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

[Optimus_Prime_]

Thats a stupid comparison cos a Batman movie couldnt work with him only being in it for 15 minutes cos its Batmans movie. Villains are dispensable and can be used as much or as little as needed to serve the story, which Two Face did.

Just like with Lecter, he totally worked and he didnt even need a back story like Dent.

I seriously don't no why you keep comparing a FOUR MOVIE FRANCHISE character to a "there and he's dead" character from Batman.

And Villains are not "dispensable", what a silly statement. Is Magneto 'dispensable' from X-Men? Is Joker 'dispensable'? Two-Face is no different, he's a very title villain who has been used consistently for decades in the Bat mythos.

 

[The Joker]

You clearly haven't read enough Batman then. I mean The Killing Joke is probably Joker's best story, and I hardly want them to make that story alone into a movie. In fact, had Ledger not died I would've very much liked to see more of him, and I don't think anyone in this thread would be lobbying for Heath Ledger to never be used ever again.

You keep saying this was his only story, but clearly the comics indicate otherwise. Almost all characters are introduced with the hope that they will catch and stand the test of time, and most characters don't. There is a reason Two-Face has continued beyond his first story -- and by the by most Batman villains were either indefinitely apprehended or "killed" during their first appearances, and were only brought back if there was additional demand for them. Two-Face (and Joker) are good examples of characters that started out with single stories and expanded.

You mean you've never read The Long Halloween or Dark Victory? You haven't read the abundance of Two-Face stories since his appearance in the 1940s? It's pretty inane to talk about a 60 year character who has risen enough in popularity to be featured in most of the fiction and claim that his "best" story was his origin, and everything since then isn't worth enough to make a movie out of. The fact that you claim Two-Face and Harvey Dent are one in the same also makes me wonder how familiar you are with the character. Harvey Dent is a front, it's a mask he wears to hide his true self. Harvey secretly likes to be bad, this much was explored in the film, he also seeks power and control - hence the coin, and his obsession with chance. No, there is much more to that character than what was done, or could've been done in that last fifteen minutes.

By the way Shakespeare never introduced characters in the last 15 pages to be used simply as plot devices to set up a cliffhanger. Which is basically what Dent 'Two-Face' was. The performance was fine, but I simply didn't need yet another villain to tie off that movie for me. The ending with Joker hanging, gloating about how he and Batman would be squaring off for a long time was really the perfect ending for me. It was omnious, creepy and left me wanting more. I still to this day don't understand why Two-Face needed to die, especially when Joker set him up as such a unique threat to the city of Gotham. It almost seemed to me like Two-Face's revenge scheme was something they added onto the script, and that the original cliffhanger was to be Joker's speech about what would happen when Gotham "gotta load of Harvey". Harvey promised so much, and delivered so little as a villain. In comparison to the Joker's spree, Harvey Two-Face seemed weak and uninteresting. For the first 80% of the movie we're treated to an omnipresent terrorist. We were suppose to watch the city slip into madness at the sight of their old D.A., instead we watch Batman and Gordon come up with some very flimsey and inane logic to justify pinning the crimes on Batman.

Exactly

 

[El Payaso]

i brought up batman because you brought up gordon who was the protagonist counterpart to the comparisons being made when.....oh f**k it.

And you, of course, know that Batman is the protagonist, but Gordon and Dent-Two Face are not. They're in another level of relevant characters that are not indispensable to be there all the time.

Not a good example.

no, i totally get and understand that. most of these movies are centered around the main hero and the main villain. TDK was batman vs. joker. no problems there.

That's great.

Because if the Joker was introduced the last 15 minutes, that's a different story.

my problem is, they suddenly decided to cram two-face in at the end.

"Suddenly"? What did "suddenly" happen?

Everything happened just the way it happened.

and instead of leaving it open to later explore the characters full potential which he deserves, they just killed him off as soon as they introduced him.

it was too much for the movie and did too little for the character.

Harvey Dent was there throughout the whole movie. It wasn't like Two-Face came out of nowhere 15 minutes before the end.

