The Dark Knight Batman vs. Iron Man via chud.com (Batman as a Character)

  • Thread starter Thread starter J.Howlett
  • Start date Start date
Everyone is entitled to their opinions. I've avoided saying that Ledger WILL get an Oscar, and I'm almost certain it won't be as huge a financial success as some other summer films.

When you look at Nolan's track record as a quality director AND the generally excellent reception to Begins, it's not hard to imagine that TDK will be just as good. It's too early to proclaim it the best thing since sliced bread though.
 
But just because it doesn't have a ton of flashy CGI in its trailer nobody pays attention. There were approximately zero CG shots in the first Dark Knight trailer (as opposed to Iron Man which was mostly comprised of them) and it still kicked ass -

Am I the only one who really HATES CGI and thinks it should only be used as little as possible? I thought I was becoming more of the norm, I didn't think I was still the exception.

And all in all... who cares what Devin has to say? I don't, and it's good enough for me.

IM has been getting rave reviews. Right now it's at 88% on RT (15 fresh, 2 rotten). It's going to be hard for TDK to top that. I thought for sure TDK would be the best reviewed superhero film of the three, looks like I'm going to be wrong on that.

And your point would be valid if TDK was already out... lets find out which one will be the best reviewed superhero film when all three films get reviews.
 
I think one extreme is as bad as the other. It's the over-enthusiastic praise of some "Begins" fans that draws out the resentment in those less keen on it, and make them more determined to look for flaws and bring it down from "the pedestal", as you put it.

I have been careful in just what kind of predictions I've made. I'm not going to say "The Dark Knight" will beat "The Godfather", as I've read elsewhere. That superlative level of praise just invites backlash, just like someone saying "permawhite Joker always sucked" anyway invites a re-ignition of the make-up debate. For every positive there's a negative, and all that. But I won't be shy about saying I've never been so hyped about seeing a movie as I have for "The Dark Knight".

Mega hyped yea, but using Begins as a barometer I can't see how anyone would think TDK will be more than a (great?) example of the genre. To me it did little different or better than its peers, even as an average comicbook film it's not hard to interpret things as gaping flaws. The general expectation was definitely for something fresh while Begins was being filmed, but I think its release should have put the idea of Nolan challenging convention to bed. Maybe they attempted to deconstruct the character, but it fell into all the cliches trying. Realistically I'm looking forward to a decent, predictable film with a Joker performance that deserved better. It'll probably be more enjoyable if I take TDK less seriously than it takes itself
 
Mega hyped yea, but using Begins as a barometer I can't see how anyone would think TDK will be more than a (great?) example of the genre. To me it did little different or better than its peers, even as an average comicbook film it's not hard to interpret things as gaping flaws. The general expectation was definitely for something fresh while Begins was being filmed, but I think its release should have put the idea of Nolan challenging convention to bed. Maybe they attempted to deconstruct the character, but it fell into all the cliches trying. Realistically I'm looking forward to a decent, predictable film with a Joker performance that deserved better. It'll probably be more enjoyable if I take TDK less seriously than it takes itself

Okay, so what would you cite as the pinnacle of the superhero genre?
 
Mega hyped yea, but using Begins as a barometer I can't see how anyone would think TDK will be more than a (great?) example of the genre. To me it did little different or better than its peers, even as an average comicbook film it's not hard to interpret things as gaping flaws. The general expectation was definitely for something fresh while Begins was being filmed, but I think its release should have put the idea of Nolan challenging convention to bed. Maybe they attempted to deconstruct the character, but it fell into all the cliches trying. Realistically I'm looking forward to a decent, predictable film with a Joker performance that deserved better. It'll probably be more enjoyable if I take TDK less seriously than it takes itself

Yawn. I liked the part where you were gone for three months.
 
LMAO, so I guess TDK is going to be just like the BB forum, anyone who doesn't like Nolan's take on things, is going to get raped by a bunch of angry Nolan Protectors. Thus, is why it's best to wait until the new wears off (like BB, where you can now be critical of it, and keep your genitalia intact) when everyone's not hyped into a zombie like state and operating like over-protective parents.
 
