Saw Batman? Thoughts? (caution, spoilers possible) - Page 2

# 16 23-07-2008 , 02:44 PM

Lead Modeler - Framestore
Join Date: Feb 2003

Location: UK

Posts: 6,287

Yeah but didnt the Crow possess supernatural powers so to speak where as Batman is the only superhero without 'powers.

Are you insane?I'd rather the gadgets and the coolest costume plus the car and the bike anyday...lets face it wot bloke wouldnt!!

Jay

Quote

# 17 23-07-2008 , 03:07 PM

Subscriber
Join Date: Apr 2005

Location: UK

Posts: 594

Originally posted by Jay
Yeah but didnt the Crow possess supernatural powers so to speak where as Batman is the only superhero without 'powers.

Are you insane?I'd rather the gadgets and the coolest costume plus the car and the bike anyday...lets face it wot bloke wouldnt!!

Jay

Originally Posted by

true the car the costume are cool, but the crow doesn't need them cause he's already cool just like fonzie from "happy days":bow:

Quote

# 18 23-07-2008 , 03:10 PM

Acid44

Guest

Posts: n/a

Originally posted by Jay
Yeah but didnt the Crow possess supernatural powers so to speak where as Batman is the only superhero without 'powers.

Originally Posted by

the crow did have special powers... but the first one beats all batman movies combined, so it doesnt matter user added image

Quote

# 19 23-07-2008 , 04:11 PM

Lead Modeler - Framestore
Join Date: Feb 2003

Location: UK

Posts: 6,287

yeah right if you say so...

oh and nobody is cooler than Fonzie, James Dean came close but not even the crow or batman is cooler than the might of the Fonz himself!

LOL
Jay

Quote

# 20 25-07-2008 , 05:12 PM

Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2007

Posts: 1,055

I've just watched it at the imax and think it had, for 80 minutes, the best comic book movie ever made. Completely compelling, stunning action scenes and great acting all round. I can't think of many action scenes as well orchestrated as the extended chase where the joker is trying to snatch Dent, then on to the race to save him and Rachel.

It peaked there though, and lost it's footing a bit. My big problem - you've got Heath Ledger giving an amazing turn as the Joker - so why bring in Two Face!? I get that Dent was a big player in this movie, but thought he would become Two Face late on as a set up for the next installment. To introduce Two Face then kill him off half an hour later is just mind boggling.

It's a shame because for the first hour, I thought this was going to join There Will Be Blood as one of my favourite modern movies.

Could be one of those movies that improves with repeat viewings though.

cheers

gubar

Quote

# 21 26-07-2008 , 06:36 AM

Lead Modeler - Framestore
Join Date: Feb 2003

Location: UK

Posts: 6,287

Yeah but Im not overly sure if Dent is dead, Im mean Batman fell in the same way and landed on his back so with the amount of twists and turns in the film you just never know what they have in mind for a possible 3rd installment.

I loved the way it ended with the Joker saying that he and Batman will be doing this forever, pity Heath Ledger has passed on to continue what was a most outstanding performance.

great movie overall, it had me squirming with tension before the Harvey and Rachel situation, and the Joker, well you just couldnt predict anything with him, awsome! Loved the remote control part of him coming out of the Hospital!

Jay

Quote

# 22 26-07-2008 , 07:35 AM

Subscriber
Join Date: Jan 2006

Location: IL

Posts: 1,052

naw, dents dead, they even say hes dead lol, and bat man has like 1337 armor that cost 300,000$ xD

A great mod for Jedi academy www.moviebattles.com

Computer Rig-

64-bit vista
23.5 inch LCD + a 19 inch
Q6600 intell qaud
4 gigs of ddr2 ram
8800GTS 512 video card @700mhz

Quote

# 23 26-07-2008 , 07:40 AM

Lead Modeler - Framestore
Join Date: Feb 2003

Location: UK

Posts: 6,287

Did they say that? I must have missed it...

