QuoteEckhart Joining The Dark Knight!
Source: The Hollywood Reporter
February 15, 2007
Aaron Eckhart is in final talks to play Harvey Dent/Two Face in The Dark Knight, Warner Bros. Pictures' sequel to Batman Begins, says The Hollywood Reporter.
In Batman lore, Dent is the district attorney of Gotham City and an ally of Batman. After half his face is disfigured by acid, Dent becomes the insane crime boss known as Two Face. He chooses to do good or evil by flipping a coin. Tommy Lee Jones played the character in 1995's Batman Forever.
"Knight" sees Christopher Nolan back in the director's chair with Christian Bale reprising his role as Bruce Wayne/Batman. Morgan Freeman, Michael Caine and Gary Oldman are also returning. Heath Ledger will play The Joker.
The script was written by Nolan's brother, Jonathan, from a story by Christopher Nolan and David Goyer. Producing are Emma Thomas, Charles Roven and Christopher Nolan.
After his brilliant performance in Thank You For Smoking, I have faith in Aaron Eckhart to play any role he wants. He can be Catwoman for all I care. ;)
Quote from: captainspud on February 15, 2007, 09:05:39 PM
After his brilliant performance in Thank You For Smoking, I have faith in Aaron Eckhart to play any role he wants. He can be Catwoman for all I care. ;)
Nah. Jack Black for Catwoman. :thumbup:
Seriously, though, I think Aaron Eckhart is a fairly good choice for Two-Face. They could do a lot better, looks-wise (as Harvey was supposed to be one of the handsomest men in Gotham before he got hit with the acid), but acting-wise he's a great choice.
If I was a casting director, I'd be going after Edward Norton for the Riddler (and wish they had cast him as the Joker instead of Heath Ledger, as I think Norton can play either part would make a better Joker than Riddler) when they get around to using him.
Anyone know if Katie Holmes is going to be back for the sequel? I hope not.
I dunno. In acting charisma trumps looks and Eckhart has tons of charisma, he was the extremely likeable face of big tobacco in thank you for smoking and I mean that's hard to pull off. (I've got a full review on my site)
Good choices so far, I really cant wait.
Katie Holmes is not returning for the Dark Knight. Thank Blarg. Most likely the connection to Tom Cruise.
Thank goodness! Man, she was the only dark spot in that shinning example of comic book movie-dom. However, we still have to deal with Heath Ledger as the Joker..... :(
In this day and age it's freakin impossible to beat an actor (in live action) like JackN for joker....anyone else is going to be second rate IMO. To enjoy another actor as joker I will have to withdraw all my memories of the first Batman.
Man, Jack was good, but I think this fellow could have done better:http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0079273/
I think that he'd at least be better than Brokeback Boy :P
I was actually a little dissapointed by Nicholson as the Joker. He was good, but he should have been better... seemed like it should have been such a perfect fit...
Quote from: BentonGrey on February 16, 2007, 09:31:34 AM
Man, Jack was good, but I think this fellow could have done better:http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0079273/
I think that he'd at least be better than Brokeback Boy :P
OT: I did not think that
Brokeback Mountain, the short story, translated well into film. *shrug*
My impression is that Ledger works better as part of an ensemble. I thought he did a marvelous job in the title role of
Casanova. He might be able to carry off a very different rendition of the Joker with the right screenplay and under decent direction. I'll maintain an open mind at present.
ow_tiobe_sb
Phantom Bunburyist and You Know the Rest
The character of Rachel Dawes will be back in the movie but Katie Holmes will not be playing her. There is a very strong rumor that Maggie Gyllenhall will be playing her. I say its a very strong rumor because it came from the same place I first heard about Aaron Eckhart playing Dent/Two Face.
I'm actually very pleased with the cast as Aaron has proven himself I think to be a very capable and versatile actor.
As for all the Ledger critics, I think it really will depend on what they do with the script and the character. Is he capable of doing it? Yes. Is he capable of playing the same character verbatim that Jack Nicholson did in the 1989 version? No.
Luckily, I don't think Nolan is going for the 1989 version. Which is a good thing.
Honestly I wasn't that impressed by Jack Nicholson as Joker. That plus I was impressed with Ledger in Casanova (as said above) and A Knights Tale. Can he do it? I don't know but I trust Nolan (I've liked most of his movies) and Nolan is one of the few directors that can pull good performances out of actors people write off (look at Hugh Jackman in The Prestige).
It's refreshing to hear a bunch of people who dont consider Jack Nicholson to be a perfect joker. In my opinion he played the role like he plays many of his other latter roles from that period... as himself with some small twist (in this case face paint). Yeah, he has some decent lines but that's the script, which was o... k...
In retrospect I love calling that movie "batman kills again". A fun game is watching the original batman and trying to explain how it is possible that X or Y henchman did not die due to the caped crusaders actions. That caries into batman returns a little but it's not as bad.
