The Dark Knight What was the WEAKEST portrayal of a comic character in TDK

[The Joker]

No, because 1. bad movies make bucket loads of money all the time and 2. i believe people view TDK with rose tinted glasses and i don't trust critics reviews of major studio blockbusters.

1. True. But that's not the only thing that the movie has supporting it.
2. That's your personal choice.

Yes but TDK elevates the comic book genre right?

Absolutely.

Even now, the media are asking the cast and Nolan how the hell are they going to top TDK.

Even directors like Sam Raimi have said it upped the ante in the genre: http://www.cleveland.com/movies/index.ssf/2009/05/spidey_guy_sam_raimi_says_dark.html

And that was contrived and forced too. Difference was, Aunt May wasn't saying all that to an 8 year old who wouldn't understand a word she was saying...

It doesn't matter who she was saying it to, the point is she was saying it. It was being spelled out to the audience, and people had no problem with this technique either.

Whilst i prefer Spider-Man 2 to TDK, i still think it has too much spoon feeding, amongst other flaws.

What a shame you feel that way. I think before TDK came along, it was the cream of the crop as far as superhero movies go.

As it stands, it's my 2nd favorite comic book movie now. 7 years later, it's lost none of it's magic. I suspect TDK will follow a similar trend.

But Spider-Man 2 doesn't have the pretense of being some serious, genre redefining, thriller.

Neither does TDK. That's just the reaction it got from audiences and people in the industry, like Mr Sam Raimi there. It redefined comic book movies.

 

[The Morningstar]

1. True. But that's not the only thing that the movie has supporting it.
2. That's your personal choice.

Yea it is my opinion. I honestly believe that if all those critics re-reviewed TDK now, quite a few of them would have different feelings about it. Peoples opinions of movies change all the time. Critics are no different.

Absolutely.

Even now, the media are asking the cast and Nolan how the hell are they going to top TDK.

Even directors like Sam Raimi have said it upped the ante in the genre: http://www.cleveland.com/movies/index.ssf/2009/05/spidey_guy_sam_raimi_says_dark.html

Well honestly, i was being sarcastic. I don't think it redefined the genre. I think the first X-Men movie, and then the second X-Men movie even more so, redefined the genre. They brought real world issues and themes to the forefront. They were "dark". But they also had a heart and soul. Something which i think TDK and actually, all of Nolan's movies lack.

It doesn't matter who she was saying it to, the point is she was saying it. It was being spelled out to the audience, and people had no problem with this technique either.

I did. And i'm sure i'm not alone. Spoon feeding is one of the worst things a movie can do. Show me, don't friggin tell me!

But like I said, SM-2 doesn't have some pretense of being a serious crime thriller. It embraces it's hokey comic bookness. Instead of being ashamed of it like TDK was. SM-2 was like a comic book come to life, silly Chris Claremont/Stan Lee exposition dialogue and all. The Dark Knight tries to have it both ways, but fails because serious crime thriller + silly exposition heavy dialogue doesn't work.

What a shame you feel that way. I think before TDK came along, it was the cream of the crop as far as superhero movies go.

As it stands, it's my 2nd favorite comic book movie now. 7 years later, it's lost none of it's magic. I suspect TDK will follow a similar trend.

X-2 is my favourite comic book movie, by quite a margin.

Neither does TDK. That's just the reaction it got from audiences and people in the industry, like Mr Sam Raimi there. It redefined comic book movies.

Yes TDK does. It almost seems ashamed that it's a comic book superhero movie. Having ridiculous elements like Two Face doesn't cover over the fact that TDK has a pretense of being something more than a superhero movie. But that pretense hurts it. It should just embrace the fact it's a superhero movie, instead of trying to quietly shuffle that fact into the background.

It tries to be all serious and comment on society. But does so in a heavy handed, subtle as a sledgehammer fashion.

"These people... just showed you... that they're willing... to believe in GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOD!"

Thanks for that Batman! I totally didn't understand that!

 

[The Joker]

Yea it is my opinion. I honestly believe that if all those critics re-reviewed TDK now, quite a few of them would have different feelings about it. Peoples opinions of movies change all the time. Critics are no different.

By that logic we might as well say that of any movie. No movie is well liked by the critics because their opinions might change in time.

I'm sorry, but that is a ridiculous argument to make.

