I finally seen The Black Knight yesterday.

[Mikey]

Yea, I know ... i'm a little late ... but better late then never :)

Ok, what did I think of it ?
Not bad (actually a pretty good score for me) but in my book it does have some flaws and IMO doesn't deserve all the acclaim it recieves.

Some good points ......
A good story
good acting

Some bad points (note: bad points list is longer because i'm trying to analyze it from this side).

1. Batman and Bruce Wayne ....... I don't like this guy ... Yes, he's our hero, but he's not a likable person ...
I can never understand how newer versions of Batman are so popular considering how unlikable he is ... Is it today's society of loving ******s as their heroes ? ...

1-B. There really isn't anyone in this movie that I cared about ... I couldn't care less if any of them die.

2. Joker ...... Strangley, I do like this Joker ..... The only probablem with this version of Joker is he's not really A Joker .... Not counting the suit and make-up he's just an ordinary nut job .......... I want more of a crazy clown connection ...

3. Harvey's girlfriend ........ I don't believe Harvey would be in love with this woman ... He could get any chick he wants ..
number one, she's isn't all that pretty.
Harvey could do a lot better.

4. Gordon ... Does anyone else think this actor just don't look the part of Gordon ?

5. Story --- The story was good, but it was a little hard to follow (some individual parts)...

6. Gadgets ........ Batman IS gadgets, I understand that but this leaves me with a question ........ The same people here who put down the classic Bonds because of too much use of gadgets LOVE this movie ... I don't understand.

7. The Batpod (motorcycle) .......... This thing would not work in the city .... It would take you 2 miles of curve just to turn 90 degrees.
The fat front tire looks cool but is totally impractical.
Was this thing designed by Fisher-Price ?

Just some observations.

Feel free to challenge :)

m

[jds1911a1]

I like Gary Oldman as Gordon but only as it relates to the BATMAN YEAR ONE comic the new series is so based in

[ctc]

>he's not really A Joker .... Not counting the suit and make-up he's just an ordinary nut job .......... I want more of a crazy clown connection ...

That's how I felt about Nickolson's Joker as well. I'd love to see someone play him like the old Caesar Romero Joker, but in more consequential and dangerous situations.

>Batman IS gadgets,

This was the point that killed it for a friend of mine; that Batman in this film was all about gadgets, and didn't really achieve anything of his own accord.

>The Batpod (motorcycle) .......... This thing would not work in the city

It worked pretty good in the old Judge Dredd comic....

Don C.

[The Toyroom]

4. Gordon ... Does anyone else think this actor just don't look the part of Gordon ?

Actually, he's pretty spot-on to the young Lt. Gordon who was featured in "Batman:Year One". If you're comparing him to the older comic book Commissioner or the TV doofus portrayed by Neil Hamilton I can see your confusion.

[kingdom warrior]

[QUOTE=type1kirk;245699]

1. Batman and Bruce Wayne ....... I don't like this guy ... Yes, he's our hero, but he's not a likable person ...
I can never understand how newer versions of Batman are so popular considering how unlikable he is ... Is it today's society of loving ******s as their heroes ? ...

A: Bruce is in Character as an Unlikeable rich spoiled Socialite. This way there is no association with him and Batman.....

1-B. There really isn't anyone in this movie that I cared about ... I couldn't care less if any of them die.

A:Morgan Freeman's Character Lucious is my favorite they way they added him as basically Bruce Wayne's Q.

2. Joker ...... Strangley, I do like this Joker ..... The only probablem with this version of Joker is he's not really A Joker .... Not counting the suit and make-up he's just an ordinary nut job .......... I want more of a crazy clown connection ...

A: There really is no definitive Joker as over the years every generation has had their version. 60's Joker Although IMO is the Best.

3. Harvey's girlfriend ........ I don't believe Harvey would be in love with this woman ... He could get any chick he wants ..
number one, she's isn't all that pretty.

A: This is Just in the casting Rachel character was very pretty in the first movie. Katie Holmes is hard act to follow in the looks dept. This rachel was the better Actress.


4. Gordon ... Does anyone else think this actor just don't look the part of Gordon ?

A: Yes he's Dead on to The Comicbook. best version


5. Gadgets ........ Batman IS gadgets, I understand that but this leaves me with a question .......

A: I think sometimes the gadgets become too over the top in Batman movies. I think they did a good balance in focusing on story and not overblown gadget use.

