Best to Worst of the Dark Knight Trilogy

[Kane52630]

Ill respect that this is your view on the trilogy but i can have my two cents too.

I dont see how Dark Knight is poorly paced, quite the opposite. I also didn't think Maggie delivered her lines fast like a rehearsal. Don't know where that's coming from.

Bane wasn't 5'7 in the movie, now you're being ridiculous. What are they supposed to do? Hire a 6'7 actor just because he's tall?

My ratings:

BB: 4/5
TDK: 4.5/5
TDKR: 4.3/5

I watched Rises the other day, still love this movie to death. I don't like rating the individual films though, since i see it as one story.

Ridiculous? Why because I speak the truth that all Nolan worshipers are to afraid to do? Tom hardy is 5'7 give an inch or two. No they did not have to hire any tall actor, but how about one that's comic accurate and gee.. Idk the same race? The same way it irks me when they change the race of characters like Human Torch, Nick Fury, Perry white ect. It completely disregards the source material. Also TDK was incredibly fast paced in a bad way, it was rushed and felt like a combination of scenes from different movies piled together to try and make one.

Oh we got us a ripe one here. That kind of attitude is why your opinion ain't going to be taken seriously. Delusional dark knight as your custom title. Good choice.

Anyways my ratings.

Begins - 9/10
Knight - 10/10
Rises - 8/10

That's my truth aka honest opinion and I ain't afraid to speak it.

Attitude? Not really pal, just defending myself from claims of being "Ridiculous". Just carry on about yourself and focus more on putting things in order of Greatest to least greatest as the thread says, cause you have it as good to best to worst... Kind of eludes me.

 

[DarkSovereignty]

Batman returns
The dark knight
Batman 1989
Batman Begin
Batman Forever
The Dark Knight Rises
Batman 1966
Batman & Robin

 

[shauner111]

Ridiculous? Why because I speak the truth that all Nolan worshipers are to afraid to do? Tom hardy is 5'7 give an inch or two. No they did not have to hire any tall actor, but how about one that's comic accurate and gee.. Idk the same race? The same way it irks me when they change the race of characters like Human Torch, Nick Fury, Perry white ect. It completely disregards the source material. Also TDK was incredibly fast paced in a bad way, it was rushed and felt like a combination of scenes from different movies piled together to try and make one.

Stop being racist. It doesn't matter if they change a minor character from white to black or vice versa, as long as they get the character right. I would agree with you when it comes to the bigger heroes like Spider-Man but come on now. Also, never be too attached to the source material when you're dealing with film adaptations. It's the directors right to take liberties and make it their own. You dont have to like it if you're more of a comic purist, but you shouldn't be saying things like "they SHOULD be just like how they are in the source material". That's very limiting. The comics are always there if you want to read them, nobody is stopping you. The films don't have to be accurate. If/when we do get a full-on accurate adaptation, that's fine. But not everything needs to be that way every single time.

Changing the race of Bane would only s**t all over the source material if they were following every single part to a tee, which they weren't. It has to serve the story THEY are trying to tell. Hardy being 5'7 means nothing because movies make you look bigger with camera tricks, lifts etc. Bane still looked taller than Batman, still looked 6'3' ish or whatever. Hardy used a bit of the latin backround.

You contradicted yourself by saying no they dont need to hire a taller actor but what about one that's comic accurate. So tell the truth then, you want an actor who is comic accurate. One that is Affleck's height or taller. But this was a more grounded take on the character, not the 7 foot comic accurate Bane. There's also not many good actors at all who are 6 foot 4 that could play the character of Bane.

The Dark Knight was not a fast paced film. I've heard people (haters) talk about how slow it was compared to other comic book movies. It didn't feel like random scenes thrown together, everything had a flow. It was a well-written script with nice pacing. The story moved along nicely.

 

[DarkSovereignty]

Lmao, oh god.

 

[Kane52630]

 

[DarkSovereignty]

"Stop being racist, it's ok to change the race of characters when they're not important."

 

[shauner111]

"Stop being racist, it's ok to change the race of characters when they're not important."