Well, if he had actually held Two Face back, then you could still have an interesting part three. But once you now have Joker and Two Face gone, how will part two and part three flow?
You really have to look at the screenwriters. Goyer ain't the best, but Begins was a very good film with only a few hiccups, and he wrote it. Tdk to me is the weaker film and that's where Nolan and his bro wrote it and it really felt they were out of their element in this genre. Too much stuff happening and cramming in stuff and trying to tie loose ends with big speeches are signs of the writing going awry.

So you think BB which didn't have Joker or Two-Face was the better film and yet you can't see how another Batman film without Joker and Two-Face can be any good?

Everything in TDK was nicely written and everything was addressed. It's true that you probably need mnore than one view to get everything, but little was left just floating around.

Now if you like hollow speeches, then Batman Begins is your movie.

That's great and all, but Harvey Dent and Two-face are as different as Bruce Wayne and Batman.

That is, different sides of the same person.

How'd you like a Batman movie where you never see Batman save for the last fifteen minutes of a two plus hour long movie?

In a movie called Batman, that sucks. Good thing this wasn't called "Two-Face."

They are not the same character, if you believe they are, I'd pick up some Batman comics at your local comic shop.

I'd suggest you should understand a movie watching the movie not the original material which never is fully translated 100% faithfully to the screen.

Two-Face in TDK was Dent gone crazy.

 

[Optimus_Prime_]

Because if the Joker was introduced the last 15 minutes, that's a different story.

Actually I wouldn't mind this. In fact, it was my general idea for a Batman reboot. Have some seemingly unimportant 'Red Hood' patsie change into the title villain for the next film by the end of the first one. Though I wouldn't simply kill off this new Joker character after a few short scenes. I imagine anyone going to see Batman would feel incredibly shortchanged by this.

"Suddenly"? What did "suddenly" happen?

Everything happened just the way it happened.

I wouldn't call it sudden. No, in fact I think the development of Two-Face went pretty well. What I didn't like was this ending that kind of fell flat. I think you have to look at the fact that the Joker very much stole the show, and for me there was no need to cram an additional villain into the end of the film. Save him for the next one.

Harvey Dent was there throughout the whole movie. It wasn't like Two-Face came out of nowhere 15 minutes before the end.

That is, different sides of the same person.

Eh? Not really. I don't read Batman Year One because I'm looking for a Two-Face story, despite the fact that Harvey Dent is featured in it. They aren't really the same person because the character is, after all, fictional. Two-Face is Two-Face, just like Batman is Batman. They are an interesting commentary of duality, and actually Two-Face is a much more extreme duality than Batman. That's what he represents, Batman's duality taken to an extreme. So in a sense Two-Face is less like Harvey Dent, than Batman is like Bruce Wayne. Batman still retains some of what he is, that may be why he's still fighting on the side of good. Harvey Dent, as I say, is a mask. He's only a white night publically. The movie even expressed as much. He's a prosecutor sure, but he'd rather be beating these criminals about the face -- and when he got that chance, he took it. He was, in a way, always a vindictive prick. The movie explored all this very well, but they didn't do is capitalize on the potential of what they set up. The whole point Joker made in his speech at the end was as bad as he was, it was nothing compared to what Harvey can do.

In a movie called Batman, that sucks. Good thing this wasn't called "Two-Face."

Tim Burton did a movie called Batman where he shortchanged Jim Gordon, and essentially made him a standard commissioner. You mean to tell me you're just fine with that. Pat Hingle is a good actor, in fact, I think he did embody many of Gordon's traits, especially his honesty. The character was underutilized though, and never used to his full potential. To be fair Aaron Eckhart was better at Two-Face than Hingle was at Gordon, but the point still stands. I feel both characters are pivotal enough to the Bat mythos that they deserve a little more than what they got in their respective films.

I'd suggest you should understand a movie watching the movie not the original material which never is fully translated 100% faithfully to the screen.

Two-Face in TDK was Dent gone crazy.

Which of course means: "Hey, how dare you criticize Nolan for condensing the source material in a way you consider anti-thetical to the comics. Nolan is brilliant, I should know because I love him like no other"

It's not, but you still have deference given to particular characters, moreover, I think it's a fair criticism to point out when a character is shortchanged. Cyclops, in my opinion, was portrayed well by Marsden. He had a lot of good scenes, especially in the first film, and at the end of the second, but he was shortchanged.

