The Dark Knight Where does most of TDK's critisism come from?

[shauner111]

Of course you would laugh at things that aren't funny.

Im going to assume you're laughing at the first sentence. Sorry to break it to you, but just because YOU or others thought that he would be chased night after night, doesn't mean that you were right. TDKR proves that. Yeah, you know, the official sequel made by the same director, not some fanfiction..

"Taking" something can mean mentally just as much as physically.

 

[Travesty]

Never change Shauner.

 

[I Am The Knight]

ASM was a crime drama starring Spider-Man. And a giant mutant lizard.

 

[shauner111]

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.

It's still influenced by Batman Begins. The idea of bringing his parents into it via flashbacks. Making it a little more serious and less campy as the Raimi movies. Yes there is a Nolan influence, it is a little grittier. When it gets to the lizard parts, it moves away from that. Just like MOS moves away from the influence once Zod and Superman are fighting and buildings are being destroyed every minute.

Bond is another example. But IMO it has worked. But people complained when it didnt work, Quantum of Solace for instance. Star Trek is still lighthearted sci-fi, but compared to the franchise before? It's taken a lot more seriously. It's because of the trilogy. All of these filmmakers have admitted it.

Of course now, the spidey movies will shy away from that. Marc Webb said that the 2nd would be a more fun movie. But that first one? I guarantee the producers were thinking of Nolan's movies.

 

[Travesty]

Plus, The Lizard sounds exactly like Ledger, so there's that, too.

 

[shauner111]

Never change Shauner.

For you buddy ol' pal...

 

[I Am The Knight]

It's still influenced by Batman Begins.

Er, so which one is it, BB or TDK?

The idea of bringing his parents into it via flashbacks.

There was like one flashback. The movie actually starts with young Peter. Bringing his parents into it is simply Webb trying to make his trilogy different, and Peter's parents did have a role in the comics.

Making it a little more serious and less campy as the Raimi movies. Yes there is a Nolan influence, it is a little grittier. When it gets to the lizard parts, it moves away from that.

LOL. Have you seen the movie recently? It's full of little gags about Peter's powers, and even has a Coldplay song in it. Total Nolan influence there.

Actually, some of the more serious moments of the film come after the Lizard's appearance, at least in the third act.

Just like MOS moves away from the influence once Zod and Superman are fighting and buildings are being destroyed every minute.

I thought the tone was pretty consistent. Buildings being destroyed doesn't mean things are less serious. As a matter of fact, people complained about the destruction for being too "teh serious". Besides, the movie starts in an alien planet where fantastic creatures respond to voice commands.

Bond is another example. But IMO it has worked. But people complained when it didnt work, Quantum of Solace for instance. Star Trek is still lighthearted sci-fi, but compared to the franchise before? It's taken a lot more seriously. It's because of the trilogy. All of these filmmakers have admitted it.

Of course now, the spidey movies will shy away from that. Marc Webb said that the 2nd would be a more fun movie. But that first one? I guarantee the producers were thinking of Nolan's movies.

So again, BB or TDK? Because I can see the BB influence in say, Bond, but you said TDK, and I haven't really seen that. By the way, Bond is not a superhero.

 

[shauner111]

I said "hero" not superhero. Bond is an action hero.

There's no TDK in Bond? haha really? Skyfall is full of it. Sam Mendes even said it. Not to mention Abrams mentioning TDK for Into Darkness. They didnt have to admit it though because it's painfully obvious. Especially in Skyfall.

I meant that as soon as the Lizard or the alien invasion in MOS kicks into high gear, it stops being less gritty. For MOS, the buildings could be a serious thing, but when they're falling down in every frame for 20 minutes and everything looks a bit fake, yeah, it's more difficult to take it seriously.

