The Dark Knight Frank Miller on TDK

[Rasputin911]

Frank Miller's the comic book creator who revived Batman and turned him into The Dark Knight in the 80s.
What's Frank think of The Dark Knight's Oscar chances?
"It looks right. It’s dark. It’s spooky. Unfortunately, they seem to have forgotten it was a Batman movie. He’s barely in it.
"I think Heath Ledger’s death was, I have to say it, a major marketing boon for Warner Brothers. But he made a terrific Joker. He certainly has a shot" at an Oscar.​

"You’ve got to give’em credit. They FINALLY got the title right."​

http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/entertainment_movies_blog/2008/12/frank-miller-on.html​

I've been wondering for awhile what he thought of the movie. I'm actually surprised he didn't critisize the realism. But he seems to give credit where its due, at least.​

 

[Boom]

After ****ing over The Spirit, Miller isn't allowed to have an opinion on other people's work.

 

[Spidey 2007]

im suprised he didnt say "They failed to be faithful to the comic and put it in black and white. Wheres batmans red sonar eyes? or bruce waynes red tie? WB has no idea what they are doing"

 

[Two-Face]

Was Batman hardly in it? that's funny coming from Miller

 

[redfirebird2008]

I'd say Nolan understands how to adapt a Batman comic to the screen a hell of a lot better than Miller understands how to adapt a Spirit comic to the screen. The guy's opinion is worthless at this point. I'd take a fanboy's criticism more seriously than his. At least a fanboy hasn't gone and ruined the adaptation of a great comic book like the Spirit. Long story short: screw Frank Miller.

 

[The Chris]

I respect Miller's opinion but I will always say that if you really think Batman's barely in the movie, you need to watch the movie again.

 

[redfirebird2008]

I respect Miller's opinion but I will always say that if you really think Batman's barely in the movie, you need to watch the movie again.

If anything, Bruce Wayne is the one that got slightly gipped in TDK. But we have INCREDIBLE character development for Bruce in Batman Begins. I view the two as one long movie so there's plenty of both Bruce and Batman in the saga.

 

[The Chris]

If anything, Bruce Wayne is the one that got slightly gipped in TDK. But we have INCREDIBLE character development for Bruce in Batman Begins. I view the two as one long movie so there's plenty of both Bruce and Batman in the saga.

Yep you can say all that. I appreciated that Batman is just as much a character as everyone else. Usually it feels like the superhero part is a throwaway, just there for action. But here Bruce isn't seen for the last 40 mins or less. I liked it cause Batman got a lot of development and dialogue. Made me happy.

 

[redfirebird2008]

Yep you can say all that. I appreciated that Batman is just as much a character as everyone else. Usually it feels like the superhero part is a throwaway, just there for action. But here Bruce isn't seen for the last 40 mins or less. I liked it cause Batman got a lot of development and dialogue. Made me happy.

Speaking of which, I still need to watch the two movies back to back. I've had a pretty busy schedule lately. I have listened to them back to back on my iPod at work though.

 

[Two-Face]

I respect Miller's opinion but I will always say that if you really think Batman's barely in the movie, you need to watch the movie again.

I kinda think he didn't watch all of it.

 

[Doc Samson]

I'm not gonna sit here and defend Miller's more "recent" work, but I never knew the disdain for him was so thick around here, I just asked about this in another thread yesterday. To me, in the 80's, Miller helped redefine what comics could be, not only with his contributions to Batman but with Daredevil as well. That being said, I think it just seems like Batman isn't all over this movie because everyone gets equal time, even lesser characters like Mr. Reese & Lau have a good amount of screen time. And Bruce Wayne does a lot of action as himself in this too, with two separate daytime sequences. All in all, I think this was one of the few movies that understood how to use such a huge, quality cast the right way

 

[Crook]

No wonder fanboys get a bad name. I have not once, not ever, seen a generally humble and respectable response to anyone that's criticized or judged fanboy's films in a negative fashion. Even if they were clearly joking (see the damn outcry over a joke RDJ made). I could literally predict every single response in this thread before even reading a single word.

And the very fact that some of you are so quick to dismiss a central figure who's responsible for this character flourishing as the dark character he is, and whose work inspires the character's modern writers today...is almost saddening.

 

[FlawlessVictory]

I'm pretty sure Frank Miller was quoted around when the movie first came out mentioning how he really liked it.

 

[Two-Face=Badass]

No wonder fanboys get a bad name. I have not once, not ever, seen a generally humble and respectable response to anyone that's criticized or judged fanboy's films in a negative fashion. Even if they were clearly joking (see the damn outcry over a joke RDJ made). I could literally predict every single response in this thread before even reading a single word.

And the very fact that some of you are so quick to dismiss a central figure who's responsible for this character flourishing as the dark character he is, and whose work inspires the character's modern writers today...is almost saddening.

Quoted For Truth, I could go start a thread called "Problems you had with The Dark Knight" and I'd be the most hated poster here, with every single nitpick from Joker's slightly plot holed plan down to Dent's overly scarred face countered with anger and everyone would be calling me names from a hater to just plain wrong about the masterpiece.
Granted I don't like the fact that Miller is the man who made "Batman dark again", because no, Englehart and O'Neill were bringing him back to his roots long before then, but his opinion should not be squashed into the dirt just because he saw what he felt was a flaw in the film.