6.. The Batpod (motorcycle) .......... This thing would not work in the city .... It would take you 2 miles of curve just to turn 90 degrees.
The fat front tire looks cool but is totally impractical.
Was this thing designed by Fisher-Price ?

A: Sell Toys,Toys and More Toys

Glad to see you gave it a try. From what i understand I know you're a Fan of the Classic TV Batman

[goldenryan]

it's no use t1k complains about everything.:ugh_y:

[SUP-Ronin]

Also with the motorcycle, remember that foremost it is part of the batmobile, and the fact that it can "transform" part of it self into the motorcycle is just a bonus or secondary function using batmobile parts. On it's own, the batcycle would probably have looked different, and more sleek. I agree with you're comment about the turning radius.
No problems with Gorden.
I loved this interpretation of the Joker.
Batman is still just a human, he needs the gadgets, Seems like they took a bit more of a "How would this work if it really existed" point of view.
I dig Michael Caine, as Alfred, and Morgan Freeman.
Dent did a good job, but I agree, I didn't really give a crud about him.
I just don't care for Maggie Jyllenhall, why didn't they keep Katy Holmes?? I forget, cause Tom was shooting someplace else and wouldnt' let her??

Overall I can easily forgive the small things with this movie, considering how badly they can screw something like this up. I am pretty excited about this version of Bats and look forward to more.

[Mikey]

I also thought his cowl looked weird.

There were many scenes that looked like it was on crooked.

It also looked too big and bulbus on the head.

I think this was the "new designed" one that was suppose to be part helmet.

[goldenryan]

as much as i loved the dark knight i like the tv, and even the 1989 batmobile alot better than the batmobile in this movie.

[toys2cool]

I thought the same thing about the chick :smiley1:

[Mikey]

I thought the same thing about the chick :smiley1:

I read on the internet she's in her late 20's.

The way she looked, I thought she was in her mid 40's

Also, I dunno what's up with her partial pig nose.

It looks like she had nose-job gone wrong.

[thunderbolt]

Don't worry about the "chick" she got blowed up real good and won't be back.

As for Gordon, he's dead on perfect. Oldman nailed the part.

Joker. I really dig this version and the shabby look to him.

[toys2cool]

I read on the internet she's in her late 20's.

The way she looked, I thought she was in her mid 40's

Also, I dunno what's up with her partial pig nose.

It looks like she had nose-job gone wrong.

yeah I think her brother looks better :smiley1: Jake Gyllenhaal is the other guy in Broke back mountain with Heath Ledger

and she is a decent actress,but man you could've gotten a real hot babe to play that part

[Steeler80]

I really thought this was a terrific film. Ledger has received heaps of praise for his portrayal of the Joke and I think it's deserved. And I agree that Batman is unlikable but I think that's part of the character, certainly part of the storyline for this movie (hence all the "He'd the hero Gotham needs. He can take it" stuff at the end [which was a bit overdone]). As everybody knows, Batman came out of the pulp tradition and there were lots of unlikable heroes there (The Shadow, The Spider).

[Earth 2 Chris]

I don't agree that Batman is unlikeable. I will say in this movie he is trapped inside this creation he made in the first film. With Rachel's death and then him taking the blame for Two-Face's crimes he now has no hope of a normal life at all, just Batman and the public Bruce Wayne. The real Bruce is somewhat in-between. Only Alfred (and maybe Lucius to a point) really know him. To me, this makes him very sympathetic.

I will agree that Gylenhall isn't the most attractive actress in Hollywood. I think we are so used to movie love interests being drop-dead gorgeous (even if the male lead isn't) that we find it hard to accept her as the object of affection to both handsome Bale and Eckhart. She did do a nice job with the part though. More believable than Katie Holmes in the first film.

Gordon is dead-on the modern comic portrayl. Love Oldman in that role. Glad he got so much more to do this time.

Chris

[Dave Mc]

When I entered this thread I thought you were going to tell us how you met Jason "Black Knight" from our boards. :biggrin:

I was also late seeing this flick. I didn't feel comfortable taking my son to see it in theatres, so waited for the DVD release. I'm glad I did. It's just a little too "real". Maybe not in the characters, but in the violence and motivations.

