Author Topic: The Dark Knight Rises (Read 218325 times)

Perpetual Change · « **Reply #350 on:** October 30, 2010, 08:58:05 AM »

How is a great demand not a fad? That's the very definition of a fad. It's only not a fad if the demand keeps up for the long run.

skydivingninja · « **Reply #351 on:** October 30, 2010, 10:04:33 AM »

I can agree with Bale's voice, PC. Thats the most irritating thing about the new movies. If they had dubbed all of Christian Bale's lines with Kevin Conroy's voice, TDK really would be the perfect movie. The change in Conroy's voice from Wayne to Batman is great. You can tell they're the same person, and the Batman voice is deeper and more serious, but he can be understood. I'd be far more terrified of Conroy's voice than Wayne's.

I also agree that Burton did get the sort of outdated notion of a comic book right. However, its just that: an outdated notion. It was practically outdated by the time his Batman movies came out. That kind of setting works in the older comic books, and it works in the animated show (still the best Batman outside of the books), but live-action? Doesn't work for me.

Perpetual Change · « **Reply #352 on:** October 30, 2010, 10:28:07 AM »

Hm. Maybe it's outdated, I don't know. Some would say comics were better before people like Moore and Miller made them super-serious. But anyway, I could just be partial to the older ones. Those are the ones that I remember watching with my mom and brother when I was little and we'd have movie nights. My other, littler brother, who's the age I was when I saw the Burton films now, can't even enjoy movies like the Dark Knight. He doesn't get what's going on, and when the action does start, it's too scary for him. I guess there's something to be said about growing up with the audience and all, though...

I sound like an old fogey!

emindead · « **Reply #353 on:** October 30, 2010, 12:18:50 PM »

Quote from: Perpetual Change on October 30, 2010, 08:58:05 AM

It's only not a fad if the demand keeps up for the long run.

That's where I was going at.

robwebster · « **Reply #354 on:** October 30, 2010, 12:20:38 PM »

Quote from: Perpetual Change on October 29, 2010, 11:46:25 AM

Okay, then here: Ledger isn't playing the Joker. He's playing some kind of drug addict. Sure, it's realistic, but it's not "the Joker." It's Nolan applying his "it has to be realistic" aesthetic to a comic book character by turning said character into a what I've described above. It's NOT that interesting to me, not compared to the job Jack Nicholson did. Then again, Burtan's Batman was a comic-book movie, and Nolan's is NOT a comic book movie but a movie based on a comic book that tries to deny its roots at every chance. So there.

I kind of see where you're coming from here.

I mean, I disagree with you. I went into the Dark Knight skeptical, and was surprised by the extent to which I was won over. I was never a fan of Batman anyway, but given all the promotional material, it just struck me as surly and joyless. A moody, edgy action film. That's not my style, as a general rule, but I feel that it was executed alarmingly well. Like, I thought it was a ridiculously immersive bit of cinema, and I never found myself watching the clock - which I was thoroughly expecting to. I actually sat next to a friend of mine who I joke around with a lot, 'cause I was expecting to be making silly asides throughout the whole thing, just to inject some fun into it, but didn't want to annoy anyone else. So you know, consider me rapt with attention.

But, to any long-term fans of the franchise, the mood of The Dark Knight (and, reportedly, Batman Begins) is so dissonant, compared to what came before, that it's got to be a fairly bitter pill. The Adam West stuff, of course, was incredibly campy, and - again, I've not seen it, so forgive me if I'm wrong - the Tim Burton version strikes me as probably fairly sinister in places, but also quite madcap? I assume, given what I know about Tim Burton. Batman stuff was never this dark and edgy. In comparison to other comics, yeah, it was one of the cooler ones, but it was never quite so po-faced and deadpan. I think, for a deadpan film, it really struck a chord with me. But if you're a follower of the franchise (which I take it you are?), I can see why it'd seem like it's been drained of all life.

ariich · « **Reply #355 on:** October 30, 2010, 05:36:10 PM »

But then again, even if you're a follower of the franchise, it doesn't mean you'll want the same tone and mood over and over again. I'd seen all the old Batman films but hadn't read the comics, so I'm not really that much of a follower, but I always love it when something new is tried. To me it's like covering a song in a different style; it's not the same as the original but if it's done well then it'll have lots to enjoy in a different way.

