The Dark Knight Biggest Disappointment

Status
Not open for further replies.
I'd have to agree with Zig Zag on this one. Begins was much more personal, it focused more on the individual character building moments, Bruce with Ras, Bruce with Rachel, Bruce with Alfred...ect. Most of the scenes were in tight areas, small rooms, hallways, ect.

TDK on the other hand felt much more epic. All the sweeping shots of chicago and Hong Kong, the huge elaborate car chases, Batman actually leaving Gotham. It was just bigger.
Yes indeed. In fact TDK didnt have much time for the small stuff. The cuts were too quick and you couldnt really connect sometimes.

Also, i am going to add a few things on my TDK Gotham whining:
Those aerial shots of gotham in BB were much better than those of TDK. Even though they didnt look as realistic, they gave us a feel of the city and its geography. In TDK we never got that high aerial shots and those we got were completely different in style than those in BB. So you see why i say that i never felt like its the same city. Anyways....

It's recognizably the same city. Some of even the same locations are used and seen.
http://forums.superherohype.com/showthread.php?t=309778
Just look at the poll. You will see that many people disagree and actually prefer the BB one.
 
I think you can see the main Wayne Tower in the scene where Batman is driving the Batpod towards The Joker.
Yes its there. Its just that Bruce met Fox in some other building of Wayne Ent.

Which is a shame really, cause Wayne Tower didnt only look good, it would have helped us connect the two films even more.
 
Yes its there. Its just that Bruce met Fox in some other building of Wayne Ent.

Which is a shame really, cause Wayne Tower didnt only look good, it would have helped us connect the two films even more.

I didn't mind it. Once Fox showed up, I felt a sense of familiarity.
 
No, it's definetely the case. It was mentioned somewhere in the "Art of The Dark Knight" ... but it shouldn't have to be told to you.

The point is Batman has them on the run. Alfred explains this through out the film. Joker explains this to the remaining criminal elements of Gotham.

The clean look is a metaphor visually to the fact that Batman has been kicking ass and taking names, and has poised himself to be in the position to give the final knock out blow to the suffocating criminal element of the city that made it a gritty place to live ... "by going after the mobs life savings, things will get ugly"
So if things get better in the next film should i expect a Schumacher-esque Gotham?

I remember Nolan stating in an interview that they wanted to unclutter the city because of the larger things that are going on. They wanted a larger scope on it, so they cleaned it up.
I just dont see how Ras (a worldwide thread) could fit in the Narrows but the joker couldnt. Excuse me but i ll keep whining for the next 3 years so that maybe my prayers will be heard and Gotham will go back to being like BB. Sorry for that, but Gotham is a character in itself. Its look and atmosphere are as important as the look of the batsuit.
 
I really like bright, clean Gotham, besides what has been very well said above about Batman "cleaning up the streets" it is also a more original and fresher approach to the character and his universe imo.
We had Dark Gotham already, the gothic one with Burton and the Blade runnery one with BB. It's fascinating to see how maestro Pfister and Nolan have magnificently brought Batman, a night creature by essence, into the day light.
And I thought that the fact that the interrogation room scene was also brightly lit was so much more original than a damp dark cell which to me would have been pretty cliche.
Yes, lets get batman in the sunlight. Or what about sending him to space? It would be so original....oh wait....
 
So if things get better in the next film should i expect a Schumacher-esque Gotham?

How exactly would things getting better constitute large, Olympian men statues holding up buildings, with neon lights flashing and glow in the dark designs shrouding the city?
 
So if things get better in the next film should i expect a Schumacher-esque Gotham?

I remember Nolan stating in an interview that they wanted to unclutter the city because of the larger things that are going on. They wanted a larger scope on it, so they cleaned it up.
I just dont see how Ras (a worldwide thread) could fit in the Narrows but the joker couldnt. Excuse me but i ll keep whining for the next 3 years so that maybe my prayers will be heard and Gotham will go back to being like BB. Sorry for that, but Gotham is a character in itself. Its look and atmosphere are as important as the look of the batsuit.
Posted this in the Gotham aesthetic thread, but it's also pertainable here. From an architecture blog:

Chicago is the city of the mob and of Mies Van Der Rohe, a potent mix of the clean cut and the corrupt. In the Dark Knight, Bruce Wayne lives in a penthouse apartment rather than the gothic Wayne Manor, and there is no Bat Cave. Instead, Batman works out of a fabulous space that with its vast backlit suspended ceiling and concrete walls is a cross between a corporate office and a contemporary art gallery.