Batman Forever could've had the perfect Two-Face, I say could've. The elements were all in place, even some of his dialogue ("you've always been a good friend, Bruce") seemed to indicate they understood what to do with the character, just massively f***ed up his execution, and ran too far with some of the duality and obsession with 2s. Nolan's was a much better execution, well actually near perfect execution, just very limited in his use.

I think if you took Nolan's ability to create characters, Burton's atmosphere, and Schumacher's understanding that Batman was, in fact, a superhero...somewhere in there'd you'd have a really great Batman film.

 

[Motown Marvel]

And you, of course, know that Batman is the protagonist, but Gordon and Dent-Two Face are not. They're in another level of relevant characters that are not indispensable to be there all the time.

Not a good example.

i dont even remember how this part got started, and i just woke up and dont feel like going back to figure it out....i just remember you bringing up the likes of gordon vs. flass as a counterpart to my idea of batman vs. two-face, and i took issue with you even comparing them blah blah blah....but it doesnt sound like its really relevant to anything, so...

That's great.

Because if the Joker was introduced the last 15 minutes, that's a different story.

so, if they treated joker's story like they did two-face it's suddenly a crime?

"Suddenly"? What did "suddenly" happen?

Everything happened just the way it happened.

Harvey Dent was there throughout the whole movie. It wasn't like Two-Face came out of nowhere 15 minutes before the end.

it seemed extremely hasty (and almost like an after thought) that they decided to begin and end two-face's role in the last fifteen minutes. it came off poorly.

 

[Robin's Holyisms]

Thats not in the same league as Returns. Returns got a huge backlash that made McDonalds pull the plug on their Happy Meal promotion for the movie. It also led to the much lighter Schumacher movies.

TDK had no such repercussions.

Maybe so but not everyone was happy with TDK.

The American audiences weren't the only one complaining about the movie not getting the R rating. According to parentdish.com, "complaints from British parents are piling up, saying that the 12a classification the movie received there (similar to our PG-13 rating) isn't appropriate and that the movie should be rated 15a (no one under 15 admitted without an adult). Ireland and Scandinavia both rated the movie 15a."

By August The Dark Knight has broke the record for number of complaints about the 12A rating: The British Board of Film Classification (BBFC) received at least 60 complaints about The Dark Knight's rating in the eight days after its July 24 release, with most saying it should have had a 15 rating.
The BBFC has faced complaints about its 12A decisions before, but this is the most it has received in such a short time, with the figure set to rise in the coming weeks. (dailymail.co.uk)

And even the kid friendly adaptions had to be altered.

Also, the story has been radically altered for the kid friendly book adaptations, completely excluding Two-Face. The plots of these books infantalize the plot of the movie. The plot of Batman Versus the Joker: The Joker steals a schoolbus, the police can’t find him because there are so many schoolbuses on the street so they send Batman to catch him on his two-wheeler Batpod, and after a short chase, Batman catches the Joker. In two other books, Rachel (as “the girl” - not as a lawyer), is briefly kidnapped by the Joker at the birthday party she throws for Bruce and Batman quickly saves the day!

http://gothamalleys.blogspot.com/2010/11/dark-knight-controversy.html

 

[Fudgie]

I seriously don't no why you keep comparing a FOUR MOVIE FRANCHISE character to a "there and he's dead" character from Batman.

You talkin about Lecter? Hopkins Lecter wasn't a four movie franchise character when TSOTL came out in '91. Thats the flick that launched him into fame and greatness. That piddly little 16 minutes where he spent most of it just sitting in a cell talkin to Foster.

Nobodys talkin about the weak sequels that came years later when Lecter was already a legend.

And Villains are not "dispensable", what a silly statement. Is Magneto 'dispensable' from X-Men? Is Joker 'dispensable'? Two-Face is no different, he's a very title villain who has been used consistently for decades in the Bat mythos.

Of course villains are dispensable depending on how theyre used. Joker had less screen time than Dent and Gordon and Bats in TDK. But it was the quality and not the quantity that made him work. He worked for the story they told. He didnt get a backstory or nothin.

Two Face was the climax or peak of Dents story in TDK. Like Lecter, he got 15 minutes to impress. Yeah we coulda had more Two Face in a sequel. We coulda had more Ra's or Joker or Scarecrow or Dr Octopus or Iron Monger in sequels too. But they served the stories they were in nicely.