orcus116 · « **Reply #356 on:** October 30, 2010, 05:39:43 PM »

Quote from: emindead on October 30, 2010, 08:52:41 AM

Quote from: orcus116 on October 29, 2010, 11:02:45 PM
Quote from: emindead on October 29, 2010, 04:58:03 PM
Quote from: chrisbDTM on October 29, 2010, 02:52:40 PM
I'm actually very happy that they aren't doing it in 3d. That fad needs to die
It's no fad.
With the advent of really high name directors completely trashing and refusing to use it, I'd say it is. And I'm talking directors with a vision is various aspects of film making. As much as I hate Michael Bay's popcorn-only technique the man knows how to shoot really "holy shit" shots and his thoughts on 3D cover just as much ground as Nolan's do. Is anyone even using 3D well outside of Cameron? I'm not talking people like Paul W.S. Anderson who love it just as an excuse to throw axes and bullets at the audience.
Hey, I'm in favour of Directors choosing to film only in IMAX or whatever the HD thing is instead of 3D. My concern is that since the demand is getting higher and higher for these 3D popcorn movies that it won't stop, no matter what some brilliant directors say. Those like Cameron still want to push 3D movies to try and make a great movie with well blend 3D images, all of this to prove: "see? it is (instead of a 'it can be') a great complementary if done right. MOVIES ARE NOW RE-RE-REVOLUTIONIZED!" As long as there is a great demand of viewers wanting to see movies in 3D and directors wanting to film it that way, I'm sorry, it's no fad. Sadly.

This great demand you talk of is most likely fabricated. I've yet to see audiences clamor and beg for movies to be shown in 3D. Sure they see 3D movies but that's because usually that is the only option for some movies! Even the 2D versions of movies only seem to be shown at fewer times at fewer theaters so do they really have an option? Whenever you hear studios claim audiences want 3D that's complete bull. The only reason they say that is because they know they're profiting from that extra $4-5 dollars on every movie ticket.

Chino · « **Reply #357 on:** October 30, 2010, 05:56:38 PM »

I am willing to bet someone twenty dollars via pay pal that 5 years from now every movie will be in 3D on the big screen... with no 2D option.

GuineaPig · « **Reply #358 on:** October 30, 2010, 06:00:43 PM »

No. No serious drama has used it, and I don't think a serious movie will use it for some time.

skydivingninja · « **Reply #359 on:** October 30, 2010, 06:16:52 PM »

Quote from: Chino on October 30, 2010, 05:56:38 PM

I am willing to bet someone twenty dollars via pay pal that 5 years from now every movie will be in 3D on the big screen... with no 2D option.

If that happens people with no depth perception are going to have fits.

orcus116 · « **Reply #360 on:** October 30, 2010, 06:24:23 PM »

It looks shit to people who do have depth perception, that's the problem.

Quote from: GuineaPig on October 30, 2010, 06:00:43 PM

No. No serious drama has used it, and I don't think a serious movie will use it for some time.

Exactly. Anyone who thinks a serious movie could be as effective in 3D is a moron.

Also Chino, your beloved Avatar has seriously crippled artistic integrity by showing how much extra money studios can make with those 3D prices. That is by far the sole reason so many movies are being made in 3D and unnecessarily converted into 3D post production.

robwebster · « **Reply #361 on:** October 30, 2010, 06:34:41 PM »

Quote from: ariich on October 30, 2010, 05:36:10 PM

But then again, even if you're a follower of the franchise, it doesn't mean you'll want the same tone and mood over and over again. I'd seen all the old Batman films but hadn't read the comics, so I'm not really that much of a follower, but I always love it when something new is tried. To me it's like covering a song in a different style; it's not the same as the original but if it's done well then it'll have lots to enjoy in a different way.

Oh! Totally true. And I imagine a hell of a lot of Batman fans really dig The Dark Knight. Think it's not necessarily as much a "given" as it might seem, though, so I'm just saying I can completely understand why it wouldn't necessarily tick all the right boxes for someone with a bit of extra investment. Quite a few people seemed to be baffled by PC's reaction - and understandably so, it's an ace film - but I think I can see his angle.

orcus116 · « **Reply #362 on:** October 30, 2010, 06:38:58 PM »

Except for his claim that Ledger was overacting. Is there something wrong with giving a new spin on an old character? I'm pretty sure there are so many different visions of the Joker that saying his "wasn't the Joker" is kinda silly.