Jack Nicholson as the Joker was great in that movie, he worked well against Keaton's Batman and was also a menacing, deceptively colorful character in Tim Burton's dark Gotham City. I agree that he played it like himself with face-paint, which worked in that movie.
But that was then. Nolan's Batman is also dark, but I feel like his story is more character-driven, while Burton's version was more about the visuals. You actually can feel more identified with his Batman, and reflexively for the villain which makes it more engaging. I'm excited to see what they do with the Joker this time, maybe expand his origin (aparently de-intertwining it from Batman's since Joe Chill is thankfully back.) I hear the big reference will be Killing Joke which I haven't read yet... *ducks as a flurry of Batarangs whiz by*
Quote from: Revenant on February 16, 2007, 03:59:23 PM
I hear the big reference will be Killing Joke which I haven't read yet... *ducks as a flurry of Batarangs whiz by*
If they are trying to flesh out the joker that is the best source I can think of. Without spoiling it let's say they really make you feel for the joker, his story is really tragic and hints at real mental disability. And at the same time in the present he performs acts so terrible that you would love to see him put down like an animal. All in all one of my favorite batman comics.
Ughh.....well........I was hoping they were just leaving his origin a mystery.....as it ALWAYS should be....
How 'bout this: Batman vs. Jigsaw (from the Saw series of horror films)
When I was watching the first Saw movie (mind you, it's very graphic and not for the young or squeamish) I was thinking the whole time "these guys were so inspired by Batman villains."
The world of Saw is what Gotham City would be like without Batman.
I've heard that the source material for The Joker will largely come from three very particular and significant "Joker stories": The first appearance of The Joker (Batman #1), "Joker's Five Way Revenge" (Batman #251) and "The Killing Joke".
I think enough can be taken from those three stories and still keep The Joker's origin mysterious. Especially if you take from those three stories but don't still to them too ridgely. (after all, you're talking about three different eras of Joker there.) The one thing they should not do is give The Joker a "real name". One thing they should do (and I suspect they will do) is send him to Arkham at the end where he will be treated by Dr. Harleen Quinzell.
The problem I have with The Burton films and were what I believe led to the problem with the Schumacher films: Not really giving much thought to character development on Batman and Bruce Wayne and too much "thought" to the villains. I think the villains interested Burton more and this is clearly shown in the visuals. Schumacher kept that one thing in his interpretation of the Bat which is the one thing he should've lessened.
Nolan's learned from Burton's and Schumacher's successess and failures and managed to add much needed realism to the franchise and character development to Batman/Bruce Wayne. I like that.
to me there are two iconic portrails of the joker, Jack Nicholson and mark hamill. ledger has a hell of a legacy with this character to live up to.
i'm on the fence with him can he pull it off i believe so but there is still something thats says wait and see, which is what i plan to do, then judge, or at least untill i see him in costume
Well, I'm certainly not saying that I'm not going to go see this movie because they cast Ledger as the Joker, although I REALLY believe it's a bad choice. Do I think the movie could still be good? Yes. Do I still have hope for this movie? Absolutely.
Just for the record, to me, the only Joker is Mark Hamill's Joker.
[threadjack]
We recently rented the Flash TV series from Netflix - with a couple of great performances by Mark Hamill as the Jok . . . er the Trickster
[/threadjack]
Quote from: Uncle Yuan on February 19, 2007, 01:53:08 PM
[threadjack]
We recently rented the Flash TV series from Netflix - with a couple of great performances by Mark Hamill as the Jok . . . er the Trickster
[/threadjack]
btw, that was right around the same time he started voicing the Joker. So it all comes full circle. :thumbup:
Quote from: Revenant on February 16, 2007, 06:18:38 PM
How 'bout this: Batman vs. Jigsaw (from the Saw series of horror films)
When I was watching the first Saw movie (mind you, it's very graphic and not for the young or squeamish) I was thinking the whole time "these guys were so inspired by Batman villains."
The world of Saw is what Gotham City would be like without Batman.
Maybe that's the direction they're going with the character? Making him as close to a horror movie villain as possible... kinda makes a little sense to me seeing that Ledger doesn't look as if he's going to play any sort of part of comical to me. I mean, we've seen lots of "comical" looking villains who terrify the hell out of us, like the guy from Saw(I guess... never cared to watch the movies really). I mean, look at the clown doll from Poltergeist. I didn't start looking under my bed until a few years ago because of that guy.
I'm sure when we see Heath Ledger in make up brutally peeling people's skin off and sticking rusty 10-inch nails slowly through their eyeballs while laughing hysterically through the whole thing everything will be fine.
Quote from: BentonGrey on February 19, 2007, 10:40:42 AM
Just for the record, to me, the only Joker is Mark Hamill's Joker.
See the above.....no rusty hooks through eyeballs there, my friend.........