But I enjoyed it. Batman, like all these kinds of characters are subject to interpretations of the writers at any given time. These movies have taken elements from many different Batman styles over time.

Personally, I think Oldman as Gordon is perfect. I really like what they've done with that character.

Joker- He was intense crazy and evil, and Ledger did a great job, but honestly, I think his performance was a bit over-rated, probably because of his death. I think they nailed the insane violence, but like you, I think there could have been more...I hate to say "jokes", but more things the Joker found funny. Joker entertains himself in his own way, and while this joker did those things, he didn't seem to find it all that funny. That said, I really like the relationship, the one can't exist without the other thing they did here. Miller drove that point pretty hard in Dark Knight, and it was nice to see it presented here.

The Rachel character has always been pointless. Although I liked this version much better than the Katie Holmes version. Personally, I don't find Katie all that, so that took attraction out of the picture for me, and I think they did much more with her in this flick, at least she had some purpose, but the character was really not neccessary in either film.

I like 2-face in the film, but I think they kind of wasted him a bit. I never understood the need to have 2 villians in each movie. They could have set up the Harvey Dent thing here and given him his own starring villain thing later. One major baddie is enough for me. And while I like the character, not sure I like the idea of him really being created by Joker as a pawn.

Still, all and all I liked the flick alot. I can forgive a lot so the batcycle thing doesn't bother me in the least, and honestly, I thought it was awesome when it scaled the wall to turn around. :biggrin:

[BlackKnight]

When I entered this thread I thought you were going to tell us how you met Jason "Black Knight" from our boards. :biggrin:

... Me too !
I was wondering when that Porno I did would get out there... :please_y:

As for the rest of the Nonsense in this thread,.. I dunno even How to address it,.. I liked the Movie, it was great. :grin:

[jwyblejr]

Joker- He was intense crazy and evil, and Ledger did a great job, but honestly, I think his performance was a bit over-rated, probably because of his death. I think they nailed the insane violence, but like you, I think there could have been more...I hate to say "jokes", but more things the Joker found funny. Joker entertains himself in his own way, and while this joker did those things, he didn't seem to find it all that funny. That said, I really like the relationship, the one can't exist without the other thing they did here. Miller drove that point pretty hard in Dark Knight, and it was nice to see it presented here.



Agreed. There was even one scene(can't remember which one) that was set up perfectly for a quip or a joke and nothing. Other than that and setting up Batman as the scapegoat at the end,I enjoyed this movie.

[BlackKnight]

I think the Joker Found turning Dent into Two-Face very Funny. In a sick twisted way. imo.

[huedell]

Dave Mc wrote:


I hate to say "jokes", but more things the Joker found funny. Joker
entertains himself in his own way, and while this joker did those things, he
didn't seem to find it all that funny.


I like 2-face in the film, but I think they kind of wasted him a bit. I
never understood the need to have 2 villians in each movie. They could have
set up the Harvey Dent thing here and given him his own starring villain thing
later. One major baddie is enough for me. And while I like the character, not
sure I like the idea of him really being created by Joker as a pawn.



Still, all and all I liked the flick alot.

I agree on all those points Dave.

And your review overall was the closest to my reaction that I've seen on
these boards yet.

I wouldn't agree that Ledger's Joker was too "overrated" but at the same
time I wanted more "Jokerness" as you described...and I can't tell you how
frustrated I am that Ledger died and cannot add more to this character
along with some inspired writers....I know they could and would have got closer with more time to develop the character.

I know it'll painful for many fans (heck, including me even) if they
recast The Joker----but he deserves an even better shot than
he got in TDK....which was dang good to begin with.

[Hector]

Don't worry about the "chick" she got blowed up real good and won't be back.

As for Gordon, he's dead on perfect. Oldman nailed the part.

Joker. I really dig this version and the shabby look to him.

Agreed on all three sentences.

:yes:

[Hector]

Ledger was my favorite Joker of all times...I loved his crazy mofo persona.

You want clowns?

Go to a circus.