MetalJunkie · « **Reply #363 on:** October 30, 2010, 06:48:10 PM »

Quote from: orcus116 on October 30, 2010, 06:24:23 PM

It looks shit to people who do have depth perception, that's the problem.

Quote from: GuineaPig on October 30, 2010, 06:00:43 PM
No. No serious drama has used it, and I don't think a serious movie will use it for some time.

Exactly. Anyone who thinks a serious movie could be as effective in 3D is a moron.

Also Chino, your beloved Avatar has seriously crippled artistic integrity by showing how much extra money studios can make with those 3D prices. That is by far the sole reason so many movies are being made in 3D and unnecessarily converted into 3D post production.

I was looking at apple's trailers, and six of the ones on the front page boasted 3D movies. Ugh.

robwebster · « **Reply #364 on:** October 30, 2010, 06:54:02 PM »

Quote from: orcus116 on October 30, 2010, 06:38:58 PM

Except for his claim that Ledger was overacting. Is there something wrong with giving a new spin on an old character? I'm pretty sure there are so many different visions of the Joker that saying his "wasn't the Joker" is kinda silly.

Ledger was definitely firing on all cylinders. I could see how someone could call that overacting. I disagree completely, Ledger's Joker was the best thing about a stunning film. From what I know of the Joker, as well, I think Heath was probably significantly less zany than most of the previous renditions, too, so I agree that it's an odd claim.

But yeah, I'd still file it away under "disagree" rather than "really?," meself.

Perpetual Change · « **Reply #365 on:** October 30, 2010, 07:23:07 PM »

https://www.dreamtheaterforums.org/boards/index.php?topic=12971.msg651895#msg651895

Out of all the garbage I've dumbed in this thread, I've decided that post is the single reason why I like Burton's movie better.

NecessaryPain · « **Reply #366 on:** October 30, 2010, 08:03:09 PM »

I also think TDK has a poor script. Atleast lacking in comparison to BB.

There are many times throughout the film where the dialogue just seems rather forced. Especially coming from Harvey, Alfred and Rachel.

I don't know. I've seen a lot of films in my time, but this one in particular seems to almost force itself on the viewer. Each time Harvey opened his mouth, I felt as if Nolan was just pushing his agenda and rushing his character development onto the audience. Rachel spoke in a similar tongue, but worst of all was Alfred. I cringe when I hear that story about the gems being stolen and given away. I just don't see why we need his forced dialogue to try and understand the Joker's motives.

I forget what he said now, but something about watching the world burn. Ugh. Just totally not needed.

Suprisingly, however, The Joker doesn't qualify for this type of dialogue. He had some good lines in the film, and was much better overall to the horrible transition of Harvey into Two Face. I also think the actor just wasn't good enough for this role. But I guess Nolan is partly to blame for that.

And finally, another thing that bothered me - and now seems a trend with Nolan films - the background music. Not a fan of this at all. It's almost every scene we have music playing in the background. For me, this takes away from the acting and more powerful scenes. I think Nolan could do with cutting back on this a lot, as it's all over The Prestige and Inception - which are both very good films.

ehra · « **Reply #367 on:** October 30, 2010, 08:07:04 PM »

I can understand how music in a scene might take away from the impact compared to what silence might have done, but how does it in any way affect the "acting potential?"

NecessaryPain · « **Reply #368 on:** October 30, 2010, 08:14:55 PM »

Quote from: ehra on October 30, 2010, 08:07:04 PM

I can understand how music in a scene might take away from the impact compared to what silence might have done, but how does it in any way affect the "acting potential?"

I think great acting needs its fair share of silence. With the music playing, it's affecting the overall mood of the scene.