That could be a nasty infection! :doh:
I'm going to try to reserve judgment on it at this point. However, I too would love to see Hamill in the make-up. Most people don't know it, but you know he used to be
:spoiler:
...a SCREEN ACTOR?
Quote from: Spe-Dog on February 21, 2007, 08:01:43 AM
That could be a nasty infection! :doh:
I'm going to try to reserve judgment on it at this point. However, I too would love to see Hamill in the make-up. Most people don't know it, but you know he used to be
:spoiler:
...a SCREEN ACTOR?
I heard that one or two movies he starred in even did fairly well...
Quote from: Alaric on February 21, 2007, 08:03:21 AMI heard that one or two movies he starred in even did fairly well...
Really? I didn't think Corvette Summer did *that* well. ;)
He did this one sci-fi move, absolute CLASSIC! Amazing special effects!
What was it called again? Oh yeah, I remember.
"The GUYVER!" ;)
You know, I actually rented that many moons ago because he was in it.......man, I wish I could get those two hours back......
The Dark Knight casting so far has been bad, in my opinion. I think Heath Ledger is going to suck royally as the Joker, and I'm not too sure about Eckhart as Harvey Dent. Then again, I thought casting Tommy Lee Jones as Two-Face was a good idea back then, so what do I know?
Quote from: Glitch Girl on February 21, 2007, 07:31:51 PM
He did this one sci-fi move, absolute CLASSIC! Amazing special effects!
What was it called again? Oh yeah, I remember.
"The GUYVER!" ;)
Best movie Jimmy Walker ever did. :)
Quote from: GhostMachine on February 22, 2007, 02:06:39 AMThen again, I thought casting Tommy Lee Jones as Two-Face was a good idea back then, so what do I know?
Oh, and Billy Dee Williams would have been better? :blink:
Yes actually, much.....
Personally, I think the writing/directing was more to blame there than anything- who knows if either of them could have done a good Two-Face? (Schumacher has much to answer for)
As for the current casting, I think both are very capable actors, and have to potential to do a really good job with the character. So far the team who did "Batman Begins" have shown they really know the character, the world, and the mood, and I think this will go into the casting for the sequel as well. I may later regret this, but for now, I'm going to give them the benfit of the doubt until they start releasing clips.
Quote from: Glitch Girl on February 22, 2007, 01:59:12 PM
Personally, I think the writing/directing was more to blame there than anything- who knows if either of them could have done a good Two-Face? (Schumacher has much to answer for)
Ha, true....still, part of his shortsightedness is reflected in the choice of Jones.
Actually, with a proper script and directing (like we're gonna get those in a Schumaker film), I think Tommy would have made an *excellent* Two-Face. Between his very uptight characters (The Fugitive/U.S. Marshals; MIB 1 & 2) and his looser characters (Space Cowboys.....that's all I'm comin up with right now), it *should* have been much better than it was. But, Two-Face as a henchman (essentially) to the Riddler? Should have been seperate movies.
I still think Vincent Cassel would have been a better Joker, however, I'm reserving judgement on Heath until after seeing the film, as I think he is capable, with the direction and script being the making or breaking point.
While Jack was ok in the late 80's, I'm increasingly dissatisfied with the performance. Too campy, too over the top for a character who is so homicidal. Still, not as bad as Caesar Romero.
I would like to see some different characters represented on screen than have been done (poorly) before. They shouldn't aim just to repeat the previous films. Not to say they shouldn't redo Penguin or Catwoman, but maybe shey could skip Mr Freeze and Bane and Poison Ivy.
But who...?
Blockbuster
Mad Hatter
Hugo Strange
QuoteGyllenhaal Confirmed for The Dark Knight
Source: Variety
March 9, 2007
Maggie Gyllenhaal is in final talks to star opposite Christian Bale in Christopher Nolan's The Dark Knight, reports Variety.
She'll play the role of Rachel Dawes, played by Katie Holmes in Batman Begins. Holmes dropped out of the project earlier in the year.
The cast also includes Heath Ledger, Morgan Freeman, Michael Caine, Gary Oldman and Aaron Eckhart.
Nolan is set to start filming in the late spring or early summer. Warner Bros. Pictures is eyeing a July 18, 2008 release.
The producers are Emma Thomas, Charles Roven and Nolan. Legendary Pictures and Warner are co-financing partners on the project.
She kinda look like Katie in this pic. Gyllenhaal pic (http://superherohype.com/nextraimages/maggiedarkknight3.jpg)
QuoteCillian Murphy on The Dark Knight
Source: ComingSoon.net
March 8, 2007
Cillian Murphy talked to ComingSoon.net and did not confirm or deny that his Batman Begins character, Scarecrow, might be back for The Dark Knight.