:smiley1:

[Hector]

I like 2-face in the film, but I think they kind of wasted him a bit. I never understood the need to have 2 villians in each movie. They could have set up the Harvey Dent thing here and given him his own starring villain thing later. One major baddie is enough for me. And while I like the character, not sure I like the idea of him really being created by Joker as a pawn.

Dark Knight was born because of Dent/Two Face...I thought that was the whole point of the movie.

To me...he was by FAR the most tragic character...and the only one who I truly felt sorry for.

[Hector]

I do agree with Mike on that Batpod...you would kill yourself with those big fat tires...it would be suicide cornering in that thing.

:smiley1:

[thunderbolt]

Just bring back Harvey for the third film, have him go public and clear the Batman's name in Gotham. As for the Batpod, yeah it looks silly, but its actually a functional bike, see the special features on the dvd.

[Earth 2 Chris]

I think the reason the Joker was less...comedic...was partially due to the spectre of Jack Nicholson that hangs over the character now. If he was too bombastic with it, comparisons would have been made to Jack. Plus they keyed in more to the original interpretation of the Joker from Batman #1, where he was a rather mirthless killer. The "joke" was he was a clown killing people.

Chris

[kept back]

The Joker's thing with Harvey dent is right out of the Killing Joke when he kidnapped Gordon and showed him photos of his daughter being tortured. It was all an attempt to prove that all it takes is one baad day to reduce even the sanest man alive to complete madness. In The Killing Joke Gordon withstands the Joker's abuse, but in The Dark Knight, Harvey succumbs.

They took so many elements from classic stories(The Long Halloween, Year One, The Killing Joke, Joker's Five Way Revenge, Batman #1) and blended them together almost seamlessly into this story. If you need know my opinion on this film, just look at my signature where I paraphrase Talladega Nights.

[Earth 2 Chris]

They took so many elements from classic stories(The Long Halloween, Year One, The Killing Joke, Joker's Five Way Revenge, Batman #1) and blended them together almost seamlessly into this story.

So seamlessly, that even 6 months later, I'm still discovering things they adapted here and there, and I'm a diehard Batman fan from way back.

Chris

[The Toyroom]

^ Same here.....the scene were the Joker is disguised (sans clown makeup) as a police officer made me think of the Joker's 1st appearance when he was disguised as athe police chief ...even the grin was the same. :grin:

[jwyblejr]

Yeah I noticed especially with the way The Joker kept re-telling his origin. Kind of like how even he can't remember how it goes in The Killing Joke.

[Dave Mc]

I did think him constantly retelling his origin was a BRILLIANT touch.

[thunderbolt]

Hey, is it just me, or is the music track on the dvd way too frickin' loud? I turn it up to hear the dialog, then I get a blast of strings.

[The Toyroom]

^ It's not just you....constantly fiddling with the volume control throughout the flick

[kingdom warrior]

Hey, is it just me, or is the music track on the dvd way too frickin' loud? I turn it up to hear the dialog, then I get a blast of strings.
It is way too loud it was driving me crazy!!! On top of Batman's voice...:grin:

[thunderbolt]

Then I have it too loud and Mrs TBolt hollers at me. It doesn't help that every one inthe film talks pretty low, like Oldman and Ledger.

[MIB41]

Hard to beat a film with a good story and good actors. The concept is grounded on the idea of what he might be like if he COULD exist. Using that perspective, I think you should go back and watch it again. Adam West may be the vintage-CAMP-version, but he's not the realistic version.

[palitoy]

I liked the movie but it's not my favorite comic book movie (or batman movie) mostly because in making it realistic, they seemed to boil out a flavour I like. It's still a great film, but if you removed the bat suit and clown make up, it would still be the same movie more or less.

Two touchs I enjoyed about Ledger's performance, one is when the Joker takes offense to being called crazy, it bothers him so much that he breaks character. I also just loved the glee he expresses when being beaten in the interogation scene, it's a big distinction.

As for Maggie Gyllenhaal not being attractive, whatever there "Hef". Anyway, Bruce's love for Rachel is pretty much tied to her character as he's not supposed to be superficial.

Oldman is the most screen accurate commisioner Gordon ever, My god Mike, did you think Pat Hingle was?