Oh shhh. Im talking general audience. The obscure characters don't matter compared to a character like Batman or Spider-Man who have been around (and mainly in the public eye) for 50 to 75 years. On film, television, animation you name it. To suddenly change Parker to a black or latino would feel very forced, and an obvious "look at us! we're edgy in our casting! we're the first to do it!".

But Nick Fury, Perry White etc?

 

[Travesty]

 

[shauner111]

We know you're lurking Trav, no need to post the same gif once a week.

 

[Travesty]

We know you're lurking Trav, no need to post the same gif once a week.

"lurking"?!

That's racist!

 

[shauner111]

Makes no sense.

 

[DarkSovereignty]

Don't be racist, dude.

 

[Chip Chipperson]

I prefer them in the order they were released

Batman Begins
TDK
Bruce Wayne Rises

 

[Knightfall]

Stop being racist. It doesn't matter if they change a minor character from white to black or vice versa, as long as they get the character right. I would agree with you when it comes to the bigger heroes like Spider-Man but come on now. Also, never be too attached to the source material when you're dealing with film adaptations. It's the directors right to take liberties and make it their own. You dont have to like it if you're more of a comic purist, but you shouldn't be saying things like "they SHOULD be just like how they are in the source material". That's very limiting. The comics are always there if you want to read them, nobody is stopping you. The films don't have to be accurate. If/when we do get a full-on accurate adaptation, that's fine. But not everything needs to be that way every single time.

Changing the race of Bane would only s**t all over the source material if they were following every single part to a tee, which they weren't. It has to serve the story THEY are trying to tell. Hardy being 5'7 means nothing because movies make you look bigger with camera tricks, lifts etc. Bane still looked taller than Batman, still looked 6'3' ish or whatever. Hardy used a bit of the latin backround.

You contradicted yourself by saying no they dont need to hire a taller actor but what about one that's comic accurate. So tell the truth then, you want an actor who is comic accurate. One that is Affleck's height or taller. But this was a more grounded take on the character, not the 7 foot comic accurate Bane. There's also not many good actors at all who are 6 foot 4 that could play the character of Bane.

The Dark Knight was not a fast paced film. I've heard people (haters) talk about how slow it was compared to other comic book movies. It didn't feel like random scenes thrown together, everything had a flow. It was a well-written script with nice pacing. The story moved along nicely.

Being racist? Eh.. I just don't have a retort to something that silly. Moving on.. I contradicted myself? Really? Where? By saying it doesn't have to be any ol 6'7 actor? You go on to state that there aren't many good actors of that height who could play bane... So of course you've met all the actors on planet earth correct? Ya know It doesn't always have to be a big name actor in the role of a CBM character? But then again you're probably fine will smith playing deadshot right? Big name actors in CBM aren't always a good thing, especially A listers, because then you aren't seeing the character.. Just them... Anyway I think I've proved my point.. I won't even touch on TDK's pacing as it seems like a real sore spot for you, I sincerely whole heartedly apologize.

 

[BatLobster]

It's always interesting just how varied opinions can be, because I always thought pacing was one of TDK's primary strong points. It's a roller-coaster ride in the best way a movie can be. Expertly paced IMO. I also never understood the flack it gets for being too long. Even if the latest Empire poll, as the no. 1 voted CBM, they still got in a jab about it being 20 minutes too long.

Really now? I'd love to know which 20 minutes could just be lopped out of the movie without completely compromising it. No scene is wasted in that film. And besides, in a world of Bayformers movies and Peter Jackson movies, is 2 hours and 33 minutes really that excessive of a runtime? I feel like there's a complete double standard there just because it's a comic book film.

 

[ganon51]

It has to serve the story THEY are trying to tell. Hardy being 5'7 means nothing because movies make you look bigger with camera tricks, lifts etc. Bane still looked taller than Batman, still looked 6'3' ish or whatever.

At what point of the movie did he look taller than Batman?? It was obvious Batman was taller, especially in the final fight.

Hardy used a bit of the latin backround.

When?