Well honestly, i was being sarcastic.

I know

But it gave me the chance to post some more info about those out there who do believe it redefined the genre.

I think the first X-Men movie, and then the second X-Men movie even more so, redefined the genre. They brought real world issues and themes to the forefront. They were "dark". But they also had a heart and soul. .

So did TDK. Here's one of many great articles about it: http://www.slashfilm.com/assessing-the-themes-of-the-dark-knight/

I did. And i'm sure i'm not alone.

No one is ever alone in an opinion. Just some opinions are more unpopular or less common than others. Definitely the case with yours here, I'd say, given the overwhelmingly positive reception movies like TDK and Spider-Man 2 got. Since the 7 years so far have been kind to Spider-Man 2, I think you're going to lose our little wager for TDK in 10 years time

Yes TDK does. It almost seems ashamed that it's a comic book superhero movie. Having ridiculous elements like Two Face doesn't cover over the fact that TDK has a pretense of being something more than a superhero movie. But that pretense hurts it. It should just embrace the fact it's a superhero movie, instead of trying to quietly shuffle that fact into the background.

If that was the case, which I certainly don't believe it is for one second, then I sincerely hope we got lots more comic book movies that are "almost" ashamed to be so. It seems to be a recipe for success We're in a movie about a guy who goes around in a bat costume. We're already in outrageous land. Characters like Two Face are just adding to it.

On that note, I'll leave you to it, Morningstar. I can feel this one getting repetitive, and there's only so many times I can post statistics and facts to refute that these movies treat audiences like fools, which was really the only point I wanted to address in the first place. I got sucked into another long winded opinion debate. Happens every time

Good talking to you though

 

[El Payaso]

Well, in all fairness, she never "defeated him", as he was still on the loose in TDK. But I agree with you somewhat.....

He got free merely because that horse was too scared to stop. But the man was ridiculously defeated. Even when not locked up.

Yeah, the voice was MUCH worse, but it wasn't just that. Yes, like you said, I LOVED the Joker/Batman interrogation scene, and I thought it was great, but other than that, I think the overall performance was lacking. And not only in Batman, but his Bruce persona as well.

That's my problem, he was correct but I needed something else.

Well, my "meh parts" have to do with the character, not necessarily what we saw on screen. See, I like my Joker to have more gag-weapons, and be more hysterical than what we saw in TDK. He didn't have many gags, and all of his ultimatums/death-traps didn't feel "Joker like" to me. Like I said before, I liked Heath's performance, but it just didn't feel like The Joker to me.

Meh parts were then aspects of the character you didn't like.

Well, it's just that: the screen time. Joker had much more screen time in TDK, so there is more to pick out my dislikes. If The Scarecrow was on more, maybe he would have been better, maybe he would have been worse, who knows, but he was barely on as it was. So basically, I wasn't impressed with The Scarecrow in TDK, as apposed to BB(which again, wasn't perfect), due to screen time. If he was on more, I could pick out more things, in other words......

I don't believe in this "he needed more time" thing. I think we needed more talent involved rather than more screentime.

He could have had a great performance in 4 minutes and have gone. But 4 minutes just to be defeated in a slightly less embarrasing way than he was in BB ...

As I said, if the character's bad developed then we better have little of it.

I know, which kinda expands on my original point with Lucius.

And the fact that this life-sanctifier Batman makes exceptions.

I can agree with that. TDK script was definitely better as far as dialogue goes, but that doesn't mean it's exempt from the many inconsistencies, plot-holes, and thematical errors, which is my overall point.

Sure. But improved vastly from BB.

I feel like people are too hard on Scarecrow. He never 'worked' for me as a villain to begin with, as his role seemed to be better filled by other characters.

Well, that's why people are too hard on him.

'Fear Toxins', the scarecrow costume, the obsession with 'fear' kind of seems cliche' for a villain. So when Batman Begins used him as a secondary villain, and The Dark Knight used him as a guy for Batman to beat up, I was quite happy with that. I also liked how he was a bit of a joke since I'm unconvinced all of Batman's villains need to be serious threats.

Well, they better are. Otherwise why do we need a costumed well-trained vigilante? Now, if the villiain has some humour like the Joker, it's okay, but Scarecrow was a disservice. He was a comedic relief when comedic reliefs are totally out of place.