And for those still wondering whether Murphy might return as Dr, Jonathan Crane AKA The Scarecorew in Christopher Nolan's Batman sequel The Dark Knight, the actor still is hesitant to talk about it. "I'm not at liberty and it's not my place to say," he repeated from other recent interviews. "I'd love to work with Chris again. I enjoyed tremendously working on that film, and we'll see. I think casting Heath Ledger as the Joker is fantastic casting. He'll make an amazing movie."
Thank goodness Homles is out! Who is the new girl, she any good?
Quote from: BentonGrey on March 08, 2007, 11:08:17 PM
Thank goodness Homles is out! Who is the new girl, she any good?
You don't know Maggie Gylenhal? You're kidding, right? :blink:
She's one of the most talented, most beautiful actresses working today!
Eh, I don't follow Hollywood much, never have cared that much about the 'beautiful people.'
Maggie Gyllenhaal was most recently in the movie Sherrybaby, which was about a former drug addict who tries to turn her life around, as well as win back her child from foster care. Also, she was the voice of the babysitter in Monster House, where the character was based on her real- life looks. (Hey... I work in a video store, I have to know these things!)
I think, while she doesn't look a lot like Holmes, she'll do a fantastic job, due to her better acting, and, if I may say so, better looks.
Quotehttp://www.aintitcool.com/node/31822
A Teeny Tidbit More On THE DARK KNIGHT's New Batsuit??
Merrick again...
I don't recall running across this too widely...the only place I found reference to it was HERE, although our tipster makes it sound like the changes to the new suit are more dramatic than posited in the article linked above.
Aonemantidalwave sent in this snippet regarding a recent encounter he had with someone working on THE DARK KNIGHT. I've tweaked this message to avoid revealing the identity of the person working on the film.
MINOR COSTUME-RELATED SPOILER AHEAD!?!?
Both Christian Bale and Christopher Nolan have seen a new Batsuit & there's been a fitting.
I told this person how I didn't particularly dig the suit in Batman Begins and said it was too bulky. To this he/she replied, "Well then you'll love the new one." He/she also stated that Bats changes his suit halfway through the film - and its a major plotpoint as to the how and why this happens.
He/she sadly, had no news about the Joker's get up.
This source is new to us, so keep that in mind when contemplating the vast array of costuming possibilities here.
If I'm repeating something that's already widely known, my apologies.
I definitely like seeing it on camera than something happening between movies
QuoteVideo of the Dark Knight Filming Today
Source: Risk Productions
April 21, 2007
'Risk Productions' reported the following about The Dark Knight filming today in Chicago:
Here is some footage of the Dark Knight filming w/ helicopter on Saturday in Chicago. Actual filming of a test item or something swinging down a rope between skyscraper and bank at end. I filmed this and captured it this afternoon. Filming wrapped around 3pm, this is all they seemingly did today on set.
Video link (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uh8rn0JAyO0)
Hmm... the bags are small. Either they're weights and they were rehersing a shot in the daytime or maybe they're supposed to be moneybags from a heist?
Man if I lived in Chicago, I'd probalby be stalking that area on a regular basis now. ;)
Heath Ledger will be a good joker.
I'm sad not to see Katie Holmes back, just because it makes an obvious change to a big character. Recasting = stupid.
Maggie will be great for the part, though.
Joker makeup test pic? (http://www.aintitcool.com/node/32386)
Quote from: Glitch Girl on April 22, 2007, 06:30:22 PM
Hmm... the bags are small. Either they're weights and they were rehersing a shot in the daytime or maybe they're supposed to be moneybags from a heist?
Man if I lived in Chicago, I'd probalby be stalking that area on a regular basis now. ;)
Me too!
Hey wait...
A few things here:
- I think that Tommy Lee Jones would've made a great Two Face had there been a good script and a director who understood the subject. I believe the problem with Schumacher is that most of his knowledge of Batman was the 1960s series and the Burton films and not the comic. Again though, a good script can make or break a film though in the same way as a director who does or does not understand the film's subject or the genre. I know this from experience.
- Heath Ledger will surprise people I think if Nolan lives up to what he did with Batman Begins. I think we will see the same kind of surprise out of him that Keaton delivered with playing Batman.
- I think it would make sense to have Cillian Murphy back as Scarecrow briefly in this film. One of the loose ends from the first one was that Scarecrow escaped. It makes sense for him to show up at the beginning of this one. Especially given that he killed the predecessor to Dent's character (the previous District Attorney).
- With the "Long Halloween" being teased as a template, I can almost guess the path that the film will take. I don't know how much we might see The Joker in make-up or in full "costume" (the purple suit).
- One thing I do know is that the "make-up test" is fake. This has been confirmed by Warner Brothers and Batman on Film
agreed the guy who made the make-up test has posted saying it was a fake, i love the fact that again AICN got fooled by a fan with fan art
FYI: There was a fire last night on the set. (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070424/ap_en_mo/chicago_building_fire;_ylt=AqDKzw_7vm_CeSCQWD8HG8hxFb8C) Sounds like the same place they were running those bags down a line.
