The Dark Knight What can kill TDK as a movie? Overestimating?

[StorminNorman]

BATMAN FORUM.

DISCUSSION OF BATMAN.

Thanks .

When Bat-Movie News happens, we won't need to take discuss other topics. The well, however, has run dry.

 

[Cats]

Well we are talking about Batman, through comparisons to other movies that are like TDK, like Superman Returns, or Spiderman 2. This thread is about what can kill the sequel, so we are using other sequels as reference to our view on the subject.

I agree. It's only when a film maker or a critic views the work of other current successes or failures before he moulds his opinion that he maintains an objective mind and steers clear from blinded fanboy territory. I'm almost as much a fan of Supes as I am of the Batman, have been for years now. I have rooted as much for Superman Returns to be a success as I did for Batman Begins, and yet I felt that Returns came short. The way I am to guess how TDK could fail is to determine what Returns lacked in terms of characterization, and what at the end made Begins the superior movie in that respect.

No - Clark Kent is a very deep character, however Clark PRESENTS himself as the guy who is awkward and stumbles through metropolis.

I believe we're talking about two alter egos here and having a different understanding of their namings. You're talking solely about the inner man, and we cannot name this inner man till we determine which alter ego he's more himself in. You realise that by internalizing most of his feelings, the 'Clark Kent' that the public knows and sees has become merely a shell - a placeholder in society or an alien's dramatic interpretation of the human race. His true character seems to show only when he's in the suit, which makes him more Superman than Clark Kent.

I know this is up for debate, but personally I believe that because Kal-El (let me refer to the inner man as his birth name for now) has spent his whole life trying to be an Earth man... thus the duo identity, spending his life protecting Earth people, trying to live a 'normal' life - he has a much greater respect for mankind than to represent one as bumbling, clumsy and weak. He would also want Clark to represent more of who he is since it is when people actually relate to him on the same level than a superior being with super powers - I believe that's what he has strived so intensely hard for his whole life... to be accepted as a man. And it would secretly pleasure him very much for Clark to be more loved than Superman.

I've always seen Kal-El as more Clark than Superman, while Bruce has always been more Batman than Bruce Wayne. It is Wayne who is the shell, not Kent.

Some vain exploit? Trying to find out more about your people, a once great and mighty civilization of which you are the only one.

Yes, but did he not first pledge his dedication to earth? And yet he felt the people whom he'd swore always to protect and love would not deserve a simple farewell? Superman believes he makes a difference on Earth, that's why he does what he does. Why would he think leaving Earth would bear no impact?

I don't see Superman as upset AT Lois for moving up.

But he certainly was surprised that she did, which speaks volumes. If I were him, I would probably be to be surprised that she's even alive after 5years in a world without a Superman. Lois IS first and foremost a magnet for danger - Let's not talk about expecting her ever to forgive him, not to mention ever hope that she would love him again. Lois is not some weepy housewife, she's an independent modern career woman. If he really understood and loved her, he would've known that.

 

[WeaponXProject]

If anything will kill this movie it would be the "too much in one movie" aspect. As I've said before If this is done as it will be in Spidey 3 and was in Star Wars Episode III, it could hurt the movie. I'm pulling that Nolan does it right.

 

[L0ngsh0t]

I think the only thing that will kill TDK as a movie, is if they ****ing make a Bad movie, thats it, overhyping it won't hurt it, unless they just drop a bomb, if they make a good movie, but it is just not as good as BB, its still a good movie.

 

[Ronny Shade]

But he certainly was surprised that she did, which speaks volumes. If I were him, I would probably be to be surprised that she's even alive after 5years in a world without a Superman. Lois IS first and foremost a magnet for danger - Let's not talk about expecting her ever to forgive him, not to mention ever hope that she would love him again. Lois is not some weepy housewife, she's an independent modern career woman. If he really understood and loved her, he would've known that.

You've obviously never been really good at something but completely incapable socially.

