The Dark Knight Let's debate various aspects of TDK

[Crook]

You've never seen them implemented on the suit.

 

[Shoemeister]

The lenses just look hokey to me in real life.

I agree. Sure as hell worked on BTAS. But in real life? No.

 

[Keyser Sushi]

Haha, actually I just sort of thought to myself about how we deviated a bit there.

So to get back on track... this has been sort of bugging me: anyone notice how in nearly all of the shots we've seen of Bats he has no visible pupils? Is is simply the photos and angles or are they actually implementing some sort of lenses as rumored? Because I for one have never been fond of the whole lens idea. Not that I'm saying I think it's true... but it still made me wonder.

Keeping his pupils out of sight is cool with me, keeps him more beast like. But at the same time, I'm not huge on the lens' either. So if a shadow blocks his eyes, I'm all for it. But if a lens does... eh.

On the one hand, I like the idea of a comic accurate look, but I don't think lenses can work on film, and there's one reason why.

In the comics, Batman's eyes change shape with his facial expression - even in TAS they do that. But lenses wouldn't change shape to give expression.

An actor needs to use his eyes to express emotion, and especially intensity. Batman is all about intensity. So I can't see Nolan covering Bale's eyes. It's the same reason Sam Raimi always gets rid of most or all of Spider-Man's mask during the big climactic battles.

 

[DaddyGrayson]

You've never seen them implemented on the suit.

While this is true, I've seen very well done manips that are good representation of it. And I just don't like it. I like seeing his eyes. Brings a more powerful performance.

 

[DaddyGrayson]

On the one hand, I like the idea of a comic accurate look, but I don't think lenses can work on film, and there's one reason why.

In the comics, Batman's eyes change shape with his facial expression - even in TAS they do that. But lenses wouldn't change shape to give expression.

An actor needs to use his eyes to express emotion, and especially intensity. Batman is all about intensity. So I can't see Nolan covering Bale's eyes. It's the same reason Sam Raimi always gets rid of most or all of Spider-Man's mask during the big climactic battles.

I actually HATED that about the Spidey movies. I wanna see Spidey fight. Not Tobey.

But I agree with what you've said here completely.

 

[Crook]

While this is true, I've seen very well done manips that are good representation of it. And I just don't like it. I like seeing his eyes. Brings a more powerful performance.

No offense to any of the manippers, but no matter how good it is, it's still not gonna be an indicator of how it'd be implemented by a major Hollywood production.

Also, weren't you just fine with the eye NOT being seen?

 

[Keyser Sushi]

I actually HATED that about the Spidey movies. I wanna see Spidey fight. Not Tobey.

Well, I don't really like it when Spidey took the whole mask off, but the torn mask is cool, it's straight out of the Todd McFarlane playbook.

But I agree with what you've said here completely.

This pleases me.

 

[DaddyGrayson]

No offense to any of the manippers, but no matter how good it is, it's still not gonna be an indicator of how it'd be implemented by a major Hollywood production.

Also, weren't you just fine with the eye NOT being seen?

Yeah, I know it's weird. I'd rather see no eye than an all white one. I think it's more effective. And I kinda agree with the manip remark, but one can also take a fair guess at what they're gonna look like.

 

[Crook]

Yeah, I know it's weird. I'd rather see no eye than an all white one. I think it's more effective.

Effective in what way? One is completely shrouded in darkness, the other resembles a ghost or something supernatural. Both evoke some sort of evil entity.

And I kinda agree with the manip remark, but one can also take a fair guess at what they're gonna look like.

Sure, just like how there are plenty of fan-made rubber suits that go in the direction the movies do. But they still look like crap and pale in comparison.

 

[DaddyGrayson]

Effective in what way? One is completely shrouded in darkness, the other resembles a ghost or something supernatural. Both evoke some sort of evil entity.

Yes. I just think that they shrouded in darkness looks better. And I'm basing that off of not seeing any movie production photos of lenses, but taking a fair guess.

Sure, just like how there are plenty of fan-made rubber suits that go in the direction the movies do. But they still look like crap and pale in comparison.

Yes. And there are plenty of people wanting a cloth suit as well. And I don't want to see even a major budget cloth suit. Somethings just won't work, IMO.

 

[Saint]

I think you are wrong, however, in that the Two Face of TLH/DV did have that motivation.

See, I think Loeb's Two Face is slightly different from Two Face as a whole. Loeb's Two Face seems, dare I say, a bit more noble. His targets were only and always mobsters and criminals.

The nobility's is Harvey's, not Two-Face's. Harvey wanted to save the city, and his influence put them in the position where Two-Face took over and did evil instead.