QuoteMichael Keaton Doing a Cameo in The Dark Knight?
Sunday, April 22nd, 2007
One of Freeze Dried Movies' tipsters in Chicago has informed the site that actor Michael Keaton has been hanging around near the set of Warner Bros.' The Dark Knight.
Keaton played Bruce Wayne and Batman in 1989's Batman, the first modern big screen version of the cape crusader.
The site goes on to speculate that Keaton is town for one of three reasons:
1: Michael Keaton loves Chicago and is having a good 'ol time hanging out - eating pizza, burgers, beef sandwiches, hot wings and watching The Bulls win game one of the Playoffs.
2: Or maybe Keaton is in another movie, which is also filming around the same location?
3: But maybe, just maybe the ex-Batman (and still my favorite Bruce Wayne) has a cameo in the new Batman film - The Dark Knight, which is shooting under another name that we cannot reveal
The Dark Knight will be released on June 18th, 2008.
Quote from: GhostMachine on February 22, 2007, 02:06:39 AM
The Dark Knight casting so far has been bad, in my opinion. I think Heath Ledger is going to suck royally as the Joker, and I'm not too sure about Eckhart as Harvey Dent. Then again, I thought casting Tommy Lee Jones as Two-Face was a good idea back then, so what do I know?
I can't imagine Heath Ledger as the Joker... not at all. He'll have to pull off some darn fine acting along with a darn good screenplay and a brilliant director. Two out of three won't cut it. And if he can't do a convincing Joker laugh, he's toast. Maybe they'll dub it in...
Jack Nicholson would have made a better Joker if he'd had the chance to play him as a younger man. He has that kind of frenetic intensity that anyone playing the Joker had better have. But... The comic book Joker is a tall, thin man with hair... not short, dumpy, and balding. But then neither is Batman, which didn't help Keaton either.
And Tommy Lee Jones -could- have been a good Two-Face with the right screenplay and the right director. Unfortunately he had neither. And he wouldn't fit in the Nolan interpretation of The Dark Knight, which won't be as over-the-top melodramatic as the previous Batman franchises. Over the top action is great... over the top acting not so much...
Hey Zapow... this you?
QuoteGotham City continues to dominate the news cycle as filming continues in Chicago. Reader Tom Stillwell (sorry that was spelled wrong earlier) was the first to write to us about the fire on set (the Chicago Tribune has the story but Superhero Hype has photos) which caused quite a tizzy in the lakeside metropolis. Of course Superhero Hype has tons of set photos and a set report, while a fan posted actual video from the set, which we've embedded here for your pleasure ...
http://www.comicbookresources.com/news/newsitem.cgi?id=10394
Mr. Keaton is officially in Chicago to direct a film called The Merry Gentlemen with Kelly Macdonald (who was in Trainspotting, Intermission, Nanny McPhee and Gosford Park) and mostly likely will not be doing a cameo in The Dark Knight.
QuoteEric Roberts Joins The Dark Knight
Source: LA Daily News
April 25, 2007
LA Daily News reports that Eric Roberts, who is currently appearing in "Heroes" and "The L Word," will play a Mafia kingpin in Christopher Nolan's The Dark Knight, joining the production in June.
"I don't stop working. I'm a workaholic. I've resigned myself to the fact that I'm too overexposed to ever be a superstar, so I'm happy to be a working actor every day," explains the actor also known as rising star Emma Roberts' dad, and superstar Julia's brother.
Of "Heroes," he notes, "It's a blast to walk into a hit show with none of the pressure of making it a hit."
The Dark Knight hits theaters on July 18, 2008.
Video and Pic of Bank filming (http://one.revver.com/watch/247845/flv/affiliate/83874)
[spoiler]Apparently, they are blowing up "The Tumbler" Batmobile next week. Guess this means we could see an authentic Batmobile in addition to the already mentioned new Batsuit.[/spoiler]
hate to double post here but . . .
[spoiler]
* The Joker is ìThe Jokerî throughout the film. There could be some classic Nolan ìflashbacksî that vaguely hint at his origin, but there is no big ìJoker origin story.î
* The Joker will wear purple in the film. It may not be a literal translation from his comic book suit, but he wears purple.
* Maggie Gyllenhaalís Rachel has a bigger part in TDK than the character had in BATMAN BEGINS.
* The Scarecrow, played by Cillian Murphy, will be back.
* The new Batsuit will be more ìfabrickyî -- this jives with what BOF was told months ago. The bodysuit is said to be a tad lighter, kinda grayish. ìFabricky chain mailî was the description.
* Montoya, yes. Bullock, no.[/spoiler]
oh and there is an official page up at http://thedarkknight.warnerbros.com/ (http://thedarkknight.warnerbros.com/)
Sounds like mostly good news Hamrick.
Any one else notice the scars in the makeup test? I guess they are going with a "whiteface" style origin (if anybody read the Nighthawk mini series).