 

[The Game]

I disagree, I do not think Spiderman 2, in anyway compares with Spiderman 1, I have even thought sometimes Spiderman 2's only purpose is to bridge the gap between 1 and 3. In saying that, I still really like Spiderman 2 as a movie, I do not see it as a dissapointment, but I do not consider it a better movie then its predessecor.

Now, on SR, it's clearly not half the movie its predessecors where, but in saying that, it didn't have to be for me to like it, it just had to pass the minimun bar, that is it had to entertain me for X amount of time (among other things but that is the minimum I expect from a movie). Now, I am 100 percent behind expecting TDK to be superior to its sequel, much in the same respects Empire is a better movie (imo), or Two Towers is a better movie (imo), or Aliens is a better movie, it is completely fair to think that. If by chance it isn't a better movie, but sill entertains me, and is a good movie, I will not be dissapointed, I will just view it like I view Spiderman 2, a good movie, just not as good as its original.

Guess we agree to disagree

I did not like Spidey 2 for many reasons, but the major one was it did not live up to the 1st movie and for me TDK has to do that or I will feel flat.

 

[Miranda Fox]

I did not like Spidey 2 for many reasons, but the major one was it did not live up to the 1st movie and for me TDK has to do that or I will feel flat.

I was watching Spider-man yesterday and for ages I'd been trying to figure out what it was Spidey 2 lacked - and it's that it felt like everyone was just going through the motions. The actors lacked the spark they had in the original, with the exception of Alfred Molina.

I think it's a good film but it just...lacks.

It would be equally disappointing to me if this were to happen with TDK. I don't think it would ruin it, per se, but definitely disappointing.

 

[Ronny Shade]

I got that with Bourne Supremacy....great movie, but it was just lacking a little bit of spark.

Didn't have that problem with Spidey 2. I loved Spidey 2.

 

[Miranda Fox]

Didn't have that problem with Spidey 2. I loved Spidey 2.

TBH, I like it more than I did when I first watched it. There's some nice moments but I just think other parts dragged. IMO of course and I'm aware I'm the minority.

And I'm definitely looking forward to Spidey 3!

One thing that does concern me about TDK - while I'm all for grim, I REALLY don't want them to go overboard with it.

 

[El Payaso]

Didn't have that problem with Spidey 2. I loved Spidey 2.

Me too. Expect for the really bad jokes.

As opposite as me HATING every frame of Spiderman 1.

 

[Ronny Shade]

The only thing I didn't like about Spidey 2 was the lame wedding dress ending. For me, bad jokes are always welcome in the context of spider-man.

 

[L0ngsh0t]

I got that with Bourne Supremacy....great movie, but it was just lacking a little bit of spark.

Didn't have that problem with Spidey 2. I loved Spidey 2.

I feel this is the better comparison then Spiderman, and Spiderman 2, cause Spiderman 2 does indeed kick major ass, just not quite as much as the first one. Yeah though I think the Bourne movies might be the better comparison

 

[L0ngsh0t]

Me too. Expect for the really bad jokes.

As opposite as me HATING every frame of Spiderman 1.

WHOA! you hated every frame of Spiderman 1?

What about the hardass teacher at the beginning of the moive? He's pretty sweet "You just talked through that ladies entire presentation, lets go talk about how we listen" one of the greatest bit roles ever. Or Dafoe rocking out being as awesome as he is, imo the first one is the banner superhero movie.

 

[Ronny Shade]

There were a lot of truly great things about The Bourne Supremacy. (That ridiculous car chase comes to mind, and the ending ruled) But it felt old. I needed novelty. Maybe that's my fault.

 

[Cinemaman]

I think we should wait for Spidey 3.

Yeah, we all know that there is very huge prromotion and anticiaption around it. So if the movie is really great (I think and I hope so), then I will lose my worries about TDK.

