Discussion in 'The Dark Knight' started by Rolf, Mar 15, 2009.
I thought his directing was fine. The others I agree. The logic gaps really took me out of the story
No it was much much worse to exchange the living active symbol of hope and justice for a dead martyr IMO.
From people who just can't except that a Batman movie was the best movie of the year.
Imagine this topic in Rises subsection . Some users would be maaaad being categorized like that t:
TDK's criticism doesn't come from any that. Some people don't like the film. That's it. It's far (far) from perfect.
I don't know but I have never seen much TDK criticism.
Mind you, that site annoys the crap out of me, so consider yourself lucky if you've never encountered any criticism of TDK. I've probably encountered almost as much criticism as I have praise for it, mostly because a lot of people think it's overrated and therefore love knocking it down a peg.
I didn't say 'any' but 'much' criticism.
And well, anyone can start a site saying something sucks. Last post I see there is from 2009. Just one of those hate-everything-popular fellows.
It was just one example I offered. The attitudes expressed on that site are hardly localized to that one site and to 2008-9. I find arguments about TDK's merits on the comment pages And the point is to address the central question of this thread- I believe a big chunk of TDK's criticism comes from the fact that a lot of people think it's overrated and like to pick it apart for that (I've seen people compile lists of plotholes for it, just like people did for TDKR)
Another big chunk of it simply comes from people who aren't overly fond of Nolan's take on Batman overall and find TDK to be too much crime procedural, not enough superhero. I think those two camps constitute most of the criticisms thrown at the movie.
I adore TDK, but I've had to argue its merits with too many people for me to say this movie doesn't have a decent amount of detractors out there.
From people who didn't like The Dark Knight. I see no reason to categorize them.
From Mordor actually.
I though all the burton fans were dead
Not literally of course
Exactly, I was extremely disappointed in in personally after begins gave us such a great start. TDK take on Batman just isn't mine at all. My biggest fear afterwards is all CBM would follow it example but along came Marvel who embraced their characters in away that really spoke to me.
MOS is way more my speed for a DCU movie and holds up just fine against any of the Marvel movies for me.
My biggest problem with it is the sub-plot that Bruce thinks Harvey can clean up the city so he doesn't have to be Batman anymore because it just doesn't make any sense. First of all, it's reasonable to assume that there is no more than 6 months between Begins and Dark Knight, so Bruce goes away to train for 7 years but suddenly wants to give up after a few months just so he can be with Rachel? Also his reasoning that Dent could clean up the city is that Dent put away 500 mobsters at once in a public courtroom, but they forget that the only reason these mobsters could be caught in the first place is because Batman irradiated their money so the cops could track them. Dent couldn't do anything to stop the mob without Batman. This leads me into one of my biggest problems with the Nolan trilogy overall is that Batman is solely interested in taking down the mob. He isn't fighting a war on crime, he is fighting a war on the mob because in Begins Rachel told him the mob was responsible for his parents death by ruining the city. This turns Batman's motivations from the pursuit of justice which it should be, to just targeting a single problem, almost like revenge. When I first watched the Dark Knight Rises the fact that Bruce quits being Batman for 8 years really bothered me because it felt really out of character, but it actually wasn't because all Bruce cared about was getting the mob and because of the Dent act they were virtually non-existent in Gotham.
This 8 year gap also presents another problem I have with the series and that is that Bruce couldn't have spent any more than a year actually as Batman, and that just bugs me. Another big problem I have with the Nolan trilogy is Batman's inconsistent views on killing. Most of the time he is like the comic Batman because he will never kill. But in Begins he says to Rhas "I'm not going to kill you, but I don't have to save you." This seems really inconsistent with who Batman should be because in my opinion those two things would be the same thing to the real Batman. His philosophy is that he will try to save everyone, regardless of what they have done. An example of this is in Arkham City where
Batman says he would have given Joker the cure regardless of the things he had done and the threat he would pose if he became healthy again. If he decided not to give him the cure he wouldn't be killing him because Joker poisoned himself with the Titan formula, but Batman doesn't see it that way so would have saved him with the cure.