Lugaru, if you're talking about the makeup test I'm thinking of, that one turned out to be a fake. I don't think there's been a real pic of the makeup released yet.
Quote from: Glitch Girl on May 15, 2007, 11:54:51 AM
Lugaru, if you're talking about the makeup test I'm thinking of, that one turned out to be a fake. I don't think there's been a real pic of the makeup released yet.
HAHAHA, I just read the caption under the image I saw and it say's right there that it's fake, but all I did was look at the picture. Thanks!
These are not fake though, Lugaru
http://ibelieveinharveydent.warnerbros.com/ (http://ibelieveinharveydent.warnerbros.com/)
http://www.ibelieveinharveydenttoo.com/ (http://www.ibelieveinharveydenttoo.com/)
on the last page, give it a second. after a bit some pixels start to show up that hint at The Joker's look.
Quote from: BentonGrey on February 16, 2007, 09:31:34 AM
Man, Jack was good, but I think this fellow could have done better:http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0079273/
I think that he'd at least be better than Brokeback Boy :P
Jake Gyllenhaal?! Come to think of it...it could have worked. He's already proven that he can play the crazies, as evident in his seeing 6-foot evil bunnies, and whatnot...
(I kid, I kid! Please don't kick me! :P)
Quote from: Mr. Hamrick on May 19, 2007, 06:10:39 PM
These are not fake though, Lugaru
http://ibelieveinharveydent.warnerbros.com/ (http://ibelieveinharveydent.warnerbros.com/)
http://www.ibelieveinharveydenttoo.com/ (http://www.ibelieveinharveydenttoo.com/)
on the last page, give it a second. after a bit some pixels start to show up that hint at The Joker's look.
Man I wish I had a decent flash decompiler - I'd love to take that file apart.
Quote from: Glitch Girl on May 19, 2007, 08:02:46 PM
Quote from: Mr. Hamrick on May 19, 2007, 06:10:39 PM
These are not fake though, Lugaru
http://ibelieveinharveydent.warnerbros.com/ (http://ibelieveinharveydent.warnerbros.com/)
http://www.ibelieveinharveydenttoo.com/ (http://www.ibelieveinharveydenttoo.com/)
on the last page, give it a second. after a bit some pixels start to show up that hint at The Joker's look.
Man I wish I had a decent flash decompiler - I'd love to take that file apart.
you mean like this?
[spoiler] http://photos.imageevent.com/batmanonfilm/bofimagesbofimages/heath_joker_ibelieveinharveydenttoo.jpg (http://photos.imageevent.com/batmanonfilm/bofimagesbofimages/heath_joker_ibelieveinharveydenttoo.jpg)[/spoiler]
http://www.aintitcool.com/images2007/JokerFinal.jpg
bigger pic
I'm really not sure how I feel about this look yet. It's got something going for it, but it is pretty different. I guess I'll need to see it in action before I really make up my mind.
I kinda like it, I hope they lose the smudged-lipstick look though. It reminds me of bad punk/goth videos.
http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=268288
Reminds me of The Crow and Ichi The Killer. So ... he's not going to smile in this one?
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0296042/posters
Well, I don't care for that at all.
i actually really like it. it makes him seem a bit creepier, in my opinion.
I don't want him creepier, I don't think he should be creepier, for me, he walks the line between absurd and horrifying, and this obviously steps decidedly onto the latter side.
I realize this is only my opinion, but Batman is one character who I feel very strongly about, along with most things in his world.
BTW, you can reply to the message you get about what pixel you remove...
Other Dark Knight news: Anthony Michael Hall, Johnny in Dead Zone, among other things, is going to be in the movie in a small, but undisclosed roll.
I'm also not at all thrilled with the smudged lipstick look of the Joker in those pictures. In every representation of the Joker that I've enjoyed, the Joker has had a certain immaculate style. It's one of the elements that, in my opinion, lets the Joker be completely psychotic and still come off as funny. The look that I've seen in the photo, to me, seems to abandon all pretense of humor and just looks creepy.
Exactly, Viking, and I think they are limiting themselves by that kind of an interpretation.
If you go to www.ibelieveinharveydenttoo.com the Joker pic has been removed and it says PAGE NOT FOUND....
But when you highlight the page it reveals HA ha HA ha HA ha HA ha HA ha HA ha HA
And now if you remove all the "HA" it spells out " See YOu In December"
Trailer, perhaps ??
So far WB had done some great marketing.
Either that or it's all a hoax or WB is testing out which look the fans like the most.
Quote from: Midnite on May 21, 2007, 02:22:12 PM
If you go to www.ibelieveinharveydenttoo.com the Joker pic has been removed and it says PAGE NOT FOUND....
But when you highlight the page it reveals HA ha HA ha HA ha HA ha HA ha HA ha HA
And now if you remove all the "HA" it spells out " See YOu In December"
Trailer, perhaps ??