The fact that Cillian Murphy made him into basically a sick, twisted, demented doctor worked for me.

Well, that's what Crane/Scarecrow is supposed to be.

Now, Murphy's take was some effeminate narcicistic dude. Far from the creepy gangly psychiatrist. It takes more than opening your eyes wide and talk slowly.

 

[Wolverine1988]

Spider -Man 2 is so overated its not even funny.

The movie was a 2 hour long romance movie, the Spider man Dr.Octopus fight scenes were awsome, but other than that movie just fell flat to me, felt like more of a chick flick.

I liked the first Spider-Man the most and consider it to be one of the better comic book movie adpations to come out.

 

[EliteF50]

Spider -Man 2 is so overated its not even funny.

The movie was a 2 hour long romance movie, the Spider man Dr.Octopus fight scenes were awsome, but other than that movie just fell flat to me, felt like more of a chick flick.

I liked the first Spider-Man the most and consider it to be one of the better comic book movie adpations to come out.

I feel the same way about TDK.

 

[Wolverine1988]

I feel the same way about TDK.

TDK a romance film? ha


TDK has qualities that would make it appealing to even people that think its overated.

Spider-man 2 is literally just a soap opera at times. its amazingly boring.

 

[EliteF50]

TDK a romance film? ha


TDK has qualities that would make it appealing to even people that think its overated.

Spider-man 2 is literally just a soap opera at times. its amazingly boring.

No, not the romance part, but I think TDK is VERY, VERY overrated. I think it's incredible boring and I hate the way Batman is portrayed. I hate the way he talks, fights, moves, looks, etc. The story was full of plot holes, and the the ending was cheesy and idiotic.

Just my $0.02

 

[truth]

Batman in Tdk....man oh man, I cringe at that infamous roof scene when he talks

 

[truth]

Spiderman 2 is sadly, one of the worst films I've ever seen.

Just is. Too long to go into it.

 

[EliteF50]

Batman in Tdk....man oh man, I cringe at that infamous roof scene when he talks

Strongly agree.

Spiderman 2 is sadly, one of the worst films I've ever seen.

Just is. Too long to go into it.

Strongly disagree.

 

[gregtestagent]

Bat's was more like a part of Gotham PD force than the lone crusader I always saw him as. Even when I was watching TAS back in the old days I hated it when Bats had Robin or Batgirl with him. I liked it when he was completely alone, aside from Alfred.

 

[Fudgie]

Spiderman 2 is sadly, one of the worst films I've ever seen.

Just is. Too long to go into it.

No enlighten us on why you think one of the greatest superhero movies of all time is one of the worst movies you ever saw.

 

[truth]

In brief.

I don't think I have ever seen a more cheesy film in my life. The dialogue at some points had me shaking my head.
Peter Parker was a whiny girl who starts dancing to....RAINDROPS ARE FALLING ON MY HEAD. We also learn that EVERYONE NOW KNOWS WHO HE IS. My lord.
All the emotional BS the film was hitting you with and how hard it tried to be dramatic just came across as really fabricated and very, VERY, annoying.

I really can't believe how it's held in such high estimation. After I saw it, I was fully convinced it was one of the worst films I had seen.

In short?

A PERFECT example of a corny/cheesy movie.

 

[The Morningstar]

To be fair, Spidey is a pretty cheesy character. His comics are like those silver age, cheese fests.

But i do agree that the whole emotional thing was really heavy handed. I agree that Peter Parker was a bit too whiney. And as i discussed with Joker earlier, that diatribe Aunt May comes out with is horrible spoon feeding.

 

[truth]

Man, sorry, but I always skip Joker's monologues. Ledger put in a damn amazing performance, but it just was not Joker. Nicholson IS Joker. Ledger just created a very interesting character, but those monologues....

"I am crazy. This is why I am crazy. This is the reason for me being crazy."

Come on, man....

 

[The Joker]

Those Joker monologues were some of the best things ever put into a comic book movie. Bar none. In fact I'd say the interrogation room scene alone is probably the best scene out of any Batman movie. Scratch that, out of ANY superhero movie. The perfect clash of Batman and Joker's philosophy.

Jack Nicholson's Joker was a guy obsessed with art, who chased around after Vicki Vale like a lustful teenager, and was made the killer of Batman's parents, which really altered the dynamic between him and Batman. Now I love Nicholson's Joker, but those traits are a far cry from the traits of the Joker. But the inclusion of the smilex sub plot was enough to keep me happy.