 

[Travesty]

I always thought pacing was one of TDK's primary strong points. It's a roller-coaster ride in the best way a movie can be. Expertly paced IMO. I also never understood the flack it gets for being too long. Even if the latest Empire poll, as the no. 1 voted CBM, they still got in a jab about it being 20 minutes too long.

I wasn't a fan of the pace, either. It was just too much stuff crammed in for its own good. After the bank robbery scene, it was just scene after scene after scene, until they caught The Joker. I didn't really connect with anybody because of it. You see Rachel die, and then it shows Bruce crying in the penthouse for like a second, and then it's on to the next scene(that's just one example). There was barely any time for the emotions to sink in or breath.

And what could they have cut? For starters, the ridiculous "Gordon faking his death" stuff.

 

[shauner111]

For a second? I thought the penthouse scene was the perfect amount of time. It wasn't short but it wasn't long either (that's what she said).

Gordon faking his death couldn't be cut since that's how he was able to catch the Joker with everyone putting their focus on the mission, with more motivation because of Jim's death.

I also don't get what you mean by "it was just scene after scene until they caught the Joker".

At what point of the movie did he look taller than Batman?? It was obvious Batman was taller, especially in the final fight.



When?

Bane looked the same height or taller throughout the film. No, it wasn't obvious.

When?

Tom Hardy:

The choice of the accent is actually a man called Bartley Gorman, who was a bare knuckle fighter. A Romani gypsy. Which I wanted to underpin the Latin, but a Romani Latin opposed to Latino. His particular accent is very specific, which was a gypsy accent.

However, Hardy knew the character needed to be of Latin descent – and, rightfully so. After all, Bane's origins are rooted in a South American prison. So the prime of his voice is a nod to that.

" ... Taking that into mind, I looked at original Latin … sort of Romany Gypsy.

 

[BatLobster]

I wasn't a fan of the pace, either. It was just too much stuff crammed in for its own good. After the bank robbery scene, it was just scene after scene after scene, until they caught The Joker. I didn't really connect with anybody because of it. You see Rachel die, and then it shows Bruce crying in the penthouse for like a second, and then it's on to the next scene(that's just one example). There was barely any time for the emotions to sink in or breath.

And what could they have cut? For starters, the ridiculous "Gordon faking his death" stuff.

That barely adds any runtime to the movie though. If anything, Gordon being momentarily out of the movie for that section probably helps keep the movie tighter because there are so many characters to juggle. I just don't think you could remove 20 minutes without ending up with a significantly different movie. So IMO it's a contradiction for Empire to say "it's the GOAT, we love it!" and then also say it's 20 minutes too long. Show me those 20 minutes. It's a different story if it's someone like you who isn't overly fond of TDK saying that.

I love the relentless pace of Nolan's movies though, personally. A lot is thrown at you, but it usually it pays off with a huge catharsis at the end, and then when you've had a chance to catch your breath you can appreciate it more on subsequent viewings.

 

[shauner111]

I agree. Interstellar was very well-paced imo. I really don't have a clue if people liked the pacing of Interstellar or not. I saw it with my brother, and he never sees movies in a theater. Rarely. And he usually doesn't watch movies that are over 2:20 or 2:30, so i was sure he was going to be like "That was long" when it was over..but he said "Wow, that was 3 hours? It didnt feel that long at all".

I feel the same with the trilogy. Maybe Rises could have been paced a little better by adding some more scenes in the final act. But TDK was extremely well-paced. The scenes flowed well, i didn't feel like this scene was too short or too lengthy like with Rises (hospital scene for instance).

 

[Travesty]

That barely adds any runtime to the movie though. .

Hence, "for starters".

 

[BatLobster]

Sorry for the edits, but like I said, it's a whole different conversation if you're not someone who loves the movie. This is more me taking issue with Empire for IMO saying something contradictory. Usually the complaint is the whole Two-Face story in the final act should've been held off, but that would result in an entirely different movie with an entirely different ending.

 

[ganon51]

Bane looked the same height or taller throughout the film. No, it wasn't obvious.

When?

Tom Hardy:

It's okay, Bane, it's okay