In terms of depicting the origin, dialog, and the blending of the fantasy with reality, I think Unbreakable has come the closest when it comes to superhero inspired films.

It's really the only one that has managed to erase the comic book genre, so to speak, and be viewed as an actual drama.
 
That's because Unbreakable isn't a comic book movie, it's not based on a comic book, and it is an actual drama, which means it doesn't have a bunch of snot-nosed geeks breathing down its neck.
 
And your point would be valid if TDK was already out... lets find out which one will be the best reviewed superhero film when all three films get reviews.

I hear you but IM is at 89% now! (17 fresh, 2 rotten) :wow: It just keeps going up. It sure as hell will be an uphill battle for TDK to beat that.
 
That's because Unbreakable isn't a comic book movie, it's not based on a comic book, and is an actual drama, which means it doesn't have a bunch of snot-nosed geeks breathing down its neck.
That's why I said it was comic book/superhero inspired. Regardless of being an original story, it was still composed of many comic book elements.
 
I hear you but IM is at 89% now! (17 fresh, 2 rotten) :wow: It just keeps going up. It sure as hell will be an uphill battle for TDK to beat that.

Dude it hasn't even been released yet in the States... IM could go down to 79% for all we know...
 
That's why I said it was comic book/superhero inspired. Regardless of being an original story, it was still composed of many comic book elements.
Oh, then absolutely, and I do think that Raimi, Nolan and Singer could learn a lot from Unbreakable.
 
It does not matter because many same people will be watching Iron Man and TDK along with Indiana Jones,Hulk and many other movies this year.
 
I know people may have a problem with this article...but if you think about it, he's got a good point...we've kinda become cynical as a society and we want that in our films and our fun and belief in that kind of world of the comics is kinda...lost, maybe TDK will be awesome and make millions of bucks...but maybe that's not enough for me, maybe a true batman film for me is a balance between the fantastic of Burton and the realism of Nolan...maybe that's what I've always wanted
 
Everyone is entitled to their opinions. I've avoided saying that Ledger WILL get an Oscar, and I'm almost certain it won't be as huge a financial success as some other summer films.

You know what's a shame, though?

If Ledger does end up being nominated, all the cynics are going to go on about is how he's only getting nominated because he's dead.

They'll conveniently forget all the insane buzz that was around before his death.
 
Devin is a girl's name.

Points to anyone who gets the reference.
 
I think there is room for both movies, and both heroes. IM is geared towards a family audience, so it may actually make a bit more money at the box office. But TDK looks like a truly epic film, and I think it will reap rewards of its own(even if it might make only 250 million or less because of its edginess).
 
You know what's a shame, though?

If Ledger does end up being nominated, all the cynics are going to go on about is how he's only getting nominated because he's dead.

They'll conveniently forget all the insane buzz that was around before his death.

yes no doubt some people will go on about that :(

Jayne is a girl's name.


:thing: :doom: :thing:

Firefly much?
 
One thing that annoys me about a lot the negative comments I've read on "Batman Begins", is that to find flaws, the film is put under an extremely high level of scrutiny. Yet, the same people who dismiss "Begins" for these "flaws" will often cite preference for other superhero movies, which under the same criteria they submitted "Begins" too, would completely fall apart.

No kidding. Criticisms about the dialogue, for example are valid ones, but you never see films like Spider-Man 2 held to that standard, and it had a lot more cringe-worthy dialogue than Batman Begins.
 
The way I look at this Iron Man vs. TDK is that, Iron Man will be huge, giving the fact that it is the first blockbuster of the summer, getting great reviews, and it looks like a fun film. I also believe TDK will be huge, most people who see IM will see TDK, their releases are sperated by 2 plus months, so that's not a problem. (If this were IM or TDK vs Hulk it would be very different, I know im seeing IM thursday night, and will the same for TDK when it comes out, still don't know about hulk.) On top of that, i would guess pretty much anyone who has seen BB and liked it (even in the theater or on dvd/tv) will see TDK. And sadly the heath ledger factor. It pains me to say this, but people will see it because of his death. I think the only thing that may hurt TDK is its darkness, and more drama/character driven story. This may hurt the children/family demographic (may be too dark for kids). But from what I've heard IM is not a kids movie either, but generally looks more suitable. IM looks more popcorn, TDK looks more serious, but then again Batman is a way more known character than IM. I still think that TDK will have bigger numbers, but I think IM will surprise many.