This is what Nolan's Batman was like -

(shot of Batman on some random building)

'DaDa DaDa DaDa DaDa DaDa DaDa DaDa DaDa DaDa DaDa DaDa DaDa DaDa DaDa DaDa DaDa'

(Bank robbery scene)

'Derrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr' (for like 10 minutes straight)

(random people conversing)

'DaDa DaDa DaDa DaDa DaDa DaDa DaDa DaDa DaDa DaDa DaDa DaDa DaDa DaDa DaDa DaDa'

It's not that the OST was bad, it was just overused. There was music on pretty much every scene.

Maybe it's just me, but I really don't like this approach.

Implode · « **Reply #369 on:** October 30, 2010, 08:35:11 PM »

It's completely opposite of movies made 20+ years ago where most scenes had no music. As a kid being raised in a time where music is in most of a movie, I found older movies awkward because of the lack of music.

skydivingninja · « **Reply #370 on:** October 30, 2010, 08:36:47 PM »

I totally disagree about Aaron Eckhart as an actor, NP. I think he actually did a better job overall than the two stars of the movie. I never thought the dialogue was ever forced at all.

MetalJunkie · « **Reply #371 on:** October 30, 2010, 08:41:19 PM »

Quote from: NecessaryPain on October 30, 2010, 08:03:09 PM

Suprisingly, however, The Joker doesn't qualify for this type of dialogue. He had some good lines in the film, and was much better overall to the horrible transition of Harvey into Two Face. I also think the actor just wasn't good enough for this role. But I guess Nolan is partly to blame for that.

I seriously cannot even fathom when people say Heath Ledger didn't have a great performance. He was able to completely transform himself. Jack Nicholson just played Jack Nicholson.

skydivingninja · « **Reply #372 on:** October 30, 2010, 08:42:13 PM »

I thought he was referring to Aaron Eckhart not being good enough for the role. I disagree either way.

MetalJunkie · « **Reply #373 on:** October 30, 2010, 08:54:45 PM »

Quote from: skydivingninja on October 30, 2010, 08:42:13 PM

I thought he was referring to Aaron Eckhart not being good enough for the role. I disagree either way.

Whoops. I think I misread somehow. But yeah, I still disagree. I think everyone performed near perfect (except for Bale)

Accelerando · « **Reply #374 on:** October 30, 2010, 10:26:19 PM »

I feel like im the only one who actually likes the Bale Batman voice. It was definitly more hoarse in TDK than it was in BB. Either way, i feel like it worked for this type of world Nolan and co. has created

ariich · « **Reply #375 on:** October 31, 2010, 05:23:02 AM »

Quote from: Chino on October 30, 2010, 05:56:38 PM

I am willing to bet someone twenty dollars via pay pal that 5 years from now every movie will be in 3D on the big screen... with no 2D option.

I will take that bet, because there's no way in hell it'll happen.

hefdaddy42 · « **Reply #376 on:** October 31, 2010, 05:55:15 AM »

PC, it doesn't sound to me like you're even able to appreciate TDK for what it is, because you are holding up Tim Burton's deeply flawed film as what a Batman and a Joker should be on film. I have no idea why, but that is what all of your posts on the subject are screaming to me.

I was a longtime comics reader already by the time Burton's film came out in 1989, and I thought it was a huge missed opportunity. It just wasn't the comics. At all. It was just wrong, and it was painfully obvious, as Kevin Smith noted, that Burton was not familiar with the comics.

I have no idea why anyone would prefer Nicholson's Joker to Ledger's Joker. Nicholson wasn't creating anything, he was just Jack playing Crazy Jack again, but this time with face paint. Also, it had a lot more to in common with Caesar Romero's version from the camp TV show than anything in the comics. Also, I have no idea why you said that Ledger's Joker was a drug addict. Just completely clueless on that one.

But again, no one saying anything is going to change what you like or dislike. So, cheers.

Zook · « **Reply #377 on:** October 31, 2010, 08:35:57 AM »

Although I disagree with PC, I think he was just comparing HL's Joker to a drug addict because he was pretty out there.

emindead · « **Reply #378 on:** October 31, 2010, 08:41:58 AM »

Quote from: Perpetual Change on October 30, 2010, 07:23:07 PM

https://www.dreamtheaterforums.org/boards/index.php?topic=12971.msg651895#msg651895

Out of all the garbage I've dumbed in this thread, I've decided that post is the single reason why I like Burton's movie better.

Quoting yourself, and showing your quote, would've been easier.