Now you could almost forgive this by saying that Batman was only just starting out and didn't know of any other way to deal with Rhas, especially considering how much he talks about never killing in The Dark Knight. But then, after giving Joker a long speech about why he will never kill, in the very next scene Batman pushes Harvey off of a ledge where he falls to his death. Now again you could argue that Dent's death was accidental and Batman was just doing what he had to to save a child but the Nolan Batman is a ninja, he could have easily snuck up behind Dent and knocked him out but he decides to have a conversation with him instead because it's the end of the movie so Dent's character arc needs to be finished. Sorry that was a bit of a rant, and don't get me wrong I love all 3 of the Nolan Batman movies, but these things and other problems mean they aren't the Batman movies I always wanted to see.
Here's a new video review, part 1 for now. MikeJ makes some valid points, but some are very easy to explain:
This is true. I love all the movies in that trilogy (TDK and TDKR included), but I do understand some of the criticisms against the films.
I would also add that criticism comes from some of these camps as well:
1. Comic-movies-are-getting-too-serious: this camp dislikes most modern comic book movies because many are trying not to be too much of a comic book movie and to be something more, like with TDK Trilogy and the new reboots we are given. This camp holds that comic books are by their nature joyous fun, and they feel that Nolan's Batman trilogy doesn't work because while the trilogy does have a lot of fun along with its seriousness, the trilogy does have a dark aura that has not exactly been seen in a mass-marketed PG-13 comic book movie (though there have been dark comic-book/graphic novel movies before TDK)
2. The-Nolan's-Batman-isn't-Batman camp: this camp would include fans of Adam West, hardcore comic book fans, Michael Keaton/Tim Burton fans and just about anyone who doesn't find Nolan's Batman to be exactly in line with the comics (but many have shown that Nolan's Batman is really true to the comics and truer to the source than the other cinematic incarnations). When they see Christian Bale's Batman, what they see is a growling hunk of muscles that isn't exactly the most muscular (at least compared to the huge muscles of some of the illustrations of Bruce Wayne), an over-the-top voice that, while most people love it, annoys the living daylights out of them. This group feels that Nolan's Batman doesn't work because Nolan tried to make Batman more humanistic and they feel Batman is not really a human character but a superhuman in his own way. So they get (understandably) pissed when they see the opening of TDKR, since Batman is more easily broken and human in that movie than in BB or TDK. While I think that the tone worked well in these movies, I do understand where this camp is coming from.
I always wondered why Batman didn't just pin the murders that Dent committed on Joker? Job done.
The action sequences were poorly filmed and edited too. Chris Nolan seems to have a weakness when it comes to the geography and editing of action sequences in all his films. Poor stunt work too.
That said, TDK is in my top 5 superhero films. These are just flaws I notice.
Because he can take it. So they'll chase him(for that brief scene at the end, while he doesn't take anything). Because that's the point of Batman(to be the symbol of a psychopath that murders cops and DAs). He's a watchful protector of his moms pearls....The Dark Knight!
Or something like that?
lol yea sounds about right.
He did take it, for 8 years. Just because he wasn't physically being chased doesn't mean he didn't take the heat. His name, reputation, mentally..he took the fall. People can't look past the surface sometimes. Also, how do you know if that was it? You think Batman didn't get bombarded by more cops once he got deeper into the city? The chase could have had layers to it, going for a good chunk of the night.
i find it hilarious that people even make fun of these movies. When i look at the movies that came before it, or the comic book movies that have been released since (Iron Man 3, Avengers, Thor 2, Amazing Spider-Man or Man Of Steel which borrows heavily from Nolan)..it's like "really?". Appreciate what you have! They're pretty much the only serious comic book movies around. And im not talking about a couple of scenes you can take serious between Jor-El or Pa Kent, or when Andrew Garfield breaks Uncle Ben's door in a crying fit.
The only chance of Affleck's Batman being taken seriously is if he directs his own movie in 6 or 7 years from now, and even then, it may not happen since it's attached to two Snyder movies where Batman looks the coolest but is basically in a 3D popcorn movie with aliens fighting each other.
Fans diss TDK for other reasons though..
Since Nolan has done this, Hollywood thinks every hero should be the same way. Not everything needs to be taken seriously in the comic book world, or be gritty. So people blame TDK for that. Which isn't fair.
Examples of this? Apart from MOS. And don't say ASM, because that movie was not gritty at all. It's actually a pretty lighthearted film. It's simply not campy like the Rami Spider-Man movies.
But there was more night scenes in TASM, therefore, its gritty like the Nolan movies, broooooo. Totally inspired.