I guess only time will tell.
 
If I'm infamous for anything at this point, it's for being the guy who didn't like Batman Begins. Which isn't really true, by the way - I liked it enough that I felt the lazy, stupid ending truly killed what was an otherwise good film. That's what annoys me so much about the movie; if Batman Begins had been bad from frame one I wouldn't have given a **** that the third act goes the way that it does. But director Christopher Nolan and company get off to such a strong start that the strike out at the end hurts so much more.

I agree with this. Most of the third act of BATMAN BEGINS is uninspiring and somewhat lazy.

First of all, I don't think Batman tends to be an interesting character.

When you look at the basics of the character, he's really not. The weakness of Devin's argument is that he's only looking at the basics of the character. His argument boils down to something similar as a person saying "Iron Man is just a guy in a high-tech suit".

The fact that he cannot see the "adventure hero" in prior Batman movies and comics tells me he's just not looking that closely.

Batman tends to be one note, an obsessive nut who can't get past his early childhood traumas*.

That's not who the comic book Batman at all. Nor is it who the movie Batman has been, even during the Burton era. Which again, tells me that he's not looking closely enough.

It's interesting to see that most of the creators who have worked on Batman seem to have understood how dull he is - Batman is constantly surrounded by supporting characters because he only becomes interesting when he's being bounced off someone else, or is reflecting aspects of someone else.

Umm...doesn't every character require other characters to interact with to allow interesting character interaction? What a stupid, stupid complaint.

And because the last few decades of Batman's history has been a race to the bottom in regards to depicting him as humorless, grim and super-serious, this element of the character is only getting more magnified. Batman sheds no light, he absorbs it from others. He may be the only iconic superhero whose villains are endlessly more interesting than he is.

Batman's villains being more interesting than him is relative. Most of his villains are fairly gimmicky, albeit colorful. Batman may not shed light, but the CHARACTER behind him (Bruce Wayne) certainly does. The story of Batman is very inspiring, even if it is tragic.

It's that problem which informs the first four modern Batman films. In each one the villains upstage the hero, but it's hard to see how it could be any other way (Nolan solves this problem by making his villains mostly as flat as Batman in Begins).

No, the villains pretty much upstage the hero in the new movies as well. Again, he's clearly just not looking at this closely enough.

Batman's character is established quickly and easily, and then that's it. There's nowhere else to go with him. He's a character who never learns anything, and the only growth he ever shows is to become more and more withdrawn and crazy.

Patently untrue. There's only so much "growth" a character can undergo if they're going to remain like themselves, and I can't think of too many Marvel characters or other superheroes who have experienced as much "change" as Bruce Wayne has over the years.

All of this is compounded by the false math that says dour is more meaningful; it's the high school reaction that says love songs and dance songs are never going to be as good as the really heavy songs about death and wizards. People claim that Batman is more relatable because he's human; in many ways this makes him less relatable to me. If I had super powers, maybe I would go out and do superheroic things. If my parents were murdered I would probably be less likely to dress up as a bat and punch out criminals. It's an insane reaction, frankly.

And here, clearly he doesn't understand what "relatable" means in context. That's more or less inexcusable for a movie critic.

But also, what does Batman say about us? Spider-Man is about being a regular guy and trying to do the best with what you have.

And Batman isn't?

Superman is about the American ideal.

And Batman isn't?

Iron Man is about taking responsibility for what you've done.

And what you can do. And again...Batman isn't?

Batman is about... how horrible life is in modern urban areas? Being an obsessive sadist weirdo?

No. And again, this guy just can't see the forest for the trees. Batman is about how bad things happening to us need not cripple us. How we can grow beyond the worst elements of our lives and turn bad things into good ones.

The thematic element that has people excited about The Dark Knight - that Batman's very presence escalates things in Gotham City - is itself a post-modern take on the character, not what the character is actually about.