About Spidey having Coldplay and jokes..did you not read what i wrote? I didnt say everything was Nolan influenced. Jesus. There are elements in that movie that were influenced by Begins, Knight, whatever the concept is for those Nolan movies. You know, to take things more seriously. The chase scenes on foot were a lot more naturalistic compared to Raimis movies too. The blueprint for TASM (and i dont care if ppl disagree) was to remake Spider-Man with some little changes here and there so it could come off different but what do you think inspired them to make some of these changes? What was done in Begins and Knight in terms of tone. In trying to make certain scenes feel more emotional, make some fight scenes more realistic, the look being a little bit darker when Peter is going through all that drama pre-spidey. What franchise was rebooted-origin story -style, that took things more seriously than the movies that came before it? That was your blueprint for the new spidey and superman reboots. Why do you think producers went this route? Because those origins led to greater sequels like TDK. But then Avengers came out so the plan has been derailed. The sequels to MOS and Spidey are suddenly much more sci-fi, why? Because the new plan is to build shared universes so they can combat Avengers. But that wasn't the original intention.

 

[Travesty]

I'm pretty sure B89 was inspired by TDKT, too.

 

[shauner111]

Yeah, it's pretty crazy.

 

[BatLobster]

Look at the difference in color palette and costumes alone between TASM and TASM2 and tell me that the first one wasn't going more for "gritty reboot" and the second one isn't going more for "Marvel Studios". It's so blatant.

 

[shauner111]

Yeah man. Amazing Spidey was to be their Batman Begins just like MOS was their Begins. It was never created to link up with other heroes, that was something they added in much later. Next thing you know, Marvel scores huge with Avengers and announces a second and maybe third movie. So WB says screw that, we're doing crossover movies instead of stand-alone Superman sequels. Sony says "why can't we do the same? we'll use TASM-2 as a setup for a Sinister Six!"

The color palette, the darker suits, trying to execute more emotional scenes with the protagonist. Just the idea of rebooting Spider-Man by doing another origin story, it wasn't really necessary. But it was obviously done because of the success of TDK movies. Sure they changed a couple of scenes here and there, but it was practically a remake of Raimi's Spider-Man. They went for the origin because of Nolan. And no Spidey fans, this is not me hating on the movie cuz i actually liked it.

 

[BatLobster]

Bingo.

 

[milost]

It's still influenced by Batman Begins. The idea of bringing his parents into it via flashbacks.

Harry Potter did that, that's what ASM reminded me of not Begins.

That little Batman film from the 80s also did it first, but I could be wrong.

Making it a little more serious and less campy as the Raimi movies.

Seemed just as "serious" and "campy" as the Raimi films. What are some differences between Spider-Man and ASM in terms of "seriousness", "camp", and "grittiness" or even "teh urban realism"? The new one looks even goofier than anything I've seen before.

there is a Nolan influence, it is a little grittier. When it gets to the lizard parts, it moves away from that. Just like MOS moves away from the influence once Zod and Superman are fighting and buildings are being destroyed every minute.

Bond is another example. But IMO it has worked. But people complained when it didnt work, Quantum of Solace for instance. Star Trek is still lighthearted sci-fi, but compared to the franchise before? It's taken a lot more seriously. It's because of the trilogy. All of these filmmakers have admitted it.

Of course now, the spidey movies will shy away from that. Marc Webb said that the 2nd would be a more fun movie. But that first one? I guarantee the producers were thinking of Nolan's movies.

i.e every franchise film from post 2005 was inspired by Nolan.

 

[Shikamaru]

Aside from overall quality in general, there is one major difference between BB and MOS/TASM (and it pains me to say this even though I loved TASM). BB feels like its own complete story while MOS/TASM just scream "sequel!", especially MOS. I know I said this before, but Nolan managed to find the perfect balance between stand-alone stories and an ongoing continuity. Each film leaves room for a lot more stories to tell (including TDKR, just not with Batman as we know him) but at the same time, each film's ending could have worked as the final ending. If the franchise ended at BB or TDK, it wouldn't have been a problem.