[huedell]

I liked the movie but it's not my favorite comic book movie (or batman movie) mostly because in making it realistic, they seemed to boil out a flavour I like. It's still a great film, but if you removed the bat suit and clown make up, it would still be the same movie more or less.

Two touchs I enjoyed about Ledger's performance, one is when the Joker takes offense to being called crazy, it bothers him so much that he breaks character. I also just loved the glee he expresses when being beaten in the interogation scene, it's a big distinction.

As for Maggie Gyllenhaal not being attractive, whatever there "Hef". Anyway, Bruce's love for Rachel is pretty much tied to her character as he's not supposed to be superficial.

Oldman is the most screen accurate commisioner Gordon ever, My god Mike, did you think Pat Hingle was?

Again, another review I really agree with.

It's so easy to be swept up in this bat-love-fest with TDK and
say this film is the best thing since sliced kryptonite---
it has a lot of what makes a great movie.

Still I had some notable issues with it---mostly what Dave and Brian brought up.

[ctc]

>in making it realistic, they seemed to boil out a flavour I like.

I will NEVER understand the whole "realistic superhero" fetish. "We want a guy in a bat costume, who runs around with impunity, never gets shot, drives around in a REALLY noticable tank that nobody just follows back to his lair, and he fights wacky guys who crawl out of the woodwork and nearly destroy the city every week with elaborate deathtraps using a lot of explosives and equipment that must have fallen off a truck or something 'cos the authorities never seem to notice it being sold."

"....but do all that realisticly."

I think the missing flavour is "novelty." "Realism" usually equals "whatever conventional wisdom currently says is right," and the result is usually a lot of stories that are all pretty similar. The whole point of doing a superhero story is that you don't HAVE to be realistic. A realistic Batman story would feature a very young Bruce Wayne being diagnosed with PTSD and possible antisocial tendencies, getting the help he needs (the kid IS rich, after all. I'm sure SOMEONE was interested in his welfare....) growing up to head a multinational billion dollar company, making guest appearances on talkshows with his series of trophy wives....

....and eventually dying in a weird explosion wherein a thousand nitro-laden poodle balloons take out the base of his main office. So it's not even realism that you get in a realistic superhero story. It's flavour of the week/month/decade/whatever.

I maintain that the key to ANY story is "internal consistency." That's what makes it all SEEM real. The idea that if something happens once it'll happen again. Or that people, places and giant two lane roadmasters don't just disappear when no longer convenient.

Oddly enough, there's a review of "Quantum of Solace" that supports this idea. Please note that there's a LOT of really harsh language:

http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=quantum_of_phallus

But the part that I think applies:

"You know what's another word for realistic? Boring. If I wanted realism, I'd walk down the street to get Mexican food, and maybe stop by a Borders and pick up some magazines. You know why they don't make movies about me shopping for magazines? That's because nobody [cares]. And that's what Quantum of Solace is: me shopping for magazines, with no Mexican food. I don't see movies for realism, and if I did, I sure as hell wouldn't watch one made by some [clown] who thinks "reality" can best be represented with the aid of 219 special effects artists."

(The square brackets are my edits.)

But when you start conforming to that whole "real" thing you start limiting what you can do, and what your world can be. Which cuts down the whole "sense of wonder" bit, which is kinda what superheroes are based on.

Don C.

[thunderbolt]

^^ The problem with "novelty" in movies is that it gets abused and you end up with a Schumacher Batfilm or Superman IV.

[The Bat]

^^ The problem with "novelty" in movies is that it gets abused and you end up with a Schumacher Batfilm or Superman IV.


EXACTLY!! You hit the Nail on the Head Joe!:yes:

[ctc]

>The problem with "novelty" in movies is that it gets abused and you end up with a Schumacher Batfilm or Superman IV.

....which is why I think what people really want is "plausibility." They want things that make sense given the situation of the story. Internal consistency.

Don C.

[Mikey]

This might have been mentioned before but imo, the whole idea of Batman is the very unrealistic, so trying to make it as realistic as possible just makes it that much more unbelievable or even unintentionally funny.

The classic Batman TV series overcame this by letting us be part of the joke.... Even Burton's did that to some extent.

This new movie series doesn't do that.
It tries too hard to make us think we're watching a legit action crime drama.
For me, it does work but not in the context they intended.