The architecture throughout is clean-cut and corporate. The city may not be exactly friendly, but it is familiar, no longer anything to be scared of. What does have the capacity to scare us though is that this carefully ordered world might succumb to anarchy. Far from representing the city itself as chaotic, The Dark Knight plays on our fear that chaos could come to visit. And in this sense the film can be seen as either hopelessly reactionary, preaching a Bush era fear of so-called terrorist states, or as something more complex and ambiguous.

In The Dark Knight, it is the ordinariness of Gotham City that is meant to terrify us. Here, Gotham represents a well ordered city that could easily be reduced to smouldering rubble. The city in the Dark Knight may look familiar but the gothic darkness hasn't vanished. It is there in the shadows, an endlessly possible flip side to the shiny optimism of Modernity. This doubling occurs throughout the film: in the character of Harvey Dent, Gotham's White Knight and in the brilliant scene where two boats - one full of innocent civilians and one full of criminals - have to choose whether to destroy each other.

The film suggests that it is impossible to design out darkness. It is a product of our own desire, and a nightmare lurking in the same places that also give us comfort. It is not an alternative world so much as the dark side of our affluent lives.

http://fantasticjournal.blogspot.com/2008/09/dark-knightwhite-heat-architecture-of.html

Whether you prefer it or not is your taste, but they chose the look for a reason.
 
Posted this in the Gotham aesthetic thread, but it's also pertainable here. From an architecture blog:



http://fantasticjournal.blogspot.com/2008/09/dark-knightwhite-heat-architecture-of.html

Whether you prefer it or not is your taste, but they chose the look for a reason.
Well ok, so Nolan turned Gotham into an ordinary city now so that he can psychoanalyse it in a better way, instead of using the dirty, comicbooky BB one. Ok, point taken.

I just wish that there was some continuity thats all. The BB Gotham was mesmerising and had more charisma for me. Losing it for something so tasteless hurts me quite a bit. I believe that the cleaning up could have been done in a more subtle way while retaining the comic book aura. But Nolan wanted his crime drama to become even more realistic so he had to throw as much comicbook-iness out of the window.


Thanks Anita!


While I'm glad they went with something new, and especially in the Imax I loved all the wide city shots. But it was Chicago, not Gotham. There had to have been some way to declutter the city and still make it feel like a different place. The movie, I feel suffer did from a lack of Batman esqe aesthetic.

I really missed the Mansion and the Batcave, but like I said, it was also something different which I appreciate.

Hopefully though, if there is a third one (still can't believe there is no talk of one) that the Mansion will return. I feel you miss out on a lot of iconic Batman scenarios without it.
In other words what this quote says.
 
Last edited:
Well ok, so Nolan turned Gotham into an ordinary city now so that he can psychoanalyse it in a better way, instead of using the dirty, comicbooky BB one. Ok, point taken.

I just wish that there was some continuity thats all. The BB Gotham was mesmerising and had more charisma for me. Losing it for something so tasteless hurts me quite a bit. I believe that the cleaning up could have been done in a more subtle way while retaining the comic book aura. But Nolan wanted his crime drama to become even more realistic so he had to throw as much comicbook-iness out of the window.


Thanks Anita!

I didn't find the TDK Gotham to be that different from the BB one... :huh: They just didn't show The Narrows.
 
BB Gotham, as beautiful as it was, really felt like a soundstage at times. I don't believe that was the case with TDK.
That whole streetlights reflecting on wet pavement and smoke coming out of manholes more or less popularized by Ridley Scott's films and commercials feels a little dated imo anyway. I can understand why Nolan and Pfister would want to take the film's visuals somewhere else. And imo did it brilliantly, there is a cold, sterile, clean almost Kubrickian feel in TDK that serves the story very well.
On a related note, I love that iconic shot of Batman on top of the Sears tower. It was beautiful, showed the solitude of the character and was more original imo than just another shot of him standing on a gargoyle at night or something.
 