Jay

Quote

# 24 27-07-2008 , 03:33 PM

Subscriber
Join Date: Feb 2006

Location: Australia

Posts: 2,752

i thought Heath's acting over shadowed the whole movie.., without his superb work..,, would have to be his best.., the movie would have jyst been another 'batman' movie..,

i was thinking al through it.., considering Heaths sad passing.., 'is he acting??.., or is he really THAT angry'.., now THATS a good actor.

as for the effects.., nothing jarred me or threw me out of the movie.., so they must have been excellant.

take it easy and life will be easy

Quote

# 25 27-07-2008 , 04:06 PM

Subscriber
Join Date: Sep 2007

Location: Mississauga, Ontario, Canada

Posts: 450

Ok so first off, I saw this twice in theaters on opening weekend. Once in Imax and once in the regular theaters. Since I have watched the cam version 3 times.
So off I go on me rants user added image

Originally posted by jali
having two bad guys was what killed it for me, it should have been just batman and the jocker to the end, and yes i know ledger died, but thats no excuss, Brandon Lee died while making the crow and they got some one else to take his place and that film turned out to be one of the best films of the year, well for me any way,

the crow had something that the dark knight will never have, a character that fought from the heart, he didn't need fancy cars or a special utility belt, it was just one guy making a mense for the unfortunate events that took place, lee's performence was excellently excecuted, you could sence to sorrow in his voice ,

Originally Posted by

What I loved about this movie was how many different levels it has to it. There were not two villians in this movie. There were three, maybe even four if you want to count the Mob in on things. However Primary Villian: The Joker, Secondary Villian: Batman, and third villian: Two-Face. If you listen to all of the cleverly written script and dialogue you'll understand why exactly this is so in the movie. Two-Face, I really can't call a villian so much as a victim.
I'll go on with this after I address Jali's post to completion.
I have never seen the crow but I can say that the Dark Knight was completed before Heath Died. What happened in the movie was not altered by or written around Heath's death. EVEN if this were not the case, who could have possibly filled the shoes that Heath created for the Joker in this film?
The acting I must say was great after watching it so many times. It doesn't feel so much like you are watching him act, but more like you are watching someone with serious psycoligic problems do whatever they decide to do. He is a psycho who is out to make the world burn, he doesn't plan. He simply executes.
What you say the crow did that the Dark Knight will never do I think isn't so much true so much as a parallel. And this movie really seems to explain the stresses and pain that Bruce Wayne has to deal with to provide Gottham with the hero that they need. The Alfred and Bruce conversations really seemed to bring out the pain and anguish that Batman suffers.

Originally posted by mirek03
i thought Heath's acting over shadowed the whole movie.., without his superb work..,, would have to be his best.., the movie would have jyst been another 'batman' movie..,

i was thinking al through it.., considering Heaths sad passing.., 'is he acting??.., or is he really THAT angry'.., now THATS a good actor.

as for the effects.., nothing jarred me or threw me out of the movie.., so they must have been excellant.

Originally Posted by

As I said above, Heaths job as the joker was very very good. But I think that everyone in this cast did a superb job. If you take a Terrible movie and put one actor/actress in it that does the job of their life, if won't seem anywhere near as good as if they had that performance surrounded by several others who had performances almost as good. I think that this movie is so well rounded from its base up. The script, to the cast.

Originally posted by Jay
Did they say that? I must have missed it...

Jay

Originally Posted by

SPOILER WARNING:
At the end of the movie when Batman Tackles Two-Face and Gordon's son, Harvey was killed. While Gordon is narrating the end of the movie there is a scene of The Police force in the street much like when Commisioner Loeb was killed and they held the Service for him. This scene however was for Harvey Dent. What leads to this scene is Batman convincing Gordon that Batman needs to be blamed for the killings of the two police officers and for endangering Gordon's family. Gordon asks why, and Batman turns the evil side of Dent's face over and explains that Harvey was the hero that Gotham Deserved, and not the one they needed. If they knew he was Two-Face then it would un-do everything that Dent stood for, and all the change that occurred.
At the end of the movie Batman is running, why? Because Gordon called in that it was Batman who was to be held responsible for all the evil done by Dent. He is the hero that Gotham needs, and not the one they deserve.

Originally posted by gubar
I've just watched it at the imax and think it had, for 80 minutes, the best comic book movie ever made. Completely compelling, stunning action scenes and great acting all round. I can't think of many action scenes as well orchestrated as the extended chase where the joker is trying to snatch Dent, then on to the race to save him and Rachel.

It peaked there though, and lost it's footing a bit. My big problem - you've got Heath Ledger giving an amazing turn as the Joker - so why bring in Two Face!? I get that Dent was a big player in this movie, but thought he would become Two Face late on as a set up for the next installment. To introduce Two Face then kill him off half an hour later is just mind boggling.