It's enjoyable for actually a different reason .......
The seriousness of the movie's setting and tone is actually the joke.

Batman no matter what you do will always be a comedy.
Yes, on many different levels depending on the genre, but a comedy nonetheless.

This newer version is just a different kind of joke .....
Deadpan, I think they call it.

Hey, that would be a good Bat Villian :)

[The Bat]

....which is why I think what people really want is "plausibility." They want things that make sense given the situation of the story. Internal consistency.

Don C.


Very logical.:wink:

[Earth 2 Chris]

The problem with "novelty" in movies is that it gets abused and you end up with a Schumacher Batfilm or Superman IV.


Yep.

I can see how the "realism" of DK would turn some people off. But honestly, the Batman movies were taken to the fantastic extreme by Schmuck-maker. I think Nolan kept more outright fantasty elements (all the gliding for instance) in Batman Begins because he was new to the franchise and hadn't proven himself, and wasn't sure how audiences would accept a grittier, more grounded Batman. In DK he was able to put his own vision across more, and that's a Batman that is as grounded to reality as possible. That still includes taking gadgets and real technology and extrapolating on what they really can do, and having the public (and many officials) more-or-less accept a caped vigilante.

I like all kinds of different Batman stories. From the fantastic sci-fi to the gritty crime drama. To me this is a very valid interpreation, with a direction based on the very earliest Batman stories, and of course later stories like Year One and Long Halloween. That Batman had never been successfully put on screen before. Burton his on some of it in the first movie, but Burton is incapable of putting across realism.

I have told most people not to think of it as a super hero movie. It's more like a crime drama with a guy in a bat suit and a killer clown. And that's fine by me.

Chris

[The Bat]

Batman no matter what you do will always be a comedy.
Yes, on many different levels depending on the genre, but a comedy nonetheless.



Couldn't disagree more!:muh: I've said for years that I believe BATMAN is taken from "Hamlet". Hence, it's a tragedy...not a comedy.

Examples:

1.)Bruce Wayne is refered to as "the Prince" of Gotham"(Hamlet-the Prince of Denmark:wink:).
2.)Bruce is taking revenge for the murder of His Parents(Hamlet seeks revenge for the murder of His Father, by His Uncle).
3.) Both Characters are deeply tortured Souls...that are just trying to find "Justice", for the wrongs done to them in life.

[thunderbolt]

^^^ Wow, you are giving Bob Kane wayyyyy to much credit. :grin:

[The Bat]

^^^ Wow, you are giving Bob Kane wayyyyy to much credit. :grin:



I didn't call Him Shakespear...but everybody has a starting point for an idea.:wink::grin:

[Hector]

^^ The problem with "novelty" in movies is that it gets abused and you end up with a Schumacher Batfilm or Superman IV.

Exactomundo, lol.

Excellent point, my friend.

:grin:

[thunderbolt]

I didn't call Him Shakespear...but everybody has a starting point for an idea.:wink::grin:

I just don't think Kane ripped off anyone of shakespeare's stature, more like the Spider and the Shadow. Both rich playboys fighting crime as dark avengers.

[Hector]

This might have been mentioned before but imo, the whole idea of Batman is the very unrealistic, so trying to make it as realistic as possible just makes it that much more unbelievable or even unintentionally funny.

The classic Batman TV series overcame this by letting us be part of the joke.... Even Burton's did that to some extent.

This new movie series doesn't do that.
It tries too hard to make us think we're watching a legit action crime drama.
For me, it does work but not in the context they intended.

It's enjoyable for actually a different reason .......
The seriousness of the movie's setting and tone is actually the joke.

Batman no matter what you do will always be a comedy.
Yes, on many different levels depending on the genre, but a comedy nonetheless.

This newer version is just a different kind of joke .....
Deadpan, I think they call it.

Hey, that would be a good Bat Villian :)

Have you even read the old Batman comics...especially the Golden Age ones?

There's absolutely nothing comedic about them...nothing.

Bob Kane created Batman as a counter-point to goodie-two shoes-Superman...the comics was all about crime drama.

You are too stuck on the campy 60s television show and the horrid Batman comics of the 70s.