This aint the comic books where ya can spread a characters story over several diff titles like 3 times a month or something. Its a movie which has to make a two hour story that incorporates several characters.

So you think BB which didn't have Joker or Two-Face was the better film and yet you can't see how another Batman film without Joker and Two-Face can be any good?

Dunno why you keep responding to that truth guy. His opinions change as frequently as the weather. First it was about quantity, then quality, then how the performance was acted, and now its about which villains are used.

Hes obviously just being blindly biased.

Maybe so but not everyone was happy with TDK.

But they were a minority. Their small cries of protest had no affect on anything regarding the movie's success or the direction of the sequel to it. So dunno why you're bringing it up. If it actually had some kinda impact on the flick in any significant way then I'd understand ya mentioning it. But it didnt. I'd say most people never even heard of this little group of soccor mommies *****in.

 

[Robin's Holyisms]

So dunno why you're bringing it up. If it actually had some kinda impact on the flick in any significant way then I'd understand ya mentioning it. But it didnt. I'd say most people never even heard of this little group of soccor mommies *****in.

I brought it up because it was one of the poll choices for this thread.

And i thought it was something that people would be interested in. Since as you said not many people may have heard about this.

 

[Godzilla2014]

Is there a "Where does most of TDK's praise come from?" thread?

 

[DarKJediKnight]

So what are we talking now here? Two Face? I think people who don't get why Two Face is that way in TDK is because Christopher Nolan is telling his own story, and uses the character and made it different from what we know in the comic books in order to fit in what story he would like to tell his audience.

It doesn't mean though that I don't want a proper interpretation of the character from the comic books. But Nolan, in his own story, has used and interpreted the character brilliantly.

 

[truth]

But isn't it double standards?

Burton got heat for killing the Joker, a character he and Nicholson translated for film brilliantly.

He got heat for BOTH the Penguin and Catwoman, two characters that are amongst the most memorable villains in any film.

Both instances he deviated from the comics to do his own thing, but he got heat for it.

I like that. I like that Nolan wanted to do his own thing for Two Face, but it just did not work. The ending was too crammed and forced and once you have the Joker as a villain, WHY do you need another major villain which is Two Face? Makes no sense. It's just too much and ends up being like issue 115 in a Batman comic OR like the Adam West series where all the villains sat around for a tea party.
Joker is too big a villain to have any other cramping his style. Joker is enough to give Batman a headache for a year. No need for ANOTHER.

 

[MydnightPhoenix]

I don't have criticism for the movie, but I admit I didn't like the film as much as I liked Batman Begins. Maybe to some that disqualifies me, but I personally felt the film only got good when The Joker was on screen.
As for Harvey Dent, I thought he was a good character until he went bad which I felt was a little too forced and didn't make much sense; to me personally.

 

[JAK®]

Of course TDK wasn't Shakespeare. Because every line wasn't a double entendre and it wasn't about making fun of royalty.

 

[Motown Marvel]

Is there a "Where does most of TDK's praise come from?" thread?

that would generally be every other thread in the bat-forums.

 

[truth]

I think this thread is healthy and shows that fans of Batman had problems, quite a few, with Tdk.

 

[Fudgie]

The thread turned into like 10 people versus you and optimus prime. Very healthy.

 

[Doctor Jones]

Of course not. If anything can be compared to something of a higher art than its genre, it's the Superman 1 movie. There are far deeper storytelling themes in that film than there are in any comic-book film that has ever been made

I get a much more deeper experience with TDK than I do with the first Superman. That's a good film, but it all comes down to opinion, and what connects with you and what you pull from it. To me, Harvey's story was deeply tragic and I liked it more than Shakespeare. What does that say about me? A movie is an emotional experience. That goes for every single movie. It's about what you take away from it personally. So this is moot

All that you are saying is interesting, but it just was not put across well in the movie.

The way it was done was a series of big scenes accompanied by big speeches. To me, that's pretty lazy writing.