 

[Crooklyn]

How well SM3 does has no effect on TDK though. Whether SM3 gets big numbers or not, if TDK is simply not a good film, it'll fail.

 

[Cinemaman]

There were a lot of truly great things about The Bourne Supremacy. (That ridiculous car chase comes to mind, and the ending ruled) But it felt old. I needed novelty. Maybe that's my fault.

Sometimes I just can't understand you.

You loved MI2 (which was bad movie for most of people) and didn't like Bourne Supermace (which was really great movie).

 

[Ronny Shade]

I never said I didn't like it. I said it was missing something.

If there's one thing MI2 was not missing was novelty.

 

[Miranda Fox]

How well SM3 does has no effect on TDK though. Whether SM3 gets big numbers or not, if TDK is simply not a good film, it'll fail.

I dunno...X-Men 3 was hardly a good film, but it still a reasonable box office.

Of course, that doesn't stop it being a failure by any other definition.

 

[Cinemaman]

How well SM3 does has no effect on TDK though. Whether SM3 gets big numbers or not, if TDK is simply not a good film, it'll fail.

I am not talking about box office.

I am talking about level of the movie. People are very excited about Spidey 3, which can become a disappointment for them. but it's very doubtful, just like with TDK.

 

[L0ngsh0t]

I never said I didn't like it. I said it was missing something.

If there's one thing MI2 was not missing was novelty.

MI2 was okay, I think it was Last Stand good, where like, there was cool **** going on in that moive, I just became disinterested with the main characters, and the story kind of lagged IMO, but hell John Woo is nuts though

and I agree with you on the Bourne Supremecy thing, it was good, just lacking a bit.

 

[Ronny Shade]

MI2 had style and GOOD action. say what you will about plot, I thought the characters were very interesting.

X3 had no style, meh action, and terrible character

 

[L0ngsh0t]

MI2 had style and GOOD action. say what you will about plot, I thought the characters were very interesting.

X3 had no style, meh action, and terrible character

Well, I enjoyed X3 more from a TAS standpoint then anything, where it was just like...**** we've gone two movies, and we've seen Wolverine, bits, and pieces of Storm, Cyclops, and Jean, but after that, we have seen **** as far as X-men. It was cool to see all the mutants on display, I agree, a tab bit cramped, but if Singer had done his job, there wouldn't have been so many mutants to cram into one movie.

I agree MI2 had cool style to it, thanks in large part to John Woo, and this is why I liked it, but I do get disinterested with the plot whenever I watch it.

 

[Ronny Shade]

"terrible character" may have been a bit harsh. My main problem was the pacing was ****, and there was no fanfare or presentation.

plus they killed Cyke.

 

[L0ngsh0t]

"terrible character" may have been a bit harsh. My main problem was the pacing was ****, and there was no fanfare or presentation.

plus they killed Cyke.

Bye all means, valid arguments against the flick

I would argue there is no fanfare in the whole franchise, which really eats at me cause the X-men where my favroite comics to read growing up, so thats why in the other forums I have been saying they should just reboot the whole franchise.

pacing was rough, but I just look at the fact they probably had a crappy script, and where up against the ass rapping of having to make a 250 million dollar movie in a year, so they just made it really fast, and put as many action sequences in it, this in no way justifies the pace. I just take X3 for what it was, it wasn't trying to change the world, it wasn't trying to be the best X-men moive, they just wanted to capitalize off the fact that they made some gold casting choices 7 years ago, and most of them turned out to be stars, so lets all put them in a movie one last time and make a 200 million dollar profit out of it, we don't need a great screen play, if we just lift one of the more popular stories from the comics, and sugar coat it with some nice action, and it will be fine.

IMO they killed Cyke in X1 when they decided that every character in the movie would be more important then him.

For me X3 was just a fun movie, to watch, and when it is over with, you don't really need to take anything extra from it, you can just say to yourself "****, it was pretty sweet to see Iceman Ice-up in real life for once"