So far WB had done some great marketing.
How do you remove the Ha's?
1. Highlight all
2. Copy
3. Paste into a text editor (Notepad would be best)
4. Run Replace (Under the edit menu in notepad)
5. Type in HA into find what and nothing into replace
6. Click replace all
7. Delete all the spaces.
8. Tada!
Quote from: Talavar on May 21, 2007, 08:13:02 AM
Other Dark Knight news: Anthony Michael Hall, Johnny in Dead Zone, among other things, is going to be in the movie in a small, but undisclosed roll.
The role is not going to be a "small" one necessarily. According to Mr. Hall, he went for for a couple days of initial shooting and will be due back for more shooting come August. He is also playing a VILLAIN and there is just as much indication that it could be an established Bat-villain as one created specifically for The Dark Knight. Take this to the bank, his role is being kept insanely under wraps and even if I were to have an idea of what role he might be playing, I couldn't disclose it here. I will say that Mr. Hall described it as a "$200 million dollar surprise" though I presume he is talking figureatively.
Hmm, blonde, medium height, medium build...non-descript...who could he be playing? He could be playing one of the mob bosses, as I can't think of any Bat villains that he seems to look like/fit. Any ideas?
Quote from: BentonGrey on May 23, 2007, 04:32:27 PM
Hmm, blonde, medium height, medium build...non-descript...who could he be playing? He could be playing one of the mob bosses, as I can't think of any Bat villains that he seems to look like/fit. Any ideas?
Remember Benton, hair can be dyed and wigs can be worn. Masks can be worn too.
Salvatori "The Boss" Maroni is being played by Eric Roberts so you can count him out.
I recall hearing how his role has something to do with being a copycat Batman and that he has a scene with Morgan Freeman.
RTT
Kirk Langstrom?
Catman! ...okay, nevermind me.
Actually, when I was a kid after seeing Batman Returns, I said to myself "Manbat and Scarecrow should totally be the next movie's villains." When I heard about Riddler and Two Face I didn't think it was so bad, but then I actually saw the movie. Well, you know where it went from there.
If it wasn't for the fact he was already in Batman Begins and played by Tim Booth (although, I believe he is only referred to by name in the novel), I could see Anthony Michael Hall playing Zsasz. Or possibly Clayface. (II or III, that is)
zsasz was mentioned multiple times by name in the film
Hmm...Langstrom would be a good fit.
(http://www2.superherohype.com/nextraimages/darkknightusatoday2.jpg)
http://www.superherohype.com/news/topnews.php?id=5752
holy crap all we need now is adam west :(
Two notes:
First, I really hope the new franchise doesn't get too caught up in casting A list names for the Batman villains. I think that was part of the downfall of the first set of Batman movies - there was so much focus on this or that hot shot star playing some villain that the stories became marginalized and the character of Batman himself was something of an afterthought. Batman needs strong villains, but who is playing them should be way down on the list of draws for the audience. Meanwhile, Christian Bale is a very good actor for this role. I hope some time is spent doing character development for Batman/Bruce so that his talent is put to use.
I think Maggie Gyllenhaal is a great talent, but Rachel Dawes was a weak character in the first movie. Frankly, I was somewhat glad of that. I get tired of the Hollywood tendency to try and tack a romantic subplot onto any storyline. For this sort of movie, it's predictable, usually boring, and mostly unnecessary. I mean, in a Spider-Man movie, there has to be some focus on Mary Jane because Peter's romantic troubles are so much a part of the character. But, someone could do a great Batman movie and never mention a serious love interest for Bruce. I am not saying it couldn't be well done and I like MG for the role if it is to be there, but IMO the recurrence of Rachel Dawes was in no way justified by her role in the first movie.
Quote from: stumpy on May 29, 2007, 04:18:17 AM
But, someone could do a great Batman movie and never mention a serious love interest for Bruce. I am not saying it couldn't be well done and I like MG for the role if it is to be there, but IMO the recurrence of Rachel Dawes was in no way justified by her role in the first movie.
I agree that the forced romantic subplot is very often a weakness in hollywood superhero movies. In some cases it is absolutely necesary but handled poorly (Daredevil - Electra) and sometimes it's just tacked on in a way that messes up the flow (Romantic subplot was another nail in the coffin of Catwoman). I kind of liked how in the punisher it never went anywhere though, because as soon as I saw mega babe Rebecca Romjn playing the unusually shy character of Joan I figured they where going for some high romance doomed love thing.
More pics of Joker and goons:
http://www.cinemablend.com/new/Dark-Knight-Makes-History-Joker-Spotted-5289.html
the Chelsea grin is really spooking me...
but this movie is looking to be sweet. I can't wait to see the new batsuit, in all it's "fabricy chainmail glory".
this is a just a rumor but the source of the rumor is from someone who is friends with one of the crew.