If you look at Ledger's Joker, you can find elements from the Joker of all eras in him: http://jokerfans.blogspot.com/2011/03/heath-ledgers-joker-comic-book-to-movie.html

The Killing Joke, probably the most famous and iconic Joker story of all time (not to mention the most referenced), is FULL of Joker monologuing. You can dislike that all you want, truth. But the fact is it is very much the Joker.

 

[The Joker]

In brief.

I don't think I have ever seen a more cheesy film in my life. The dialogue at some points had me shaking my head.
Peter Parker was a whiny girl who starts dancing to....RAINDROPS ARE FALLING ON MY HEAD. We also learn that EVERYONE NOW KNOWS WHO HE IS. My lord.
All the emotional BS the film was hitting you with and how hard it tried to be dramatic just came across as really fabricated and very, VERY, annoying.

See man, I'm convinced now that you really don't know much about these characters. Neither Batman nor Spider-Man. Spider-Man 2 is based on real Spider-Man stories:

Peter Parker is a tortured and conflicted character, who is practically always in turmoil over his life as Spider-Man because it is always screwing up his life. From his friendships, to romances, to money problems. Spider-Man 2 captured these things PERFECTLY! It's one of the things that makes him such a relatable character. From him failing college, being alienated from Harry and MJ, unable to help Aunt May's financial troubles, getting fired from jobs, being wracked with guilt over Uncle Ben's death. It was all present and correct in SM-2.

And as Morningstar correctly pointed out, there is a huge touch of the cheesy and comedic to Spider-Man's world.

I really can't believe how it's held in such high estimation. After I saw it, I was fully convinced it was one of the worst films I had seen.

You need to see more movies if that was one of the worst movies you've ever seen.

Seriously. You seem to thrive on hyperbole.

 

[Travesty]

While I'm not a fan of TDK, I love SM2. I think it's a great movie.

 

[truth]

I've been reading the comics for most of my life and seen the whole cartoon show. I can't force myself to like the movie. Yes, Spiderman can be cheesy, but the film went overboard. The way Raimi presented was just really off putting.
There were spiderman issues I liked and others I did not. So quoting an issue I may have disliked makes your point futile.
I think it's a balancing act. Some view the film is being a perfect representation of spiderman, I do not.


As for joker in tdk. I liked the approach of the joker in killing joke but I never bought the character being like that. The way he was in Arkham Asylum was perfect. I felt Nicholson captured the random and mad nature of him. The monologues may work in a comic, but in a film, it was too forced. It was like, okay, let's sit back and just watch this guy act. Did not feel as natural as what Nicholson did.

 

[The Morningstar]

Those Joker monologues were some of the best things ever put into a comic book movie. Bar none. In fact I'd say the interrogation room scene alone is probably the best scene out of any Batman movie. Scratch that, out of ANY superhero movie. The perfect clash of Batman and Joker's philosophy.

Jack Nicholson's Joker was a guy obsessed with art, who chased around after Vicki Vale like a lustful teenager, and was made the killer of Batman's parents, which really altered the dynamic between him and Batman. Now I love Nicholson's Joker, but those traits are a far cry from the traits of the Joker. But the inclusion of the smilex sub plot was enough to keep me happy.

To be fair, there was more to Nicholson's Joker than that. He still very much represented the side of the Joker than holds a mirror up to society and mocks them for it. I mean, the whole smilex plot was a pretty obvious dig at the yuppy, materialistic, vain society of the time. And the handing out money to desperately poor citizens, luring them to their death was a pretty clear dig at the "Reagan Era" of poverty and urban decay.

 

[Wolverine1988]

I ll say this in regard to Nicholsons Joker, his laugh seemed way more natural and was better, Ledger seemed to really have to force the laugh.

prime example being the interegation scene, when Batman is beating him it seems like he really hade to force the laugh, while i dont know how he was able to do it but Nicholson seemed like he could laugh all crazy on command.

That being said i liked Nicholsons Joker and at the time i thought it was the best Joker possible, but Ledger was unreal in the role a complete immersion into the character.

 

[The Joker]

I've been reading the comics for most of my life and seen the whole cartoon show. I can't force myself to like the movie. Yes, Spiderman can be cheesy, but the film went overboard.

