The Dark Knight Likes And Dislikes

[TheBatman072]

You're comparing two children interacting with one another only to have Batman drive by to...

The utter absurdity of the dog covering it's eyes in a scene from Fantastic 4?!


Honestly...people. It's Gotham CITY. Ya know, filled with PEOPLE - that being men, women AND CHILDREN.

I think some of you Batfans believe that Gotham City is populated only by middle aged white guys who commit crime 24/7.

Somewhere, out there in ye old Gotham...kids are playing in the streets. Batman drives by. Nuff said.

And from the fact that he's blowing up cars on his way to something, we can deduce that he's on his way to something very important in a hurry.

He's not just blowing up cars for the **** of it.

 

[Vile]

Bingo.

Sheesh, the kids didnt even TALK!

 

[Crook]

Are we seriously *****ing about the kid thing? Really?

...

This movie just needs to come out now. You all must be REALLY bored.

Clearly.

You're comparing two children interacting with one another only to have Batman drive by to...

The utter absurdity of the dog covering it's eyes in a scene from Fantastic 4?!

No, I'm comparing it with the absurd convenience of cars blowing up in front of children that were just pretending to do so, followed by the typical "OMG DID U SEE DAT?!" reactionary shot.

Is this troubling to some of you, that people might not like it? Did any of us say the movie sucked? No? Then I guess there shouldn't be a problem.

Honestly...people. It's Gotham CITY. Ya know, filled with PEOPLE - that being men, women AND CHILDREN.

I think some of you Batfans believe that Gotham City is populated only by middle aged white guys who commit crime 24/7.

Mhm. Please come back and point out where I stated in having a problem with children being present in this film, and I'll be sure to wait here precisely forever.

 

[Vile]

No, I'm comparing it with the absurd convenience of cars blowing up in front of children that were just pretending to do so, followed by the typical "OMG DID U SEE DAT?!" reactionary shot.

I fail to see why it's an absurd convenience for children to be playing - especially something as crazy as pretending to be cowboys, marines, GI Joes or whatever. Is it any more of an absurd convenience for Bruce falling down a hole and bats leaping into his face?

No, personally, I dont think so. As to the 'reaction'...well...the cars exploded. Unexpectantly. I suppose they could have sighed and just went home...

Is this troubling to some of you, that people might not like it? Did any of us say the movie sucked? No? Then I guess there shouldn't be a problem.

No problem good sir. t: Just an odd thing to nitpick with...what with so many other major complaints bouncing around.

Mhm. Please come back and point out where I stated in having a problem with children being present in this film, and I'll be sure to wait here precisely forever.

This wasnt in reference to you, personally - but the general audience who feel anything but Batman kicking ass for 2 straight hours is 'campy' and 'kid friendly'.

 

[Crook]

I fail to see why it's an absurd convenience for children to be playing - especially something as crazy as pretending to be cowboys, marines, GI Joes or whatever. Is it any more of an absurd convenience for Bruce falling down a hole and bats leaping into his face?

I don't know how many times I have to repeat myself. My problem wasn't that individual act, but the scene in it's entirety, and how it plays itself out. The absurd convenience is cars blowing up when there are kids play-shooting it. Just like if I yell "BANG!" and the person next to me conveniently gets sniped in the head. Do you understand?

No, personally, I dont think so. As to the 'reaction'...well...the cars exploded. Unexpectantly. I suppose they could have sighed and just went home...

Or there could have been no kids in that scene in the first place since they serve no function than for a quick laugh.

No problem good sir. t: Just an odd thing to nitpick with...what with so many other major complaints bouncing around.

It's not nitpicking. I said one simple statement about it and it seems to have dragged on for whatever reason.

Nitpicking would be pointing out a "Chicago" storefront sign in a millisecond's worth of footage.

 

[TheBatman072]

It's actually kind of cool. Get to see Batman from the perspective of two random kids for a few seconds who hadn't been watching him for a couple of months condensed into two hours.

 

[TheBatman072]

Or there could have been no kids in that scene in the first place since they serve no function than for a quick laugh.

And...?


Who cares? It's a 2.5 second comedic relief scene in a 2.5 hour movie about a psychotic, murderous clown blowing up hospitals and killing all kinds of people.


It's a VERY small breather in the midst of all kinds of carnage and chaos.

 

[Vile]

Nitpicking would be pointing out a "Chicago" storefront sign in a millisecond's worth of footage.

...WHAT?!


Alright folks. We have a new topic.





t:

 

[Crook]

And...?

And nothing. I just don't think the kids should've been there because it's stupid. And I don't think any one else here would choose them either, if they were presented with a decision of how to depict that scene.