 

[redfirebird2008]

Quoted For Truth, I could go start a thread called "Problems you had with The Dark Knight" and I'd be the most hated poster here, with every single nitpick from Joker's slightly plot holed plan down to Dent's overly scarred face countered with anger and everyone would be calling me names from a hater to just plain wrong about the masterpiece.
Granted I don't like the fact that Miller is the man who made "Batman dark again", because no, Englehart and O'Neill were bringing him back to his roots long before then, but his opinion should not be squashed into the dirt just because he saw what he felt was a flaw in the film.

Actually I could rip the film to shreds. It's really over the top and I hate the fact that it has a cliched climax just like Batman Begins. Without the writing and characterization of the Joker by the Nolans + Ledger, the film is pretty average if you ask me. Batman "not being in it enough" is not something I'd criticize, though.

 

[Carnotaur3]

Have people forgotten that Bruce IS Batman? Everytime Batman is on screen, it's Bruce's screen time as well.

 

[redfirebird2008]

Have people forgotten that Bruce IS Batman? Everytime Batman is on screen, it's Bruce's screen time as well.

Ah, but there's three sides to Bruce Wayne so technically there's three characters. t:

 

[Carnotaur3]

Ah, but there's three sides to Bruce Wayne so technically there's three characters. t:

Well, sure. But Bruce Wayne's/Batman's arc is soley based on what's happening to the city and the close ones around him. It's why Batman DOESN'T feel absent to me. The story is still about him.

 

[namtaB]

LOL @ peoples comments. This is Frank Miller guys. He made a valid criticism about Dark Knight. You may not agree with it but that's not a reason to make childish comments like his opinion is worthless and the like. Grow the F up. Agree with the poster who said this is what gives fanboys a bad name.

 

[DaRkVeNgeanCe]

Ehhh I think Miller has sort of an ego, I dont really care what he thinks to be honest, his best work is behind him. I do though very much respect his work.

 

[AndrewGilkison]

Fanboys don't love Frank Miller as much as they used to. His recent work hasn't lived up to the greatness of his past work in their eyes.

As for the "valid criticism"... I don't understand what he meant by "Batman wasn't in it enough"? Does he not count the time Bruce Wayne was on screen? Or did he expect Nolan to just shoe horn Batman action scenes into the script with no rhyme or reason other than to just provide cool action scenes? Miller didn't write Batman Year One that way. Why did he expect the Nolans to?

 

[[A]]

Miller: What? No hookers? *walks out the theater*

 

[DaRkVeNgeanCe]

No wonder fanboys get a bad name. I have not once, not ever, seen a generally humble and respectable response to anyone that's criticized or judged fanboy's films in a negative fashion. Even if they were clearly joking (see the damn outcry over a joke RDJ made). I could literally predict every single response in this thread before even reading a single word.

And the very fact that some of you are so quick to dismiss a central figure who's responsible for this character flourishing as the dark character he is, and whose work inspires the character's modern writers today...is almost saddening.

Who cares??? Miller has done some good for batman but that was in the past, even in his interviews on special features about Batman he kinda acts like Batman is lame. I likes some of Miller's work, but he's really REALLY overrated!

 

[hatebox]

Whatever he thinks of Batman, The Spirit looks really, really terrible.

I know that should be irrelevant, but it does put his views of TDK into perspective. I'm happy to engage in criticisms of of the film, but 'Batman/Bruce not being in it enough' is a dead end argument to me.

 

[CrackedPot]

I think Miller and some other people completely miss the point of this film. Is it too smart for people like Miller to process? Probably. The title 'The Dark Knight' refers to what Batman has to become or what he becomes at the end of the movie. The whole point and focus of the film is the city's reaction to the Batman character. It is a city story. You have all these different elements - all caused or driven by the creation of Batman. You have copy-cat vigilantes, you have a new, overly enthusiastic D.A., you have the mob trying to figure out a way to stay significant - all this is caused by Batman's actions. And you have the response ultimately to Batman, Gordon, and Dent's plans - The Joker. The whole point is that Batman creates this alliance to tear down the corruption - but in a city like Gotham that is not going to last - Rachel dies, Loeb dies, Dent dies, Surillo dies, numerous cops die, mob figures die - and at the end Batman is alone - he is and wil assume his new title - THE DARK KNIGHT.

I think people have been waiting for a story that delves into the Batman's psyche, his dark place, a man that is conflicted - I think Nolan has been laying the foundation for that and we will see it in the third film. For me, Batman Begins and The Dark Knight were necessary to create the figure of Batman that we see in the comics. In the comics they bypass the origin and all the meaty bits in between and go straight to the fully formed Batman. I don't think the fully formed Batman, Dark Knight has been seen in Nolan's films because he had to build from the beginning.

Batman Begins is the origin. The Dark Knight is the meaty bits in between. I think the next film will be the Batman that Miller and most people are familiar with. And it will center solely on BATMAN.