Where does most of TDK's critisism come from?

[The Joker]

Originally Posted by jamesCameronOnl

I dont dislike the sonar for scientific reasons. hey, The movie is sure contrived, sure implausible and has big logic gaps in the story and comic booky situations, but just like every other superhero movie and I dont mind that at all, I only care if the story's good , not perfectly mirroring reality. That would be missing the point of the movies, where things and adventures happen that can not happen in real life. I dont care about the amount of plotholes at all or scientific accuracy, if sacrificing them serve the story, Im all for it.

That's too much logic for this thread.

Get out!

[Nave 'Torment']

Originally Posted by Mace Dolex

I'm mostly sick of the comments made on Bale's voice and Batman wearing armor, get over it people.

Ditto.

Originally Posted by Optimus_Prime_

TDK though is full of a ton of plot devices that sow these three acts together. While I didn't have a problem with the Cellphone sonar per say much like Gordon's "death" or hastily placing Harvey Two-Face in the film or having Joker sit uncuffed in a cell with one fat guard; they're all plot devices, and they serve to make the whole thing contrived. For example, the guard gives Joker a chance to escape, but really it was just a way for them to justify Joker escaping police custody. There was no other reason besides that. With Inception you have the world of the dream to help iron out anything that doesn't seem right, with Batman you have some unconvention characters like the Joker and Batman who can bend the reality they live in to an extent, then you have Gordon and Dent who are presented as being much more firmly grounded. It's okay to use one or two very convenient circumstances to move these Acts along, but when you start needing one every five minutes it's kind of grating. TDK, as I say, kind of writes itself into corners, and gets out of them in a clunky fashion.

It's like the lyrics to the TDK parody song: "Doesn't make sense, but sounds cool".

I think you've digressed from my point substantially. Plot devices and the format of the plot itself is, as I'm sure you know, not the same thing. And in that regard, using plot-points to your advantage does not discredit or demean the actual story at all. It only make it seem like you're out to find trouble. Believe me, you do that and you will find inconsistencies in even the greatest story ever told. But hey, this isn't about that is it? The dreamscape in Inception was a lot more than just a vehicle to justify surreal occurrences. The same with the 'plot-devices' used 'every five minutes', how is that grating? The core of the story is still Batman. It's still his conflict with the Joker. Everything else falls into place. If anything, the use of plot-devices heightens the effect of a world of conventions that is slowly being dismantled.

In similarly different view of the film you will find that TDK progresses like a grand orchestra, just as Tim Burton's Bat films seemed operatic. With TDK the story moves, intensifies, then stops on an almost immediate, catastrophic moment that you are left with a feeling of confusion, anger, and frustration. This happens more than once. Zimmer's score helps with this kind of viewing; the film is like music, and the central character is the maestro.

Honestly people, if you really want to pick on a movie there are films that deserve harsh criticism, movies that are renowned by the film academy as master-pieces but are not. TDK, despite its quality, is relegated into a pop-cultural blockbuster rather than as an artistic piece of cinema. The same with Inception. These films deserve more.

[BatmanBeyond]

Originally Posted by Mace Dolex

I'm mostly sick of the comments made on Bale's voice and Batman wearing armor, get over it people.

This.

Originally Posted by Nave 'Torment'

Honestly people, if you really want to pick on a movie there are films that deserve harsh criticism, movies that are renowned by the film academy as master-pieces but are not. TDK, despite its quality, is relegated into a pop-cultural blockbuster rather than as an artistic piece of cinema. The same with Inception. These films deserve more.

As for where TDK's criticism come from, I think it's as simple as it being an imperfect movie(I don't think any movie is perfect, just to be clear). It is a masterpiece though and I find myself wholeheartedly agreeing with one of El Payaso's posts earlier in this thread. The choices in this thread's poll are ridiculous though.

[Optimus_Prime_]

Originally Posted by Nave 'Torment'

I think you've digressed from my point substantially. Plot devices and the format of the plot itself is, as I'm sure you know, not the same thing. And in that regard, using plot-points to your advantage does not discredit or demean the actual story at all. It only make it seem like you're out to find trouble. Believe me, you do that and you will find inconsistencies in even the greatest story ever told. But hey, this isn't about that is it? The dreamscape in Inception was a lot more than just a vehicle to justify surreal occurrences. The same with the 'plot-devices' used 'every five minutes', how is that grating? The core of the story is still Batman. It's still his conflict with the Joker. Everything else falls into place. If anything, the use of plot-devices heightens the effect of a world of conventions that is slowly being dismantled.