It is a balance I think all comic book movies should aim for. Unfortunately, not very many franchises have obtained it. Raimi's Spider-Man was too stand-alone to have it. X-Men kinda does have it, but the continuity is all over the place so it makes it pointless. Most of Marvel's Phase 1 solo films were just Avengers promos (they're doing a much better job with Phase 2). TASM feels like just an introduction and setup for greater things to come. MOS completely lacks a second act and didn't even deliver on what the production crew promised it would (the world's reaction to Superman).

 

[milost]

I dunno. I know Nolan claims other wise but Begins SCREAMED sequel bait with that Joker card. It doesn't really feel stand alone to me. You had Rachel's speech at the ends, the building of a new Batcave/Wayne Manor, and a Joker/Escalation/everyone is still out there ending. It demanded a sequel. I don't think a single person that came home from the theaters that summer of 2005 didn't expect a furthering adventure to the franchise. I sort of call BS on that one. Could it have ended right then and there, sure, but then so could Robocop, Batman 1989, Blade, Spider-Man, X-Men etc. If Begins can be standalone, any franchise movie can be.

Sure, some of those like Spider-Man and X-Men develop a possibility of a future battle (Magneto, Harry Osborn), but the plot and themes for that story wrap up right there.

Now I think the advent of "credit scenes" make the argument a little more difficult. I think Daredevil was the first comic book movie to feature that . . . An look what happened there, no sequel. Nadda.

 

[shauner111]

Actually, i know what you mean milost, with all those things you mentioned. But i walked out of the cinema not expecting a sequel. My friends were like you, talking about a new Joker. But i figured this would be a stand-alone origin story. I felt that way because for some reason i didnt think WB would want to mess with Nicholson or even try to re-do anything about the first Burton movie. Meaning a first meeting between Joker and Batman. I even argued with my friends that night haha.

 

[BatLobster]

The major difference is, with Begins you just had one tease in a mini, self-contained coda. In ASM you literally have an entirely storyline (the mystery of his parents and Oscorp) that got majorly cut down in the film so they can expand upon it in sequels, thus leaving a lot of unanswered questions.

There's a difference between teasing the idea of future adventures at the end of a film and having stuff in the main narrative of the film that is left unresolved.

 

[milost]

Yeah, Shauner. And there did seem like a good amount of people that thought it was a prequel to The first Batman. I'll never understand that one.

I remember I was one of those sorry fools that actually thought the Scooby Doo trailer was for a new Batman film. I think it was one of the LOTR films, maybe Fellowship or Two Towers where I saw that teaser and felt pissed when it turned out to be Scooby Doo. It was before I went lurking on the Internet and only had film magazine speculation to fuel my hype. I remember "Batman 5" was everything from a reboot "Year One" with Aronofsky at the helm, to Keaton coming back for a Beyond/TDK Returns film, to Batman vs. Superman. Rough times. I might have cried manly tears after seeing it was only some Scooby Doo crap, I'm not sure. Thing with the Internet today, that would have been instantly debunked.

 

[Shikamaru]

I dunno. I know Nolan claims other wise but Begins SCREAMED sequel bait with that Joker card. It doesn't really feel stand alone to me. You had Rachel's speech at the ends, the building of a new Batcave/Wayne Manor, and a Joker/Escalation/everyone is still out there ending. It demanded a sequel. I don't think a single person that came home from the theaters that summer of 2005 didn't expect a furthering adventure to the franchise. I sort of call BS on that one. Could it have ended right then and there, sure, but then so could Robocop, Batman 1989, Blade, Spider-Man, X-Men etc. If Begins can be standalone, any franchise movie can be.

Sure, some of those like Spider-Man and X-Men develop a possibility of a future battle (Magneto, Harry Osborn), but the plot and themes for that story wrap up right there.

Now I think the advent of "credit scenes" make the argument a little more difficult. I think Daredevil was the first comic book movie to feature that . . . An look what happened there, no sequel. Nadda.