Who cares? It's a 2.5 second comedic relief scene in a 2.5 hour movie about a psychotic, murderous clown blowing up hospitals and killing all kinds of people.

It's a VERY small breather in the midst of all kinds of carnage and chaos.

Last I checked this was a "Likes and Dislikes" thread. The scene fits in the latter so I mentioned it. Why is this such a big deal to people? You are making it out like I'm protesting this film or that the scene ruins the integrity of the movie.

The scene sucks, period. So as of this moment, I think 2.5 seconds of a 2.5 hour film...sucks. Do you have a problem with it? Would you prefer I like every bit?

I can't believe I have to type this.

 

[TheBatman072]

And nothing. I just don't think the kids should've been there because it's stupid. And I don't think any one else here would choose them either, if they were presented with a decision of how to depict that scene.


Last I checked this was a "Likes and Dislikes" thread. The scene fits in the latter so I mentioned it. Why is this such a big deal to people? You are making it out like I'm protesting this film or that the scene ruins the integrity of the movie.

The scene sucks, period. So as of this moment, I think 2.5 seconds of a 2.5 hour film...sucks. Do you have a problem with it? Would you prefer I like every bit?

I can't believe I have to type this.

Or you could have...said your peace and ignored the rest of it.

So it's partly your fault you're having to type this.

 

[TheBatman072]

And the last time I checked, this was a comic book message board. We're all pretty used to having to explain or defend our opinions on something every time we post it. Becuase if we didn't, this place would be ****ing boring.


You're not immune to that. You don't like it, leave.

 

[Crook]

Or you could have...said your peace and ignored the rest of it.

So it's partly your fault you're having to type this.

I did say my peace. I already left it, until people started starting a ruckus over a harmless statement.

And the last time I checked, this was a comic book message board. We're all pretty used to having to explain or defend our opinions on something every time we post it. Becuase if we didn't, this place would be ****ing boring.

You're not immune to that. You don't like it, leave.

Yes, I've heard that statement before. And as always, it only works when applied to an actual argument.

What we have here, is a simple nitpick of a throwaway statement. People questioning someone because they didn't like 2.5 seconds of footage. Apparently that's blasphemy.

 

[TheBatman072]

I did say my peace. I already left it, until people started starting a ruckus over a harmless statement.


Yes, I've heard that statement before. And as always, it only works when applied to an actual argument.

What we have here, is a simple nitpick of a throwaway statement. People questioning someone because they didn't like 2.5 seconds of footage. And yes, I laughed too.

There was when you started replying and "defending" it. No one forced you to reply to any of the "nitpicks."

 

[Crook]

Never said anyone forced me to do anything. But when I see people getting heated over something so mundane, I'm gonna point it out and question the behavior.

 

[Simon Dark]

I am indifferent to the scene with the two kids.....am I going to be crucified?

 

[Va3H]

Yes, starting tonight you will! I'm a man of my word!

 

[BatmanFanatic]

I just saw TV spot #4 and here is what I thought of it.

Honestly, can these TV spots get any further away from the tone of the actual film? I'd hate for a parent to see that TV spot over and over and think that taking their 5 and 6 year old boys would be appropriate for this film. It's over 13 for a reason. Given everything we know of the plot and the content, it should definitely be teens and adults, and I don't want to see it marketed to small children.

 

[kyuubijavi1]

Just saw the New Trailer

Freaking Bat-tastic

Dislikes just went down to zero

 

[Ryudoz]

I just saw TV spot #4 and here is what I thought of it.

Honestly, can these TV spots get any further away from the tone of the actual film? I'd hate for a parent to see that TV spot over and over and think that taking their 5 and 6 year old boys would be appropriate for this film. It's over 13 for a reason. Given everything we know of the plot and the content, it should definitely be teens and adults, and I don't want to see it marketed to small children.

One TV spot includes children, so all of a sudden there's a massive "let's get the kids to see it" campaign. If anything, you should be blaming the toymakers making toys and dolls about the movie before you blame a single TV spot.

As for parents thinking it's okay to take their kids to see it, I don't care. There's a ratings system for a reason, so if the parents don't heed the ratings (or even understand them) that's their fault. All you have to do is go to the website and see it's rated PG-13. So families that take their 5-6 yr olds to PG-13 movies should blame themselves if they find it inappropriate for their kids. Should this movie be marketed to kids? Sure, if they want to make more money in action figures and ticket sales. Should they? Personally, I don't mind, because it seems anything will be marketed at kids these days, regardless. And I feel it's up to the parent to police what they feel should be inappropriate for their kids. Just my opinion.