Because it makes you do mental gymnastics to understand the story. Transformers (1986) had a ton of plot holes and devices, luckily, like The Dark Knight it's fast paced enough to cover this up for a while (for the record, TDK is 100 times superior film). The problem with plot devices though is they make you realize you're watching a movie because the characters behave in deference to the plot, not in deference to how they would behave in that situation. To a certain level you accept this - for example, Batman is probably not going to die in a movie called Batman, despite the odds being overwhelmingly against him. TDK definitely gets harder to watch on subsequent viewings for me because I'm so aware of all the contrived writing. That said, it doesn't necessarily make the movie unwatchible, but the question posed by the thread was "where do the criticisms come from", and I'd say this is a big, and very legitimate criticism.

In similarly different view of the film you will find that TDK progresses like a grand orchestra, just as Tim Burton's Bat films seemed operatic. With TDK the story moves, intensifies, then stops on an almost immediate, catastrophic moment that you are left with a feeling of confusion, anger, and frustration. This happens more than once. Zimmer's score helps with this kind of viewing; the film is like music, and the central character is the maestro.

The score was good, no argument there.

[Motown Marvel]

god forbid we have reasonable standards for a film that we want to see be the best it can be.

[Optimus_Prime_]

Originally Posted by jamesCameronOnl

The blame could have been put on just about any one of Joker's people in Batman's outfit, and that would save all of Gotham's symbols - both the white and the dark knight. People were already aware that others can and do dress up as Batman, mainly thanks to the guy on TV who got killed by Joker. I think its much easier to buy that some psycho or someone related to Joker dressed up as Batman to get close to Gordon's family and tried to kill them and killed Dent than believing that Batman, who just few minutes earlier kicked the crap out of the SWAT team to save the hostages and who just captured Joker and who just cooperated with Gordon suddenly turned into psycho who killed Dent and tried to kill Gordon. Many cops and SWAT guys would wonder why he didn't kill Gordon when he was right next to him just a short a moment ago, why he captured Joker, why he saved the hostages, how come Gordon received the phone call and left while Batman was inside the building watched by SWAT (and theres a shot of one of the SWAT guys listening to Gordon talking on the phone, while Batman is still in the building, and while he says Harvey)- the questions keep popping and it doesn't add up

Heck, they could say just say that the killer fled and Dent got killed trying to help Batman save Gordon's kid. Batman was shot and hurt, it could easily add up. MUCH more than the collapsing house of cards with Batman all of a sudden doing 180 in 5 minutes

I also never really bought that the city would go crazy if they found out Dent went insane. That was a real stretch for me considering only me and maybe one other friend of mine could tell you who are DA is. For a city with Batmen, Joker terrorists, microwave emitters, and all the other hullabaloo they'd gone through in the movie I never bought watching their White Knight go nuts would really be a problem. Hell, the last DA got killed without so much as a peep.

Also, if the idea was that Harvey being Two-Face presented a real threat to the city's sanity, then killing him effectively tied off a potentially good successor to the Joker. I got the impression the reason Two-Face bought it was because Heath Ledger was so good he probably would've continued to be the main villain in movie 3, and Harvey just wouldn't have been necessary. I also think that's why they pinned it on Batman, because it set up the Joker as the one who could pull the rug out from under that charade.

[Travesty]

Originally Posted by Nave 'Torment'

Honestly people, if you really want to pick on a movie there are films that deserve harsh criticism, movies that are renowned by the film academy as master-pieces but are not. TDK, despite its quality, is relegated into a pop-cultural blockbuster rather than as an artistic piece of cinema. The same with Inception. These films deserve more.

Who's to say we don't go to other forums and talk about other movies? This is TDK forum, and this thread is talking about where TDK's criticism comes from. We're staying on topic, and yet, you don't want us to, because of your love for the movie. If you want to debate our opinions like Joker, by all means, feel free, but don't continue coming in here and telling us we're nuts.

TDK isn't impervious to criticism, and this is the point of the thread. What's the problem here?

[JAK®]

Originally Posted by Nave 'Torment'

Honestly people, if you really want to pick on a movie there are films that deserve harsh criticism, movies that are renowned by the film academy as master-pieces but are not. TDK, despite its quality, is relegated into a pop-cultural blockbuster rather than as an artistic piece of cinema. The same with Inception. These films deserve more.

No. TDK is not exempt from criticism.