But if, like you insisted, Harvey Dent has little influence on Two Face,

That's not what I said--I said that's how writers sometimes treat him, and that this treatment isn't right.

then the idea that Two Face wanted to finish Harvey's work doesn't fit.

Correct: it doesn't fit. Two-Face didn't want to finish Harvey's work, Harvey did. Harvey had those intentions, but at the end it was Two-Face who twisted it into murder. Not because Two-Face wanted to save the city, but simply because he's Two-Face: he exists only to vent his rage and create violence.

What was happening in TLH/DV is precisely the ideal Two-Face that I described: Harvey stills wants to save the city, and Two-Face twists that goal into something else.

This is precisely what I described in my post.

 

[StylishHokie21]

All of you guys are right. With this movie, I think a lot of people will realize that Vader or Lecter doesn't have anuthing on the Joker. I mean the Jack Nicholson Joker in Batman 89 was amazing and fun, but it isn't sinister and serious enough to be recognized as the greatest villain of all-time

I never can figure out why people always say Jack's Joker wasn't sinister enough.

 

[deathfromabove]

I'm afraid that Heath Ledger as the Joker is becoming larger than the actual film. It could backfire.

i dont see this happening.

when has an actor's death ever negatively impacted the publics reaction to a performance? especially one released posthumously?

 

[deathfromabove]

I never can figure out why people always say Jack's Joker wasn't sinister enough.

im just guessing here but probably because they felt it wasnt sinister enough.

 

[Saint]

I never can figure out why people always say Jack's Joker wasn't sinister enough.

No kidding. He burnt a man alive on screen. He made a point of spraying girls with acid--girls he liked!

 

[StylishHokie21]

im just guessing here but probably because they felt it wasnt sinister enough.

Tell me about it. The question I'm asking is why.

 

[Kaizer]

Just had a thought about the virals...

There's been much thought about including Batman in the virals after we're done with Dent, but there's never really been any thought about how. You can't really see Batman starting up his own webpage, now can you? Of course, there could be a Wayne Industries-homepage, but we really want Batman, not Bruce Wayne, right? One idea could of course be to have newspaper-clippings and such to highlight the Batman's exploits, but we kinda already have this with the Gotham Times, so I got another idea...

We know we'll get all these fake Batmen in The Dark Knight, so why couldn't the virals start focusing on these fellows as a way to give focus to Batman? They could for example put up a webpage for potential candidates where you could sign up as a Bat-man of Gotham?

Just an idea, don't know if anything like this has been mentioned before.

 

[Prefix]

i dont see this happening.

when has an actor's death ever negatively impacted the publics reaction to a performance? especially one released posthumously?

Well, that is entirely not my point.

I just think that the hype is getting so big that Ledger is in danger of not meeting expectations no matter how good he is.

 

[rohitiyer]

double post.

 

[rohitiyer]

Just had a thought about the virals...

There's been much thought about including Batman in the virals after we're done with Dent, but there's never really been any thought about how. You can't really see Batman starting up his own webpage, now can you? Of course, there could be a Wayne Industries-homepage, but we really want Batman, not Bruce Wayne, right? One idea could of course be to have newspaper-clippings and such to highlight the Batman's exploits, but we kinda already have this with the Gotham Times, so I got another idea...

We know we'll get all these fake Batmen in The Dark Knight, so why couldn't the virals start focusing on these fellows as a way to give focus to Batman? They could for example put up a webpage for potential candidates where you could sign up as a Bat-man of Gotham?

Just an idea, don't know if anything like this has been mentioned before.

I like this idea.

A lot.

 

[abcdefz]

I actually HATED that about the Spidey movies. I wanna see Spidey fight. Not Tobey.

Yup.

 

[The Last Meatbag]

How about the obsessive reporter/fan of Batman?

He could have his own little...blog with clippings of newspaper articles and pictures of Batman. Thoughts on who or what he is....

 

[Kaizer]

that would work too!

Basically what we need is something ABOUT Batman, not FROM him, to keep the urban-myth idea going.

 

[Figs]

I never can figure out why people always say Jack's Joker wasn't sinister enough.

There all getting themselves overhyped is one of the reasons. I can't wait myself to see Ledger's performance but it's ridiculous how people are saying Jack's Joker wasn't sinister or evil.

I think some of the fanboys have gotten themselves so worked up about the new Joker that they think it's going to look/appear Rated R compared to Jack's.

I understand that according to all the interviews Ledger's Joker won't be as silly as Jacks but that doesn't mean Nicholson's performance was kiddy fair.

 

[Kaizer]

Nicholson was perfectly sinister in the fantasy-setting of Burton's world. There should be no doubt about it.