That's part of what GOTHAM is about. It is not a theme that deals directly with Batman himself as a character, but rather, the reaction Gotham and others have to his presence.

Maybe the most interesting thematic element to Batman is the idea that no matter how much we improve ourselves physically, it doesn't make a difference if we don't improve ourselves emotionally, but I somehow don't feel that most fans are interested in Batman as a cautionary tale.

No. It's not about "I became strong physically to fight crime". It's about "I became strong, period, and through my drive and ability to learn and put that knowledge to good use, I learned to overcome the bad things in this world". And that's easily as interesting, in the context of the character, as any other superhero's "theme", and far, far more relevant as a broad concept.

Christopher Nolan seems to have bought into the idea that songs about death and wizards are cooler than songs about being in love; all indications point to The Dark Knight being exponentially darker and tougher than the first film.

I guess the question is...why is this an issue? This is a staple of sequels. Almost any trilogy has featured this element in their second film.

Batman can have adventures. He can be an adventure character. His villains don't need to be ruthlessly rooted in reality and psychology - if anything it would probably be more interesting to see the modern, 'realistic' Batman going up against more fantastical elements in his movies. The idea of Batman being the mirror image of his insane foes is so boring already - let's see a Batman movie where he's the model of rationality going up against something profoundly irrational.

How can you look at the Batman movies that have been made thus far and pretend that Batman hasn't had adventures? Batman does go up against profoundly irrational elements in BATMAN BEGINS, and in the previous movies. What movies is this man watching that this is his assessment of them?

R'as al Ghul would have been more interesting with his Lazarus Pit and mystical mumbo jumbo intact from the comics because those elements are so outside of the modern movie Batman's comfort zone.

That's possible, but given that it's an origin story, I'd say that using a fear gas to destroy Gotham is pretty far outside his comfort zone as well.

I don't want a realistic Joker, one extrapolated from a place of reality. I want a Joker who is larger than life, who approaches the cartoonish, because the laugh-a-decade Batman going up against him is more intriguing that way.

Again, which trailers is this man watching?

Twenty years ago, Frank Miller's The Dark Knight and Alaan Moore and Dave Gibbons' Watchmen kicked off the trend of deconstructing and psychologically examining comic book superheroes.

Maybe, but looking for depth in comics has been around since the late 60's.

It was intriguing and fascinating for a while, but the characters can't remain deconstructed if they're going to continue on in movie franchises.

Where is that written?

That's what I love about Jon Favreau's Iron Man - the hero isn't being deconstructed, he's not a closet case or a deviant or a freak. Who would have thought that a mostly psychologically undamaged heroic superhero would be refreshing?

Explain to me how Iron Man is psychologically undamaged. This is a man who has seen his weapons used to do great harm, has been kidnapped, tortured, etc, and then realizes he essentially owes the world for his the evils done in his name. That sounds fairly psychological.

His whole argument is just insanely biased and full of holes.

I would love to debate him publicly. That would be hilarious.
 
No kidding. Criticisms about the dialogue, for example are valid ones, but you never see films like Spider-Man 2 held to that standard, and it had a lot more cringe-worthy dialogue than Batman Begins.
I do think Batman fans are about as picky as fans can get.
 
The writer of this honestly sounds like a pansy who wants everything to be popcorn movies and cheery and happy if it's a comic book movie. It's like he can't stand a darker tone for something that he believes is made for kids. Which it is to an extent, but not like 6 year olds, like early teens; and believe me, early teens would rather see a more serious, less colorful and campy movie.

Though my cross country coaches son didn't want to see Begins because he said it would scare him (he was like 8 then) but now that he's older, he loves it. Guess he learned to conquer his fear.

The guy that wrote this just irritates me, from all of his little rips on heavier music (which believe it or not, deeper music about stuff people don't want to sing about IS automatically better than a majority of songs that are copy and paste party/love songs) to his ******ed complaints about BB and hypocritical opinions about other comic books.
 
I would love to debate him publicly. That would be hilarious.
Like I said in my earlier post, the best part was that he couldn't figure out what Batman was "about." Good stuff. His 'iron Man is about taking responsibility for what you've done" line was superficial, too: Iron Man is more about our responsibility to the future.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"