That's different. It sets up a lot for a sequel (i.e. all the examples you brought up), but it's not dependent on a sequel. It doesn't leave out stuff for the sequels that should be in Batman Begins. It is not a film that people's opinions on changed depending on the sequels, or in other words, it isn't one of those films people watch and say "I gotta see the next one to have a solid opinion on this one" (which the same thing can't be said for the other films I brought up).

I guess I should have worded my post differently. Let me put it this way: It sets up a lot for the future, but it knows it is a movie at the end of the day and not a TV pilot. The story of the film at hand comes first with easter eggs/setups for the future being kept in mind. It's not like the MCU films that threw in tons of Avengers references as a way of saying "Look! We are doing Avengers!" to the point where they forgot about the movies at hand (especially Iron Man 2). BB's ending tells you they're doing Joker next, but it's not in your face about it.

 

[BatLobster]

OMG I remember that Scooby Doo trailer! Those cruel b****rds!

Btw great analogy with the TV pilot thing Shika. That's kinda how I view the Marvel Cinematic Universe. Like a big budget TV show for the big screen.

 

[I Am The Knight]

I said "hero" not superhero. Bond is an action hero.

There's no TDK in Bond? haha really? Skyfall is full of it. Sam Mendes even said it. Not to mention Abrams mentioning TDK for Into Darkness. They didnt have to admit it though because it's painfully obvious. Especially in Skyfall.

So you meant every other hero? Fine.

I meant that as soon as the Lizard or the alien invasion in MOS kicks into high gear, it stops being less gritty. For MOS, the buildings could be a serious thing, but when they're falling down in every frame for 20 minutes and everything looks a bit fake, yeah, it's more difficult to take it seriously.

About Spidey having Coldplay and jokes..did you not read what i wrote? I didnt say everything was Nolan influenced. Jesus. There are elements in that movie that were influenced by Begins, Knight, whatever the concept is for those Nolan movies. You know, to take things more seriously. The chase scenes on foot were a lot more naturalistic compared to Raimis movies too. The blueprint for TASM (and i dont care if ppl disagree) was to remake Spider-Man with some little changes here and there so it could come off different but what do you think inspired them to make some of these changes? What was done in Begins and Knight in terms of tone. In trying to make certain scenes feel more emotional, make some fight scenes more realistic, the look being a little bit darker when Peter is going through all that drama pre-spidey. What franchise was rebooted-origin story -style, that took things more seriously than the movies that came before it? That was your blueprint for the new spidey and superman reboots. Why do you think producers went this route? Because those origins led to greater sequels like TDK. But then Avengers came out so the plan has been derailed. The sequels to MOS and Spidey are suddenly much more sci-fi, why? Because the new plan is to build shared universes so they can combat Avengers. But that wasn't the original intention.

"Take things more seriously" is not a concept invented by Nolan, FYI. It was simply the natural progression in tone after SM3. Also, Nolan didn't invent stunt work. Marc Webb is a filmmaker with his own sensibilities, not a fanboy who was handed a $230 million check to "Nolanize" Spider-Man. Maybe he took some inspiration from BB, but TDK? There's none of that in ASM.

 

[I Am The Knight]

Look at the difference in color palette and costumes alone between TASM and TASM2 and tell me that the first one wasn't going more for "gritty reboot" and the second one isn't going more for "Marvel Studios". It's so blatant.

Have you seen the movie? the Spider-Man costume is pretty damn bright in ASM.

Anyway, that's like saying GI JOE: Rise of Cobra is a gritty movie because everyone is wearing black...

 

[milost]

Yeah, the "dark and gritty" thing is kind of a cliched way of describing things now. I think there's a better term to refer to these "modern" movies.