[Optimus_Prime_]

Originally Posted by JAK®

No. TDK is not exempt from criticism.

I agree. Just because you like something doesn't mean it's impervious to criticism, it also doesn't mean you have to call it's detractors nuts for having what I see as fairly well thought out opinions. If Nolan was perfect, you'd (Nave 'Torment') have some semblence of a point, but he's not, far from it.

[Optimus_Prime_]

One of the things I'd put forth about The Dark Knight is that the first half of the movie is really quite good, and it's really only the latter half where it gets a contrived and confused. I felt like the ending was more of a "crap we gotta end this film, I haven't seen my family in forever" moment than a true end to the film (it's actually really more of a beginning to the third film than an end to the second if you think about it).

[Nave 'Torment']

Originally Posted by Optimus_Prime_

Because it makes you do mental gymnastics to understand the story. Transformers (1986) had a ton of plot holes and devices, luckily, like The Dark Knight it's fast paced enough to cover this up for a while (for the record, TDK is 100 times superior film). The problem with plot devices though is they make you realize you're watching a movie because the characters behave in deference to the plot, not in deference to how they would behave in that situation. To a certain level you accept this - for example, Batman is probably not going to die in a movie called Batman, despite the odds being overwhelmingly against him. TDK definitely gets harder to watch on subsequent viewings for me because I'm so aware of all the contrived writing. That said, it doesn't necessarily make the movie unwatchible, but the question posed by the thread was "where do the criticisms come from", and I'd say this is a big, and very legitimate criticism.

The score was good, no argument there.

I don't know, I just don't agree with that. It's digging too much into something that is on the whole legit. Nolan write intricate plots, surely that isn't a bad thing?

Originally Posted by Travesty

Who's to say we don't go to other forums and talk about other movies? This is TDK forum, and this thread is talking about where TDK's criticism comes from. We're staying on topic, and yet, you don't want us to, because of your love for the movie. If you want to debate our opinions like Joker, by all means, feel free, but don't continue coming in here and telling us we're nuts.

TDK isn't impervious to criticism, and this is the point of the thread. What's the problem here?

If this is a thread about TDK's criticism (or criticising TDK) and it's filled with every poster trying to burn it, especially by those same posters who come to the forum and talk about it's positive aspects, then I think there is, to a certain extent, argument being condoned for the sake of arguing. But that isn't to say you are not entitled to your opinion, or that you must absolutely love TDK, or that you cannot come here to discuss elements you dislike. It all goes. But if this thread is about criticising TDK, then I will stand by to defend it.

Originally Posted by JAK®

No. TDK is not exempt from criticism.

I never said it wasn't. I did, however, say that a lot of the points on this thread, and that poll, are terrible criticisms for an otherwise brilliant movie.

[Nave 'Torment']

Originally Posted by Optimus_Prime_

One of the things I'd put forth about The Dark Knight is that the first half of the movie is really quite good, and it's really only the latter half where it gets a contrived and confused. I felt like the ending was more of a "crap we gotta end this film, I haven't seen my family in forever" moment than a true end to the film (it's actually really more of a beginning to the third film than an end to the second if you think about it).

No, absolutely not. The pacing is terrific. There was nothing confusing or contrived about it, especially so for comic fans. Whatever stress it might have imposed probably came from the length, but it was in no way exhausting.

This is what I mean by the episodic nature of TDK's format -- you come across a sense that it isn't one story but several. I think that works brilliantly for an adaptation based on a monthly serial, don't you?

[Optimus_Prime_]

Originally Posted by Nave 'Torment'

No, absolutely not. The pacing is terrific. There was nothing confusing or contrived about it, especially so for comic fans. Whatever stress it might have imposed probably came from the length, but it was in no way exhausting.

This is what I mean by the episodic nature of TDK's format -- you come across a sense that it isn't one story but several. I think that works brilliantly for an adaptation based on a monthly serial, don't you?

I can't really argue against this except to say I really think you are overthinking Nolan's intentions with the plot. Some stories are better than others. I'd say some of Nolan's stories are stronger and some are weaker, this one was simply not his best storytelling effort, although there may have been other things he did better in it.

[truth]

It's as simple as this. TDK gets risen to a high level because of its genre. There has been no comic-book film that has tried to be as real and "gritty" as it has. So once you see it for the first time, it's amazing. But then you compare it to its contemporaries.

People say it is intricate and complex. No. Memento is intricate and complex. Prestige is intricate and complex. Both films flow BUT they still require you to think. Usual Suspects is intricate and complex but still flows as a story.