I didn't find the TDK Gotham to be that different from the BB one... :huh: They just didn't show The Narrows.
Exactly.

I mean yes, the city is cleaned up. With reason. As explained by Anita, myself, and others.

The extra grim aspects of the city in BEGINS came in the sense of the Narrows, and the total oppression on the city before Batman shows up.
 
Just look at the poll. You will see that many people disagree and actually prefer the BB one.
I'm not asking about preference. Naturally the rigidness of fans and their unwillingness to accept different forms of something their used to will usually drive them to the same old, same old.

TDK's city has a different feel. Yet it is still clearly recognizable the same city.

The monorail can be seen, "Lower 5th", etc.

Nolan took what we knew visually, and pushed it out further and gave us more.

Remember the wide spread shot of Gotham when Bruce is flying home from Butan?

THAT'S the city this takes place in ... not all of it looks like the Narrows. City's have rich industrial areas, etc.

Hell, look at the indoor scenes in TDK and compare them to BEGINS. Even the indorr scenes in TDK have an expansive, elaborate, and vast setting. The resteraunt, the fund raiser party.
 
For those of you who saw it in IMAX: How awesome was that sequence when Batman is on top of the Sears Tower and he tilts his head with his hand pressed against his cowl, hearing into his ear piece. And then the part where Batman steps out of the shadows and says. "Check the names." That gave me goosebumps. Cinematography was wicked! Batman was wicked! Gordon ruled! That scene owns!
 
On a related note, I love that iconic shot of Batman on top of the Sears tower. It was beautiful, showed the solitude of the character and was more original imo than just another shot of him standing on a gargoyle at night or something.
He wasnt standing like a gargoyle at all, his cape wasnt billowing or anything and there were no other towers around the one he was standing on, giving the impression that the tower was in the middle of a field or something.
I wanted to see myriads of skyscrapers around that one and batman standing in a more iconic shot. I mean, look at how many scyscrapers there are in the following pics.
dn_gallery_371_1.jpg




dn_gallery_371_2b.jpg
 
Exactly.

I mean yes, the city is cleaned up. With reason. As explained by Anita, myself, and others.

The extra grim aspects of the city in BEGINS came in the sense of the Narrows, and the total oppression on the city before Batman shows up.
I didnt think that the mob activity prohibited the road cleaners from doing their jobs during BB. And even if the cleaning up is symbolic, then i am sorry, but Gotham never cleans up. To me Nolan simply wanted his deeper message about society to be transmitted from a real city and not a cartoonish, for fear that the societal status of a fantastical city wouldnt affect the audience.
 
He wasnt standing like a gargoyle at all, his cape wasnt billowing or anything and there were no other towers around the one he was standing on, giving the impression that the tower was in the middle of a field or something.
Pretty crowded field. :o

95704059oy2.jpg
I wanted to see myriads of skyscrapers around that one and batman standing in a more iconic shot. I mean, look at how many scyscrapers there are in the following pics.
Hmm.. funny, I see plenty of them in that picture. But anyway, I don't think I've ever seen a live action shot of Batman perched like a gargoyle atop a building. Maybe it's not easy to get a shot like that without the actor looking incredibly silly? I know it'd certainly look silly if he was doing that on top of the Sears tower there. The only live action shots I can think of that come remotely close to gargoyle-like are the where he's at the monorail stop in Begins and the ones where he's perched at Gordon's house.
I didnt think that the mob activity prohibited the road cleaners from doing their jobs during BB. And even if the cleaning up is symbolic, then i am sorry, but Gotham never cleans up. To me Nolan simply wanted his deeper message about society to be transmitted from a real city and not a cartoonish, for fear that the societal status of a fantastical city wouldnt affect the audience.
I didn't particularly see Gotham as clean in TDK. Maybe not as filthy was it was in Begins, but even in shots like this, you can see what appears to be smog in the background. Not the sign of a clean city:
dn_gallery_371_2b.jpg


I think there were more daylight scenes and no scenes in the slums (Narrows), which made it appear to be cleaner, since BB had more night scenes and obviously the slum scenes that TDK lacked. But even in TDK, there were shots that looked just like the Gotham was saw in Begins. Like when Batman's chasing Joker's truck and they're having their little "duel" in the streets after the truck has crashed. But really, if you look at the daylight Gotham in Begins and the daylight Gotham in this film, there's not a big difference.
 