Perpetual Change · « **Reply #379 on:** October 31, 2010, 08:48:05 AM »

Quote from: hefdaddy42 on October 31, 2010, 05:55:15 AM

PC, it doesn't sound to me like you're even able to appreciate TDK for what it is, because you are holding up Tim Burton's deeply flawed film as what a Batman and a Joker should be on film. I have no idea why, but that is what all of your posts on the subject are screaming to me.

I was a longtime comics reader already by the time Burton's film came out in 1989, and I thought it was a huge missed opportunity. It just wasn't the comics. At all. It was just wrong, and it was painfully obvious, as Kevin Smith noted, that Burton was not familiar with the comics.

I have no idea why anyone would prefer Nicholson's Joker to Ledger's Joker. Nicholson wasn't creating anything, he was just Jack playing Crazy Jack again, but this time with face paint. Also, it had a lot more to in common with Caesar Romero's version from the camp TV show than anything in the comics. Also, I have no idea why you said that Ledger's Joker was a drug addict. Just completely clueless on that one.

But again, no one saying anything is going to change what you like or dislike. So, cheers.

Yeah, hef, honestly, sorry. I was kinda moody on the onset. I've retracted everything and decided that the post em just quoted above is really all I wanted to say about the movie.

hefdaddy42 · « **Reply #380 on:** October 31, 2010, 12:03:56 PM »

OK, well, let's get past this and get over it, everybody.

Love you, PC.

cthrubuoy · « **Reply #381 on:** November 01, 2010, 02:45:31 AM »

Quote from: NecessaryPain on October 30, 2010, 08:14:55 PM

(Bank robbery scene)

'Derrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr' (for like 10 minutes straight)

I actually love the background music/sounds here.

fadetoblackdude7 · « **Reply #382 on:** November 01, 2010, 08:16:45 AM »

This is COMPLETELY random, but I vote for Blackmask and Harley Quinn for the villains of TDKR

Batman Begins - Ra's Al Ghul/Scarecrow
The Dark Knight - The Joker/Two-Face
The Dark Knight Rises - Blackmask/Harley Quinn

.....to me, it fits!

Rina · « **Reply #383 on:** November 01, 2010, 08:21:37 AM »

Quote from: fadetoblackdude7 on November 01, 2010, 08:16:45 AM

This is COMPLETELY random, but I vote for Blackmask and Harley Quinn for the villains of TDKR

Batman Begins - Ra's Al Ghul/Scarecrow
The Dark Knight - The Joker/Two-Face
The Dark Knight Rises - Blackmask/Harley Quinn

.....to me, it fits!

That's pretty cool. For me personally - I loved Ledger's Joker, I thought that was done perfectly. So I think the next one needs to kind've keep up with that standard of awesome-villan-is-awesome thing.

lordxizor · « **Reply #384 on:** November 01, 2010, 08:39:54 AM »

Quote from: Chino on October 30, 2010, 05:56:38 PM

I am willing to bet someone twenty dollars via pay pal that 5 years from now every movie will be in 3D on the big screen... with no 2D option.

I read an article a while back (sorry, can't find the link) that showed pretty convincingly that demand for 3D movies is going down except for one category of movie. The only place 3D movies are doing very well is movies with "3D" in the title (who wants to see Saw 3D in 2D?). Basically he calculated the % increase in revenue due to the 3D showings for all 3D movies since the most recent trend started. Basically he took the number of tickets sold, determined how much money the movie would have made based on average 2D ticket prices, and determined the % increase due to the 3D premium. One of the first, Polar Express, made a ton extra from being in 3D. Some of the more recent ones, like The Last Airbender, likely would have made more money had it not been in 3D at all as more people would have been willing to pay the lowere 2D price to see, but weren't willing to pay extra for 3D. The basic point of the article was that people are already realizing it's not worth the extra $ in most cases to pay for 3D. Even Avatar, considered by many to be the best use of 3D, had a smaller boost from the 3D showings than some 3D movies before it.

The only way 3D is going to really catch on is if it is no more expensive than 2D.

We should probably stop derailing this thread.

News: Track-by-track video for Paralyzed: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fd5TbGbalPs&feature=youtu.be

Author Topic: The Dark Knight Rises (Read 218325 times)