However, you didn't like the TV spot. That's fine, but I hardly doubt that this is going to be a new trend in making "family friendly" TDK advertising. Especially seeing how the posters for the film involve blood and/or explosions.

 

[jtfaria]

And...?


Who cares? It's a 2.5 second comedic relief scene in a 2.5 hour movie about a psychotic, murderous clown blowing up hospitals and killing all kinds of people.


It's a VERY small breather in the midst of all kinds of carnage and chaos.

Exactly. And the reason the kids are in the trailer is simple: Nolan doesn't want to give up anything new and big, so to make a fresh trailer he throws in a few minor tidbits, like the kids. It has nothing to do with trying to sell the film to kids - it's BATMAN for crying out loud. Any kid who knows Batman, whose parents will let him/her go, is already sold.

BTW, I don't think the kids are going to be ANYone's favorite scene. But maybe it works better in the context of the film. I do think it feels a little awkward sometimes when Nolan does this kind of stuff. Like Batman asking Gordon if he can drive stick. But it's minor. These things don't ruin the films for me. It's just that these 'perspective moments', so far, aren't Nolan's strong suit.

 

[BatmanFanatic]

One TV spot includes children, so all of a sudden there's a massive "let's get the kids to see it" campaign. If anything, you should be blaming the toymakers making toys and dolls about the movie before you blame a single TV spot.

As for parents thinking it's okay to take their kids to see it, I don't care. There's a ratings system for a reason, so if the parents don't heed the ratings (or even understand them) that's their fault. All you have to do is go to the website and see it's rated PG-13. So families that take their 5-6 yr olds to PG-13 movies should blame themselves if they find it inappropriate for their kids. Should this movie be marketed to kids? Sure, if they want to make more money in action figures and ticket sales. Should they? Personally, I don't mind, because it seems anything will be marketed at kids these days, regardless. And I feel it's up to the parent to police what they feel should be inappropriate for their kids. Just my opinion.

However, you didn't like the TV spot. That's fine, but I hardly doubt that this is going to be a new trend in making "family friendly" TDK advertising. Especially seeing how the posters for the film involve blood and/or explosions.

I don't like seeing kids in the trailer as much as I don't like seeing kids in the movie, for the record. I know someone mentioned that Gotham can't be populated only by adult white males who commit crimes, it has families and children, but this is a FILM... all we should see is what's relevant to the story, and kids are not relevant to the story. When you have a dark crime movie, you don't throw in kids playing into it at random. It can mess up the tone. I mean, did you see any kids in The Departed? Any 5 year olds goofing off in Silence of the Lambs? NO. Dark film = no playful children.

 

[plod]

I don't like seeing kids in the trailer as much as I don't like seeing kids in the movie, for the record. I know someone mentioned that Gotham can't be populated only by adult white males who commit crimes, it has families and children, but this is a FILM... all we should see is what's relevant to the story, and kids are not relevant to the story. When you have a dark crime movie, you don't throw in kids playing into it at random. It can mess up the tone. I mean, did you see any kids in The Departed? Any 5 year olds goofing off in Silence of the Lambs? NO. Dark film = no playful children.

Wasn't one of the characters pregnant? I like the song shipping up to Boston.

 

[Rikxiepoo]

I just saw TV spot #4 and here is what I thought of it.

Honestly, can these TV spots get any further away from the tone of the actual film? I'd hate for a parent to see that TV spot over and over and think that taking their 5 and 6 year old boys would be appropriate for this film. It's over 13 for a reason. Given everything we know of the plot and the content, it should definitely be teens and adults, and I don't want to see it marketed to small children.

You do realize that if this movie dsnt win back at least double its big budget + marketing expenses we wont get a sequel right?. The more people see this movie the better it is for us fans, regardless of the nightmares kids may get . So I for one encourage this kind of misleading marketing for this specific case . The more money TDK wins, the bigger the budget Batman 3 will have to use.

 

[Phallic]

Batman 3 is already in the works.

It would take the apocolypse for TDK not to be a major B.O. success. I don't think that scene is necessary to secure a sequel.

 

[deathfromabove]

i honestly dont think a couple of kids playing in their car is going to mess with the tone. if you ask me it seems to add the scope of what this movie seems to be trying to achieve: a fleshed out living and breathing city, that just so happens to have bats and clowns running loose. why not see it in its proper context?

and why would anyone expect a batman movie with even a modicum of faithfulness to its source to be as dark (or unflinchingly adult) as silence of the lambs or the departed?

and for the record my son is ten and will be with me opening night. and he will be just fine.