[thunderbolt]

ya know what's missing in this thread? More Huedell. :)

[huedell]

ya know what's missing in this thread? More Huedell. :)

Believe me---I''ve been clocking this thread looking for another "in".

It's tough because there is a LOT of "point" then "counter-point" already here

---and so things have been covered and sides have been taken in earnest
that I would've said basically the same thing by posting.

But t-bolt---you wanted the huedell EXPERIENCE ;)

Where do I stand now?

Don's points about internal consistent tone was paramount in this thread.

Really, superhero movies should have an element of fun in my opinion.

The Nolan BATMAN doesn't really have it---but it's there in small doses and
is written so well(!!!) that it basically makes up for any lack of giddy fun.

I'm not really into championing superhero movies as the better movies
historically---but if I had to pick movies that I think were good superhero
movies---the best of the biggies in that genre---I'd say...

I liked Burton's two Batman movies for their poetic wicked/naughty style
and Raimi's first two Spidey flicks due to Peter's lovable loser character
going up against villain genuises with cool gadgets set against a light tone
---more focused than SPIDEY 3 which I thought was a bit too fractured
in tone and plot but still fun.

Otherwise SUPERMAN RETURNS great performances by Spacey and Routh
admirable Donner trbute and bold plot inclusion of the kid made it cool
for me

-- and SUPERMAN III's screwball standalone quality was tasty in it's own way.

SUPERMAN II would be nothing without it's cast---the plot was too disjointed and scattered in tone ala SPIDER-MAN 3---but what a cast it was! The
PHANTOM ZONE actors were the clincher.

P.S. I remember thinking the oft-maligned DAREDEVIL was okay--
but I'd have to watch it again.

[Hector]

ya know what's missing in this thread? More Huedell. :)

Oh Jesus...look at what you did now.

:smiley1:

[kingdom warrior]

P.S. I remember thinking the oft-maligned DAREDEVIL was okay--
but I'd have to watch it again. Hue, If you can get your hands on the directors cut of DD you might enjoy that more. It has a better story line than the theatrical release there was a whole story line cut out. When added back in and few other elements it makes for a way better cut of the movie.

[Hector]

Hue, If you can get your hands on the directors cut of DD you might enjoy that more. It has a better story line than the theatrical release there was a whole story line cut out. When added back in and few other elements it makes for a way better cut of the movie.

Is the director cut void of Ben Affleck?

Because if it's not...then it still sucks.

:smiley1:

[huedell]

Hue, If you can get your hands on the directors cut of DD you might enjoy that more. It has a better story line than the theatrical release there was a whole story line cut out. When added back in and few other elements it makes for a way better cut of the movie.

Thanks for the advice...I'll have to track that version down sometime.

Maybe eventually I'll get the version with the "HECTOR COMMENTARY"---
---now THAT would be something :)

[huedell]

Anyone that saw the S:TAS three-parter "WORLD'S FINEST"
also called the BATMAN/SUPERMAN MOVIE---with Bats/Supes/Luthor/Joker
---wouldn't you agree a live-action of something like that would be awesome
if not the best?

Can you imagine stars like Ledger, Spacey, Bale and Routh---two hot
chicks playing HARLEY and MERCY in that???

A great Lois actress?

I'd just love it.

I don't understand why the guys that worked on the Timm/Dini stuff couldn't make a live action DCU movie that kicked butt.

[kingdom warrior]

Is the director cut void of Ben Affleck?

Because if it's not...then it still sucks.

:smiley1: LOL!!!!:rotfl: I was going to write that and i said i bet Hector says this!!! LOL!!!!!

[Hector]

Thanks for the advice...I'll have to track that version down sometime.

Maybe eventually I'll get the version with the "HECTOR COMMENTARY"---
---now THAT would be something :)

:smiley1:

You are gonna hear me say BEN AFFLECK SUCKS about 1500 times during the flick.

I take that back...make that 2000 times.

:smiley1:

[Hector]

LOL!!!!:rotfl: I was going to write that and i said i bet Hector says this!!! LOL!!!!!

You know me too well.

:smiley1:

[thunderbolt]

Oh Jesus...look at what you did now.

:smiley1:

:rotfl: And I just knew Superman III would come into play eventually.

[huedell]

:rotfl: And I just knew Superman III would come into play eventually.