Let's talk about Silence of the Lambs since that has been used. Hannibal Lector was used sparingly but in his scenes, you get to know just enough about him without knowing too much. Hopkins of course gives an insane performance but the writing allows us to get into this man's head. The conversation he has with Foster is the backbone of the film and the amount of psychological back-and-forth between them two is what you call stellar writing.

For Dent or Two Face, the writing was thin and plain. Really, what in the writing, was so deep? Don't give me this stuff about trajedy and shakespeare, how well was Dent or Two Face written?

I think that our love for the comic book and the characters and the fact that the film APPEARS so real, propels the film to a level that it does not deserve. Against other films that have done the same thing, it comes up short because you still feel that you are watching a "comic-book" movie, albeit a realistic and well-made one.

Two Face should not be a character who is used as a plot-device. Even so, the plot-device was not that powerful because Batman the centre character was non-existent.

It's just unfortunate because you can really have a very deep and for this insallment, personal film with Two Face as a main villain. Just the idea of the character is so amazing.

It's funny though. A friend said this to me. People gave grief to Burton about killing Joker but where is the grief we should give Nolan for killing Two Face who was not done anywhere near as good as Joker was in Burton's film

It was in the film. At least to me. I didn't pull this stuff out of my ass and say this is what I thought happened, but really didn't. This is what I got out of the film. If you didn't, fine, you have your opinion.

And you're talking apples and oranges here. Lector and Dent are completely different characters with different arcs. So their conclusions will of course be different.

Joker's death is controversial because Batman just can't kill the Joker. That is the whole point to their relationship. It's a never ending cycle that goes on and on blah blah blah it's been said. Joker said it himself. And again, him and Dent were different. Joker gave Dent the push to take his anger out and seek vengeance on the people who wronged him and were the cause for Rachel's death. Dent died as a broken and insane man. Who was once a good man with alot to offer. Joker is just an apparition with not a whole lot of depth to him.

Again, we took away different things. I can't convince you. This is a moot discussion. I'm just laying out my thoughts and what I took from it.

Another excellent post

This article I found a while ago really echos a lot of what you said:



Link: http://www.slashfilm.com/assessing-the-themes-of-the-dark-knight/

There's also some great stuff about the Joker in that link, too.

Thanks man! Terrific article as well.

 

[Grayson]

People who just want to be contrarian. The Dark Knight is a masterpiece, and the best superhero film to date.

Sidenote: I question the validity of any fan who thinks that it "wasn't a Batman film."

 

[The Morningstar]

No it's nothing to do with being a contrarian. And no The Dark Knight wasn't a masterpiece.

 

[Grayson]

No it's nothing to do with being a contrarian.

Yes it does. There are no valid reasons to criticize it. "I don't like it" is the only plausible explanation.

And no The Dark Knight wasn't a masterpiece.

Yes it is. It's a perfect superhero film, that completely eclipses its genre. The Dark Knight is to Superhero Film what Blade Runner is to Sci-Fi.

 

[Godzilla2014]

I really enjoyed THE DARK KNIGHT. It's a really smart film, which mixes the suspense thriller and crime drama genres with a film noir atmosphere and Batman really well to create a film that engages on so many levels. I love movies that are based on ideas, and THE DARK KNIGHT really shines because of it. It's one of my favorite films of all time, and it is the best superhero film thus far.

 

[Anno_Domini]

Check out the TDK vs Watchmen

Two of my favorite comic book films right there. No way I can choose from that poll, lol.

 

[JAK®]

People who just want to be contrarian. The Dark Knight is a masterpiece, and the best superhero film to date.

Sidenote: I question the validity of any fan who thinks that it "wasn't a Batman film."

Yes it does. There are no valid reasons to criticize it. "I don't like it" is the only plausible explanation.



Yes it is. It's a perfect superhero film, that completely eclipses its genre. The Dark Knight is to Superhero Film what Blade Runner is to Sci-Fi.

 

[Motown Marvel]

Yes it is. It's a perfect superhero film, that completely eclipses its genre. The Dark Knight is to Superhero Film what Blade Runner is to Sci-Fi.

 

[Heffer Wolf]

I just rewatched this again for the first time in a while, and looking back on it, the only problem I have with it is the editing. In some spots its terrible, almost like it cuts away and moves to the next scene to quickly. It could have been edited together better. Thats it. Still my number 1 comic book movie ever made so far.