The Dark Knight (2008)

[Alienweirdo]

Nolan's vision of Batman is the best so far, so i am looking forward to the new film.

[ScottSF]

pics of Heath Ledger as Joker are out. Any google search will pull them up.

[Culhwch]

Interesting viral marketing campaign behind the release, too:

The Joker Revealed | /Film

[Connavar]

Originally Posted by Styr

Bale made a good Batman, however I found him wholly unconvincing in the role of Bruce Wayne - Millionaire playboy.
The thing about batman is anyone can play him, it's just acting with your chin. Nailing the part of Bruce Wayne takes effort and the only person so far to have really got that down was Michael Keaton.
I also found the film a little boring in the middle, I wasn't impressed with the plot, or the Scarecrow who seemingly had little to do considering. I thought te ending on the train was a little to reminiscent of Spiderman2 and the fact Gordon was driving the batmobile was pushing things a little.
Having said that I will still go and see The Dark Knight in the hope that, even though Heath Ledger as Joker :s, it will be an improvement on the first.

There many things that annoyed the hell outta of me in the movie.

The villains sucked: Which is lame cause Batman has the greatest villains of all heroes. His freaks are unbeatble.

Carmine Falcone being a brittish loser when he was the biggest italian mobsters in the comic. Arent there any italian old actors in hollywood come one.....

Scarecrow was a joke, not dangerous and sick at all.

Ra's Al Ghul being a white irish dude....

Rachel Dawes was usless( this isnt Lois and Clark...)

Bruce Wayne was annoying( too much the playboy) Plus he made all the things in he uses on his own in the comics. Not by giving himself away to Fox by being clear about the techs he need.

Batman acts like Bruce Wayne the playboy in a way people look down on and dont notice him too much. Not playing in the fountain with chicks...


Only Bale,Caine,Freeman impressed me in the movie.


The action sucked. This is Batman a master of 100's martial arts, we should be able to see him fight .....

[ScottSF]

Originally Posted by Connavar of Rigante

The action sucked. This is Batman a master of 100's martial arts, we should be able to see him fight .....

I enjoyed the action in Batman Begins more than any other Batman Movie. I love the way they showed Batman from the criminal’s perspective thus adding a layer of suspense and mystery missing from any other movie interpretation. I enjoyed the efficiency of the fighting style they designed; no nonsense and brutal. I would have been very disappointed if he started doing Jackie Chan type showy gimmicks.

I think the legend is in good hands. I only hope that he does his own movie and doesn’t have to bow to any studio pressure to make any changes.

[Connavar]

Jackie type gimmicky moves? have you ever read Batman?


I also thought it was cool he was a menace to them when he fought scaring them and stuff. That was the only thing they got it right actionwise.

Whatever you think of Jackie Chan and co Batman uses Martial arts to kick villains ass. He doesnt waste time by taking them to the roof with him one and one.

He would clear the room in a min with simple but effective moves, no gimmick stuffs here.

[Rawled Demha]

to put it bluntly, jc earlies were about the fights and stunts, his agility basically...his laters were about the comedies and close shaves, his agility in old age

bw was always about using everything we can use as humen to fight crime - technology, body and mind. batman rocks!!

[Famfrit]

So far, I'm not entirely convinced by the idea for this film. It's been done before almost 20 years ago spectacularly by Michael Keaton and Jack Nicholson.
Apparently, it's supposed to be a kinda 'Batman Begins 2' premise, but if thats the case, why couldn't it have been set slightly earlier than the first Batman film?
And I firmly believe that Heath Ledger as the Joker, is one of the worst casting decisions since Timothy Olyphant in the Hitman movie. But then again, that movie is just backwards anyway.

Bring back Tim Burton!

[Connavar]

Chris Nolan is good with movies like Prestige but he doesnt know how to make Batman and his world come alive...

[ScottSF]

Originally Posted by Famfrit

Apparently, it's supposed to be a kinda 'Batman Begins 2' premise, but if thats the case, why couldn't it have been set slightly earlier than the first Batman film?

Bring back Tim Burton!