The films from the 70s and 80s were "dark and gritty". ASM? C'mon. I really don't see why these type of "Nolanisms" were just suddenly a thing in 2005. These types of films were always grounded in their own reality for the most part. Star Wars was pure fairy tale/fantasy, but they sought to achieve a reality with it's used, functional world. Terminator and Robocop with their futuristic worlds even managed to situate audiences smack dab in a reality that wasn't too far from our reality. Looking back, their observations were dead on. As far as superhero movies are concerned, how was Batman 1989 not "grounded in reality" or "dark and gritty", like most cinema from the time. People always seem to point to Nolan for practicality and function, but I seem to recall black body armor, grapple gun with reel wheel attachments on the belt, protective gauntlets, etc. debuting in 1989. They ultimately did that from a practicality stand point because it made sense. The filmmakers even "made sense" of the Smylex gas applying it to 70s government DDID chemicals. The difference? They didn't spend have the time saying where Batman got this, or how he did that, something that seems to be a requirement today. I didn't need to know how Batman's grapple gun worked. That subtle "weight, 108" comment is clever enough. I don't need to know that it takes crystals to power a lightsabers, or what kind of technology is required for an ED-209 or T-1000. In their respective worlds, their grounded and can be believed.

By the 2000s? Other comic book movies did the same long before 2005. I could believe Peter Parker could inhabit a world like my own because they changed it to a "genetically altered spider", or organic webbing, or government military gear.

The Nolan Batman films weren't the first to utilize these ways of story telling and they certainly won't be the last. For the most part, I think most of these franchise films, save maybe the Batman Returns to Batman and Robins to the Superman's to the Thor's and anything in between, try to ground out a certain reality for themselves. That's part of filmmaking, you want your audience to buy in what you're showing. I think the reason people are so obsessed with Nolan being the one that put these concepts of "grounded reality", "themes" and "grittiness" on the map is because of the exposition. Just because some fabricated reason is created for Batman's toys or enemies existence doesn't make that more real. Sometimes simply SHOWING is telling. It doesn't always have to be Morgan Freeman taking the viewers hand and telling them what is what instead of letting the audience find that world for themselves. Not that Nolan and Co. way is bad, it's just their type of storytelling.

But no, I don't think they revolutionized these concepts. These ideas for these type of genre, tentpole, franchise films have dabbled in it since the beginning. Are these films really inspired by Begins? Or has that just been the way it's been done. I mean, there is a spectrum here. There is a difference between a jokey tone with a telescope that freezes things and a foreboding tone with a mad bomber rigging ferries to explode. That's why I'll never understand Sam Mendes' comments on Skyfall with the "Nolan influence" when, A. Nolan was inspired by the BOND SERIES itself (Fox is essentially Q), B. Begins and Dark Knight weren't the only films from a franchise with a good, layered story AND critical success, C. Casino Royale. The Bond franchise were achieving these things BEFORE Skyfall. It's been a successful franchise since the 60s and also has this spectrum of believability. Some films were goofy and unbelievable, some were serious and grounded.


If Nolan and Begins deserve credit, I think it should be in the rebooting department. 2005 was the start of the reboot trend. Sure, there were soft reboots here and there, but it was revolutionized with Begins. So if people want to point at ASM, that's an apt example. There's also that way of taking contemporary issues, lets say post-9/11 world view and applying them to your story. But then again, it wasn't the first to do that. Robocop was a product of it's time. X-Men shed light on issues and problems that have been going on for ages. All these films existed prior to 2005. That's why when I see these little jokes and cracks on "teh realism", "dark and gritty", and what have you, I sort of get it. I understand the backlash. My only problem is, that's not Nolan's fault. He's never once struck me as pompous or having a superiority complex about this stuff. Dry and serious, sure, but still humble. He can't control how folks perceive his views, especially when there seems to be this massive misunderstanding with what he sees as "realism" and what the haters think he means.

 

[The Endless]

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.

A film is a film. TDK, one of my favourite films ever, isn't immune to criticism and is in my eyes full of flaws. Just because i like, well, love the film doesn't mean i'm going to blind myself to it's flaws. That would make me as bad as the Belieber's or the Twihards or whatever you want to call them.