing I can see is that the financial success of the first Superman film might've made some movie mogul goon go... "Hey we've got other characters we can make $$ off of..."

[RustyCage]

^ Not only all of that, but Superman films had become washed-up mockeries before Batman strolled up and saved the genre again.

[RustyCage]

Edit - Double. What's up with all the doubles lately?

[The Joker]

Then the Batman movies became washed up mockeries, before X-Men and Spider-Man revived the genre again.

[RustyCage]

Originally Posted by Joker

Then the Batman movies became washed up mockeries, before X-Men and Spider-Man revived the genre again.

Hey, you're right. And now they've arguably fallen similarly - if to a much lesser degree.

At least we have Chris Nolan.

[Ancracks]

Maybe the criticism comes from actual problems people had with the film.

Here's my breakdown, and feel absolutely free to pulverize each and every part you may disagree with:

What I liked:

1)Heath Ledger
2)SOME of the action sequences
3)The Score
4)Rachel Dawes' Death

What I didn't like:

1)The editing and camera-It felt like they cut a 3+ hour movie down to just under 2 hours and 40 minutes and on top of that some of the action sequences and shots could have been better edited and shot.
2)The third act plateaus
3)The ending is terrible and doesn't make sense
4)Rachel Dawes-I hated this character, she was poorly written in begins and it carries on here.
5)Two Face/Harvey Dent is under developed and makes a 180 too quickly.
6)Things don't make sense such as Batman and his girlfriend survive a fall on a car, Rachel says the best place to hide is the SAME penthouse where she was attacked, a cop stands INSIDE the interrogation room with an uncuffed joker...I can go on...
7)Batman...his voice, performance and writing...
8)The writing in general is pretentious, and is handing me the script with the characters analyzing/talking about everything...
9)The cell phone device was an awful and aggravating plot device
10)The boat scene is ALSO just plain awful and aggravating.
11)Watching Chicago rather than Gotham, seriously, where was the atmosphere from Begins?
12)No Bat Cave

[RustyCage]

Someone before was saying that the bus crashes through the wall of the bank. I just happened across this so I thought I'd post it to resolve that matter completely:

[Valaquen]

The editing and camera-It felt like they cut a 3+ hour movie down to just under 2 hours and 40 minutes and on top of that some of the action sequences and shots could have been better edited and shot.

This was my problem too, some odd editing that doesn't feel present in Nolan's non-Batman films.

I find it odd that most people who criticise TDK are patronisingly labelled, going by the poll, as 'children', 'haters', 'elitists' and 'unsophisticatists', and also that it 'makes people feel special.' Anyway, voted 'Other'. I like the movie but have problems with it also.

[Ancracks]

Yeah, this poll is BS...

[copywrite]

Originally Posted by Ancracks

Maybe the criticism comes from actual problems people had with the film.

Here's my breakdown, and feel absolutely free to pulverize each and every part you may disagree with:

What I liked:

1)Heath Ledger
2)SOME of the action sequences
3)The Score
4)Rachel Dawes' Death

What I didn't like:

1)The editing and camera-It felt like they cut a 3+ hour movie down to just under 2 hours and 40 minutes and on top of that some of the action sequences and shots could have been better edited and shot.
2)The third act plateaus
3)The ending is terrible and doesn't make sense
4)Rachel Dawes-I hated this character, she was poorly written in begins and it carries on here.
5)Two Face/Harvey Dent is under developed and makes a 180 too quickly.
6)Things don't make sense such as Batman and his girlfriend survive a fall on a car, Rachel says the best place to hide is the SAME penthouse where she was attacked, a cop stands INSIDE the interrogation room with an uncuffed joker...I can go on...
7)Batman...his voice, performance and writing...
8)The writing in general is pretentious, and is handing me the script with the characters analyzing/talking about everything...
9)The cell phone device was an awful and aggravating plot device
10)The boat scene is ALSO just plain awful and aggravating.
11)Watching Chicago rather than Gotham, seriously, where was the atmosphere from Begins?
12)No Bat Cave

Gasp! Someone on this forum with some sense.

Almost 3 years now and I can only tolerate the Joker scenes, the rest of the movie is just completely uninteresting and dull. Poorly written at times and the 3rd act felt like a completely different movie.

[*Whiplash*]

Originally Posted by Ancracks

What I didn't like:
11)Watching Chicago rather than Gotham, seriously, where was the atmosphere from Begins?

That's the only problem I had with TDK.

BB had such a different look. Everything seemed taller, much darker and busier.

[Ancracks]

Originally Posted by copywrite

Gasp! Someone on this forum with some sense.

Almost 3 years now and I can only tolerate the Joker scenes, the rest of the movie is just completely uninteresting and dull. Poorly written at times and the 3rd act felt like a completely different movie.

Yeah, the other thing I should have put in was that it was emotionally detaching for the most part, but at the time I couldn't put those feelings into words until I watched this very good review by Mark Kermode:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rAv9jx2dr08

[Fudgie]

Never did like Kermode's reviews. This one is more accurate http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=waiRcX6kLko

[Ancracks]

IGN sucks!!

And I'm not saying that because you posted a review from them, I'm saying they suck in general!

They are so up their own asses!!

[kedrell]

I have to agree about IGN. 'Bout the only thing they do that is useful is their trailer rewind theater. At least as far as movies go.

[Valaquen]

Originally Posted by Ancracks

Yeah, the other thing I should have put in was that it was emotionally detaching for the most part, but at the time I couldn't put those feelings into words until I watched this very good review by Mark Kermode:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rAv9jx2dr08

Very good review, feel the same way.

[DieSmiling]

Backlash from people who think it's overrated. Most people I know who have negative things to say about it are largely just annoyed with everyone who is obsessed with it.

[Visceral]

Originally Posted by DieSmiling

Backlash from people who think it's overrated. Most people I know who have negative things to say about it are largely just annoyed with everyone who is obsessed with it.

this