It's a shame because for the first hour, I thought this was going to join There Will Be Blood as one of my favourite modern movies.

Could be one of those movies that improves with repeat viewings though.

cheers

gubar

Originally Posted by

As mentioned a bit above, Two-Face is not a villian. He is instead, a Victim. Two-Face is collateral damage caused by the joker and as such he cannot be a villian. As I explaind just above, the reason why two-face was killed was because Gotham would have gone out of control if they knew what Harvey had done. The next possible move for Batman is none other than the Penguin. This would be a logical progression in my mind for the story as the Penguin is a villian not of the Likes of the Joker or the Scarecrow, but rather your Carmine Valconey, or the several Mob heads featured in the Dark Knight. Why do I think it is logical progression? With the fall of the joker and all the major mobs, how can you realisticly breed another villian? The Penguin is a small scale mobster. He hold cover for which to create madness just like Batman has cover for which to do good. When you squish all the big time game in Gotham your next villian has to start small, and that is where I think the Penguin WOULD come in IF they were to do another Batman.

Cheers,
Alexander

Peace, love and Anarchy~~~~~~~
______________________________
Wip:
iMac
Full House Project
Arch Viz Reel

My Website is Finally Back up!

“Welcome to the Internet. Where the men are men, the women are men, and the children are FBI agents.”

Last edited by alexanderH; 27-07-2008 at 04:12 PM.

Quote

# 26 27-07-2008 , 04:10 PM

Subscriber
Join Date: Sep 2007

Location: Mississauga, Ontario, Canada

Posts: 450

Also, if you are interested in Rumors well:
Rumor of the Iceburg Lounge (For those not aware, that is the name of one of the Penguin's Clubs)

More Fun!

Last edited by alexanderH; 27-07-2008 at 04:18 PM.

Quote

# 27 27-07-2008 , 11:55 PM

Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2007

Posts: 1,055

"As mentioned a bit above, Two-Face is not a villian. He is instead, a Victim. "

Interesting post Alexander, but whatever way you look at it, a man who holds a gun to the head of a child is a villain. He was a victim before he entered the hospital but a villain by the time he left. Being pushed towards evil doesn't stop it being evil. The scene earlier where he had the criminal tied to the chair and was tormenting him showed that he at least had the capacity to cause harm.

I do understand to the whole point of the end - to show Batman sacrificing his hero-status for the good of Dent's memory and Gotham - I just don't think it works. Shifting the focus away from the Joker made it less of a movie.

I'd still love to see it again though, but wouldn't watch it on a cam version. May see it in the cinema again.

Final thing - Nolan has said in interview that he won't use the Penguin. But I guess Sam Raimi said that about Venom too.

cheers

gubar

Quote

# 28 28-07-2008 , 12:59 AM

Subscriber
Join Date: Feb 2006

Location: Australia

Posts: 2,752

What I loved about this movie was how many different levels it has to it. There were not two villians in this movie. There were three, maybe even four if you want to count the Mob in on things. However Primary Villian: The Joker, Secondary Villian: Batman, and third villian: Two-Face. If you listen to all of the cleverly written script and dialogue you'll understand why exactly this is so in the movie. Two-Face, I really can't call a villian so much as a victim.

Originally Posted by

well said.., you seem to know a bit about movies.., do you know why it has been structured in this way??

any hero movie is.., eg ..; batman.., hero..; joker.., villian..; two face.., victim.., basic movie structure

i disagree Batman was any sort of Villian at all.., he was struggling with his inner demons.., as every Hollywood protagonist does.., in the end he sorts himself out.., (happy ending)

as from memory.., two face.., there were no other 'hero' victims.., and with out a solid victim.., there is no Hollywood ending.., which is.., normality returns but for the better. (happy ending).

without the villian there are no mountains to climb.., no struggles.., the villian gives the hero motive.

take it easy and life will be easy

Quote

# 29 28-07-2008 , 07:51 AM

Lifetime Member
Join Date: Feb 2004

Location: Chicago

Posts: 1,712

I loved the movie but i still have the same crit and that i
think Batman needs to be a bit more psychotic.
in the comics he's lot more schiztophrenic.
I do think this is the best portrail of Batman to date though as people seem to have this dummed down image of Batman because of Adam Wests rather camp version in the 60's but in the comic The Dark Knight he's almost and nuts as the joker.