In TDK, when you have guys giving speeches about Roman times, people faking their deaths (CONTRIVED, UNNECESSARY PLOT), it seems a bit thin. And is the plot really that complex or deep? Compared to Prestige? That had you leaping seamlessly from the past to the present or Usual Suspects that saw you dissecting the identity of a criminal mastermind? TDK was just a whole load of talking and monologues with it trying so hard to be emotional and grand.

If TDK did not have the title of Batman and was not in the genre of comic-book films where 90 percent of them suck, then do you really think it would have been rated so highly?

[GothamAlleys]

After reading all the responses I see that the biggest disadvantage of TDK is its overhyping. I get a feeling that most criticism and negative responses are born as an opposing arguments to the "best comic book movie ever and best movie ever" title. I personally feel that a movie doesnt have to be the best of the best in history to be an absolutely terrific movie, but many think that anything less than the no.1 title is somewhat selling the movie short or even offending the movie, thus creating this "opposition" who isnt happy about some claiming the movie to be the second coming. Im in the middle. I think its a great movie, smart, emotional and very mature, and at the same time I dont think it belongs to the pantheon of the best movies ever (and once again let me remind you, complex does not equal good nor bad, its apples and oranges. One is a type of story, one is the quality measure), but it certainly holds up as one of the exceptional comic book movies

[Nave 'Torment']

Originally Posted by Optimus_Prime_

I can't really argue against this except to say I really think you are overthinking Nolan's intentions with the plot. Some stories are better than others. I'd say some of Nolan's stories are stronger and some are weaker, this one was simply not his best storytelling effort, although there may have been other things he did better in it.

I agree with the rest of your post, of course there are some stories that are stronger than others, but as for the part in bold...

My concerns as a critique or a member of the audience is never to predict or consider what Nolan's intentions were. That's Intentional Fallacy my friend, and it's the sort of thing that can lead to no true conclusion. My concerns are rather simply to judge and weigh the piece of work as it exists. So whatever the interpretation is, it's mine rather than Nolan's. I know where I'm coming from. I know what I'm looking at. It doesn't necessarily destroy objectivity since I am not imposing my own self into the matter. Anyway, you get my point (I hope).

[Nave 'Torment']

What of the theme of heroism that The Dark Knight meditates on? Is that so generic, so blatant and so perfunctory? Or the political implications that it raised? How about the notion of ideas and hopes destroying and becoming worse and worse, driving you to the point of desperation, and then a hope rises that is dark and compromised? I watch movies, trust me guys I do, but the way TDK has handled its themes and explored them through it's (allegedly contrived) plot makes it a unique experience on its own. Movies like Avatar and Spider-man 3 are guilty of terrible plotting; not The Dark Knight.

But you know what? I do believe this thread isn't for me. I've already explained why, it's not because I am a purist or anything. Anyway. Ciao.

[El Payaso]

Originally Posted by truth

It's as simple as this. TDK gets risen to a high level because of its genre. There has been no comic-book film that has tried to be as real and "gritty" as it has. So once you see it for the first time, it's amazing. But then you compare it to its contemporaries.

People say it is intricate and complex. No. Memento is intricate and complex. Prestige is intricate and complex. Both films flow BUT they still require you to think. Usual Suspects is intricate and complex but still flows as a story.

In TDK, when you have guys giving speeches about Roman times, people faking their deaths (CONTRIVED, UNNECESSARY PLOT), it seems a bit thin. And is the plot really that complex or deep? Compared to Prestige? That had you leaping seamlessly from the past to the present or Usual Suspects that saw you dissecting the identity of a criminal mastermind? TDK was just a whole load of talking and monologues with it trying so hard to be emotional and grand.

If TDK did not have the title of Batman and was not in the genre of comic-book films where 90 percent of them suck, then do you really think it would have been rated so highly?

Well, first of all things, you cannot leave the "superhero" name element out of the equation. And why should you? Any artist work mixing every element. So yeah, take the superpowers out of a Superman movie and how good it could be.

And then again, it was a good movie. Even when Joker didn't have make up on, the character's personality and ideology was attractive enough. The themes behind it were very recognizable and engaging beyond the external looks and genre, but again you can't leave the genre out. Is it a song any good if we have the music out?