Because Batman Begins has no relation to the Burton Batman movies just like 1989 Batman had no relation to the 1966 Batman movie (or the 1943 movie). Burton changed the story and made Joker the killer of Bruce's Parents but in Batman Begins they went back to the original source and made Joe Chill the killer, just a common thug. I can understand the sentimental attachment to the 1989 Batman. I really loved Burton's sets and I think the Joker was done well but I was never sold on Keaton as Batman; he just wasn't scary.

[Gav]

Bring back Tim Burton!

Burton is on record, and seemingly proud, that he never read (and so wasn't familiar with) the Batman source material (comics).

He was more interested in making a Burton movie than a Batman movie...

[Crazihors]

Tim Burton's Gotham was too pantomime for me - I refer Nolan's attempt at making it like a real city, and I also like his attention to detail. The flashbacks and such did confuse me a bit, but overall the film was realistically dark, and did give insight into why Bruce Wayne might become Batman. And it was filmed in England, Whoop!

[Shrek Baby]

Every incarnation of Batman from Adam West to Michael Keaton to George Clooney to Christian Bale has refelcted more on the time the film was made. West's Batman reflected the nature of most 60's action programmes - camp, overacted and pantomime-like. All in all, a really enjoyable romp.

When Burton took the helm of the Batman franchise in the late 1980s, viewers were wanting more realistic storytelling in films. With a story like Batman (as unrealistic as it gets) it was necessary to cast someone like Michael Keaton to almost underplay the role of Bruce and his Batman slightly scary (to other characters but not the audience). Jack Nicholson's Joker meanwhile retained enough of the comic book style of the 60's Joker but with a touch of mental instability as opposed to downright insanity. Val Kilmer continued with Keaton's style of playing the title role and Jim Carey/Tommy Lee Jones pushed the overacting comic villains and almost took away any sense of danger about the roles of Riddler and Two Face respectively.

Then Joel Schumacher came along...
I have absolute respect for Schumacher as a film maker (The Number 23, Phantom of the Opera, Phonebooth). He knows how to make a good film. Batman forever was well made in terms of casting and effects and so on, but so much of the essence of what made Batman fantastic had been lost. However, it still reflected on the time it was made - in the mid 90s there were lots of big names flying around and the use of special effects was growing exponentially. Batman Forever had big names, bigger effects and even more over the top acting but it was clear that the franchise had lost it's way.

Nolan's revisioning of the franchise allowed him to get back to the bare bones of what Batman should be and respond to what audiences wanted in films (and still do). He made it darker, edgier, scarier and much more compelling. Audiences want more of this and Nolan delivered.

[ScottSF]

YouTube - Batman 1943 Serial Trailer

this is the 1st time I saw any of the 1943 Batman. Zeus Bless youtube. How about that ray gun?

[Harleyquin]

sooo - and I'm going out on a limb here...

you've never read "Batman: year one" ???

Nolans story was heavily sourced from Millers graphic novel, the Ras Al goul story was out of an earlier account - its all about going back to basics.

As Shrek Baby pointed out Batman Movies have often reflected the times... the comic books have been little different.

Anybody here know that in the first incarnation of Batman he happily killed criminals? theres more than one he breaks the kneck of - he even killed the joker on his first outing He even carried a GUN at one point - something the "modern" batman wouldnt even contemplate.. so I agree one has to context the films but the context here is heavily Frank Miller.

Ok I'm rare as I though Jack Nicholson was the absolute worst person on planet earth to play the joker - hell they modified the script to accomodate jack, and a lot of the sceans they changed too - remember the last scean where batman's flying in all guns blazing (yet still amazingly missing)??? that scean the Joker was supposed to be jumping around a lot like a pin ball - but nope they pandered to nicholson and in the final version he just stood there.

Annnnnyyyyyyway...

The joker is best summed up in "the killing Joke" - I expect the dark night will have this as a strong influence to it, and perhaps parts of the dark knight returns and Arkam Asylum.

The Joker is possibly the most ill understood character in the batman univers but the most well known. Everybody thinks of him as a clown who then does evil things... the problem is the Joker IS a clown full stop - the litteral truth is everything he does he Thinks is funny - wether it be a pie in the face or a pie in the case with an acid filling - to him its the same but the "joke" element dictates if its lethal or not - also the Joker is the intellectual equal to the batman, just as smart in every way.

so heath ledger as the joker who can play it very dark, and comic will be a 100% better than jack who never got the character imo