In what way did it go over board? Spider-Man 3, that took it overboard with stuff like:

- Emo Peter Parker hair
- Those two horrible dance sequences
- Peter being teased in COLLEGE with the two pea shooting idiots in his class. Seriously Raimi?
- The little girl scamming the hundred bucks out of Jameson for her camera
- The British reporter and the extras at the final fight scene
- Harry and MJ doing the twist

I could go on and on. This ridiculous cheesey crap is one of the reasons why it's so hated. Ironic considering it was supposed to be the darkest of the trilogy.

The way Raimi presented was just really off putting.
There were spiderman issues I liked and others I did not. So quoting an issue I may have disliked makes your point futile.

No, it's not futile. I don't care what issues you like or not. That's irrelevant to the point I'm making. I'm showing you this is a valid and accurate portrayal of Spider-Man. You're basically criticizing Spider-Man for being Spider-Man.

As for joker in tdk. I liked the approach of the joker in killing joke but I never bought the character being like that.

Being like what?

The way he was in Arkham Asylum was perfect.

In what way?

I felt Nicholson captured the random and mad nature of him. The monologues may work in a comic, but in a film, it was too forced. It was like, okay, let's sit back and just watch this guy act.

See this is where you're doing a 180 with your opinions again. First of all you say monologuing is not a Joker trait, now you say it works for the comics but not the movies.

Second, Nicholson's Joker had several monologues. Listen to his long winded speech to Gotham about why he is the good guy and Batman isn't. Listen to his speech to Vicki in the museum about art and appearances etc. He loved the sound of his own voice.

There's a reason why headlines like these were rampant:

Nicholson just chewed the screen with dialogue and screen time.

 

[The Joker]

To be fair, there was more to Nicholson's Joker than that. He still very much represented the side of the Joker than holds a mirror up to society and mocks them for it. I mean, the whole smilex plot was a pretty obvious dig at the yuppy, materialistic, vain society of the time. And the handing out money to desperately poor citizens, luring them to their death was a pretty clear dig at the "Reagan Era" of poverty and urban decay.

Oh yeah I know, hence why he was getting them through cosmetic products like hairspray and lipstick and all of that. The smilex plot was the one thing about him that felt most "Joker" to me. All the stuff about art, and chasing after Vicki, and killing the Waynes etc didn't.

 

[El Payaso]

See man, I'm convinced now that you really don't know much about these characters. Neither Batman nor Spider-Man. Spider-Man 2 is based on real Spider-Man stories:

This is my problem with Raimi's Spiderman. Comics can be cheesey and all, but in movies the cheese is not that suitable as in comics.

For example I see this page and it works. A boy comes with Spiderman's suit and Jameson doesn't even try to confirm it is THE real suit and not just one someone made to fool him. Not even when he acknowledges that his reputation is going down if the suit is fake. He even concludes that the suit being in a trash bin has to mean that he quit. Eeven if he doesn't really know if it was in a trash bin to start with.

Good.

But in a movie that's far too cartoony to portray a serious editor. Daily Bugle has a reputation and no matter how biased Jameson is, rule number one of any journalist is to confirm the story. In SM2 Jameson even pays for the suit and prints that Spiderman has quit without even checking the veracity of the find.

Awful.

Then again things like "I'm Back! Oh, my back!" or the annoying and spoonfeeding Aunt May's heroes speech are just unbearable.

Spiderman 2 is not great because of the cheese, it is in spite of it. The good things of SM2 overcome the bad ones for me. But as great as it is, it has a good share of flaws.

Nicholson just chewed the screen with dialogue and screen time.

There's one thing that just makes me laugh. "Absurdly, Nicholson even got top billing above the actor playing the title role."

I mean, huh? Did that guy forget that Christopher Reeve was not even in a second but the THIRD place in the main titles? And not only that but AFTER the title of the movie, like he were just one more secondary character!

Marlon Brando.
Gene Hackman.

"SUPERMAN"

Christopher Reeve.

And SII wasn't much different.

Gene Hackman.
Christopher Reeve.

"SUPERMAN II"

At least Keaton got the top billing in the second one!
And at least Nicholson was all over the movie, unlike Brando and Hackman.

But yes, the whole movie set off because of Jack Nicholson. They had to make the most out of his name.