[truth]

Originally Posted by jamesCameronOnl

After reading all the responses I see that the biggest disadvantage of TDK is its overhyping. I get a feeling that most criticism and negative responses are born as an opposing arguments to the "best comic book movie ever and best movie ever" title. I personally feel that a movie doesnt have to be the best of the best in history to be an absolutely terrific movie, but many think that anything less than the no.1 title is somewhat selling the movie short or even offending the movie, thus creating this "opposition" who isnt happy about some claiming the movie to be the second coming. Im in the middle. I think its a great movie, smart, emotional and very mature, and at the same time I dont think it belongs to the pantheon of the best movies ever (and once again let me remind you, complex does not equal good nor bad, its apples and oranges. One is a type of story, one is the quality measure), but it certainly holds up as one of the exceptional comic book movies

I disagree. I am judging it after the hype here, and it's not that good.

It's well made, well acted, but the story is far simpler and thinner than Memento or Prestige. Where do people get the idea of the film having an intricate plot?

[GothamAlleys]

I think it comes out from the fact that Joker's plans and twists bring surprising elements to the plot where you cant really tell how the guy will be taken down and stopped and he keeps surprising the audience with his next move time after time

[truth]

Surprising?

I think we all knew he was going to kill people, and we all knew Rachel was going to get killed. The only surprising thing was the boat thing. But can you really call his plots intricate? You want intricate? Try the plot of Silence of the Lambs or more directly, John Doe's murders in Seven. That's intricate.

[El Payaso]

Originally Posted by truth

Surprising?

I think we all knew he was going to kill people, and we all knew Rachel was going to get killed. The only surprising thing was the boat thing. But can you really call his plots intricate? You want intricate? Try the plot of Silence of the Lambs or more directly, John Doe's murders in Seven. That's intricate.

Yeah, everything more intricate makes immediately anything else that's any less intrincate not intricate at all. That was a little intricate.

[Optimus_Prime_]

Originally Posted by Nave 'Torment'

What of the theme of heroism that The Dark Knight meditates on? Is that so generic, so blatant and so perfunctory? Or the political implications that it raised? How about the notion of ideas and hopes destroying and becoming worse and worse, driving you to the point of desperation, and then a hope rises that is dark and compromised? I watch movies, trust me guys I do, but the way TDK has handled its themes and explored them through it's (allegedly contrived) plot makes it a unique experience on its own. Movies like Avatar and Spider-man 3 are guilty of terrible plotting; not The Dark Knight.

Two things: One, the story of The Dark Knight definitely edges out Spider-Man 3. Two, there was a whole host of other things wrong with SM3. Also, I'd say Avatar is actually a good comparison because despite having a weak and contrived plot it was also well received. I don't think it would be fair for me to say that The Dark Knight doesn't possess any entertainment value, it, and Avatar, were very entertaining films despite their faults (which might be all that matter for some, if not most people).

Furthermore I think it's important to add that films like Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen - objectively a terrible film - do well and have a lot of fans. So even if you successfully make the point that Nolan did not write a good story, he wrote one that served the film's purpose to make money and entertain. IMO it was a poorly thought out story, and I would equate the film's success to having very good, very engaging characters - especially that of the late Heath Ledger. Crafting good characters can certaining be just as hard as crafting a good plot, so I don't feel like I'm being unfair to the movie as I've criticized it thus far.

[GothamAlleys]

I dont think Avatar had a contrived plotting. Contrived is when a bomb explodes and everyone is down except for two character we need (Joker and Lao). I also disagree its terrible since its virtually a retelling of a classic and timeless story, I mean cmon, were talking classics here. Are we gonna pick on Disney stories and myths and legends too?

Spider Man 3 was a bit more stylized but I never thought it was as bad as people say. Both were also completely different types of stories - SpiderMan was a more conventional superhero movie while Avatar was a classic old school adventure, its pointless to make any comparisons here. Either way, I dont like dragging others through mud just to make the one on trial look better

[truth]

Yeah, Avatar was not contrived...just been there, done that, nothing new on the story point. Mostly.

Was the plot in TDK contrived, perhaps, but I would say it wasn't well executed.
I still don't get why about ten or so minutes of film time was dedicated to everyone feeling bad and sad for Gordon dying when WE ALL KNEW he was alive. It just seemed pointless to go through all of that. And, so Gordon faking his death meant that Joker would not try and go for the mayor again and make sure that he gets him this time?

I also just found the Batman character a bit pointless. Harvey Dent was the real backbone and had the story arc, Joker was the villain with all his social commentaries, and we just have a guy running around in black armor just...talking. In Begins, at least you felt this was his film. Everything revolved around him. Someone said it on another forum. It was like Batman Returns all over again.