I gotta cite it when it comes to making decent superhero movies---
Lord knows no one else will. ;)

[thunderbolt]

^^I can assure you that I won't :ugh_y:

[ctc]

>Batman no matter what you do will always be a comedy.

Personal taste is ALWAYS a part of any entertainment, and that can be shaped by experience, knowledge, etc. I kind of agree with this statement; but I'll readily admit I don't really like Batman. My childhood was shaped by European sci-fi comics and 70's action films, so Batman; no matter how serious, doesn't ring true.

But years ago, when I worked at the comic shop, I kinda came to accept that there IS a place for superheroes. I think seeing them as an adult affects my observations: I don't have the nostalgia a lot of other folks do, so I don't take a lot of the genre for granted. And one of the things I've noticed is that superheroes are at their best when they're over the top. Not neccessarily gonzo-insane; but the best stories have been about subject matter WAY beyond the norm. (For instance, in real life radiation just kills you.) But it works for a superhero story 'cos there are already a lot of cues that distance the genre from the real. That's one reason the costumes are important: silly outfits are a convention of the genre. It's what lets you know you're reading about a superhero and not just some weird sci-fi story. The powers are another. Even Batman has powers of a sort: insanely indominable will, incredible intelligence, and one might say a dash of dumb luck.

And that's fine. It's not a shot at the super, it's not an indication of a neccessarily inferior genre; it's how it works. But a good superhero story works under it's own rules. That's where the internal consistency thing comes in. If character X can lift a bus one issue he should be able to do so again. It's how well the author works within those parameters and deals with the permutations that dictates the quality of the story.

Don C.

[huedell]

I love Don's thoughtful posts in general...but in this thread, I think his posts
are really keeping the debate grounded. Good last post there Don ^^^.

As far as what Mike said about Batman always being a comedy and Don's
reply that it all comes from personal opinion....well, I take heroism
and heroes, the fight of good vs. evil pretty seriously....and therfore
I'm not always "looking down" at superhero movies as if they are just
"spoofs of life"...well, you might as well say LIFE is a spoof then
or ALL MOVIES are spoofs---
but, to try to get something out of it...I try to take both the serious
and funny at the same time. All good movies should have both IMO.

For some reason superhero movies never turn out as great I'd like them to.

As I said (or at least implied) in my last post...superhero movies don't
even seem to measure up to the Dini/Timm animated stuff.
I think that's because it's easier to smooth over some rough inconsistencies
in an animated projeect than it is in a live-action movie. Well, whatever
the reason...it's a shame.

[The Bat]

One concept that "the Dark Knight" borrowed from the Comics(The Killing Joke), that I thought they really put across well was...that the Joker believes that "just like Him', eveyone is just one bad Day away from losing it, going insane, and abandoning Their moral code. The Joker is trying to see if Batman will do the only logical thing...and KILL HIM! But He fails with Batman, and the People on the two Ferry Boats...but does however succeed with Havery Dent.

All in all...an extremely well told story! I couldn't be happier that, "My BATMAN" is in GREAT Hands!:yes:

[ctc]

>For some reason superhero movies never turn out as great I'd like them to.

There's a certain type of cognitive set that goes along with cartoony stuff vs real life stuff. Essentially, your brain is more forgiving of a comic book than reality, 'cos as soon as it percieves something looking real it has a whole new set of expectations. When you rrad a comic your brain fills in a lot more of the details, and when you see said comic translated into reality INEVITABLY some of them details are gonna be different. That's probably why it's so tough to go from one to the other.

One of the reasons I never drew realisticly is 'cos you can do more with a cartoon than real life. 'Course it can be a harder sell for the audience, but there's ways around that too.

>I take heroism and heroes, the fight of good vs. evil pretty seriously....and therfore
I'm not always "looking down" at superhero movies as if they are just "spoofs of life"...

That's a decent way of looking at it. Superheroes as a genre run strongly into fantasy; and as such have a lot of things that differentiate them from reality. The bigger than life thing is a BIG part of the genre, and you'll either feel it, or not.

It's all in how you sell the ideas. Most of the greatest ideas in entertainment are inherently silly. "They're like giant salt shakers.... with guns!!!!" But you sell it right, and you get one of the greatest things ever.

Don C.