I think setting the film in Chicago was a masterstroke. I do agree with some peoples complaints about it not being "Gotham" enough, but i think setting it in a real world enviroment adds to feeling that this could really happen to a major city. I found the city to have a steeley blue hue and almost futuristic look to it, whereas BBs Gotham was grimey and seemed more organic and less advanced. I think this plays into the fact that Gotham has began to advance in the right direction after the arrival of Batman. Also some scenes in BB just seemed too confined and sound-stage like, maybe the look they were going for in the intimate part of the story but i much prefer a expansive, open world that seems like its really breathing.

I must admit I was looking forward to seeing the Narrows again though, especially how the inhabitants would react to the emergance of the Joker. If the Narrows was included it could of really shown how far Gotham has come, with the new bright future shown in the steeley main city and the remnants of a troubled past with the gritty and gloomy Narrows.
 
Pretty crowded field. :o

95704059oy2.jpg
Hmm.. funny, I see plenty of them in that picture. But anyway, I don't think I've ever seen a live action shot of Batman perched like a gargoyle atop a building. Maybe it's not easy to get a shot like that without the actor looking incredibly silly? I know it'd certainly look silly if he was doing that on top of the Sears tower there. The only live action shots I can think of that come remotely close to gargoyle-like are the where he's at the monorail stop in Begins and the ones where he's perched at Gordon's house.
This shot's not gargoyle-like?

batsdvddawnsmall.jpg
 
Well ok, so Nolan turned Gotham into an ordinary city now so that he can psychoanalyse it in a better way, instead of using the dirty, comicbooky BB one. Ok, point taken.

I just wish that there was some continuity thats all. The BB Gotham was mesmerising and had more charisma for me. Losing it for something so tasteless hurts me quite a bit. I believe that the cleaning up could have been done in a more subtle way while retaining the comic book aura. But Nolan wanted his crime drama to become even more realistic so he had to throw as much comicbook-iness out of the window.


Thanks Anita!



In other words what this quote says.
In response to your sig, at some point the fear factor is diminished & people realize what he is; a man in a costume. Much as I like the "creature of the night" motif, how long does it take to comprehend that it's a man in a mask? People catch on & they fear him a little bit less. Burton did the exact same thing & nobody seemed to have a problem with it.
 
In response to your sig, at some point the fear factor is diminished & people realize what he is; a man in a costume. Much as I like the "creature of the night" motif, how long does it take to comprehend that it's a man in a mask? People catch on & they fear him a little bit less. Burton did the exact same thing & nobody seemed to have a problem with it.
I dunno, I would think it's scarier knowing it's just a regular guy. A regular guy who's REALLY good at beating people up and keeps on trucking even when he's injured.
 
That's plausible. And he is still feared because he's just creepy. His image is spooky & his whole mystique of vanishing & appearing out of nowhere-these things all work for him. And the mob was scared of him or they wouldn't have been in hiding when the Joker approached them. But I think maybe he'd be more feared if criminals thought he might kill them. Just the underlying fear that he might actually do it.
begins_batman_rain.jpg

There's only so much a criminal can fear from a guy that they know will just smack them around & hand them over to the cops, no matter what they do or how bad they piss him off. Stab him, shoot him, hit him with your car-he'll still do whatever it takes to bring you in alive. And they know that. ^Flass was scared s***less when Batman interrogated him, b/c he didn't know if Bats was going to drop him on his head & splatter his brains all over the pavement. Maroni, on the other hand, was far less intimidated. I'm not saying Batman should kill, but rather that there should be a way to keep that impression alive.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Staff online

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
202,279
Messages
22,079,014
Members
45,880
Latest member
Heartbeat
Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"