[spoiler]Harley Quinn makes an appearance as Dr. Quinzell toward the end of the movie. The Joker lives and asks her to "Call me Mr. J" and that is his last line of dialog. I'd presume it's a setup to events in the third film.[/spoiler]
http://www.superherohype.com/news/topnews.php?id=5716
Say it ain't so!
Quote from: BentonGrey on June 03, 2007, 04:23:34 PM
Say it ain't so!
sorry it is so but check the other link that Jakew referred to
the real close up shot is not as bad as it looks.
I hate to double post but . . .
They really need to post a confirmed cast list.
Anthony Michael Hall was apparently on The View this morning and mentioned his part in The Dark Knight. He mentions that his character is a good guy not a villain as originally rumored. So, who knows.
The two characters who I suspected Hall might have been signed on to play were either Alberto Falcone, Edward Nygma (aka The Riddler) or Kirk Langstrom aka Manbat) but this does not appear to be the case. The part is supposedly a small one so who knows.
Ohh!! I think he'd make a pretty good Riddler, a better Langstrom, but a darn good Riddler. He can pull of smugly superior, which is what I think really makes 'ol Eddie. It's a shame he won't be either.
Hmmm...
AMH may be doing Jack Ryder. How interesting would that be? The Joker and the Creeper in the same flick.
Quote from: RTTingle on June 13, 2007, 08:50:46 PM
Hmmm...
AMH may be doing Jack Ryder. How interesting would that be? The Joker and the Creeper in the same flick.
RTT, we must be on the same brainwave or something. I was just thinking about Hall as Creeper.
Teaser peek of the new bat suit (http://www.batman-on-film.com/the-new-bat-suit_description.html) :thumbup:
Be looking for a certain enteratinment magazine that is published by Time Warner weekly to see it -- TOMORROW (6/15/07)! It's an exclusive to them and I will respect that.
Your thoughts so far?
***Update***
(http://img385.imageshack.us/img385/8798/tdkbatmannewsuit3qn1.jpg)
Big, big big :spoiler: :spoiler: :spoiler:
:o :o :o :o :o
[spoiler]http://www.superherohype.com/news/topnews.php?id=5860 (http://www.superherohype.com/news/topnews.php?id=5860)[/spoiler]
Yes, Revenant, we already saw. That's what the pic above was.
[spoiler]I posted a link to a scan of the whole suit..[/spoiler]
Hmm...it's not terrible or anything, but I don't much care for it. I do like the cowl, it not being affixed to the shoulders is good. I just don't like the way the suit looks like....armor.....Still, I suppose it's not really any worse than the first one.
Quote from: The Hitman on June 13, 2007, 09:00:52 PM
Quote from: RTTingle on June 13, 2007, 08:50:46 PM
Hmmm...
AMH may be doing Jack Ryder. How interesting would that be? The Joker and the Creeper in the same flick.
RTT, we must be on the same brainwave or something. I was just thinking about Hall as Creeper.
Or Jean Paul Valley. The whole "Batman wannabe" thing has me thinking more Azrael. Has to be one of those two. Creeper would be interesting... but I got this feeling its Azrael. Especially with conflicting reports of what side of the law he falls on.
Interesting.
I just hope it doesn't clutter the movie too much. Eh. I trust the guys, they know what they're doing in terms of story. I have great faith in them, Batman Begins earned it.
RTT
Quote from: Mr. Hamrick on June 13, 2007, 10:36:04 AM
I hate to double post but . . .
They really need to post a confirmed cast list.
Anthony Michael Hall was apparently on The View this morning and mentioned his part in The Dark Knight. He mentions that his character is a good guy not a villain as originally rumored. So, who knows.
The two characters who I suspected Hall might have been signed on to play were either Alberto Falcone, Edward Nygma (aka The Riddler) or Kirk Langstrom aka Manbat) but this does not appear to be the case. The part is supposedly a small one so who knows.
I may be missing something, but why would the fact that the character's a good guy rule out Langstrom? Manbat has at times been portrayed as a hero, after all...
I like the new suit, a movable neck seems like a pretty big advantage that all of the previous bat-suits have lacked.
Obviously they've fixed the cowl so they can film some good fight scenes ... no more shaky cam! The jittery fight scenes were the most picked on aspect of the first film.
I wish Anthony Michael Hall's character would be connected in some way to Helena Bertinelli..
Rev, yes I went to your link, it was the exact same thing posted above you, although since that is no longer available, it is good to have reposted it, but you seemed to think it was something new.
well to put it plainly, rev's works the other does not
At the time I posted it, the one above was a teaser pic - a detail of the Bat logo.
The one i posted was a scan of Entertainment Weekly showing the whole picture.
QuoteThe one i posted was a scan of Entertainment Weekly showing the whole picture.
Which was exactly what the above post was a few hours before you posted it.
Oh well. As I said, the other pic is gone now anyway.
And even if Revenant posted a pic that was already posted, that would be a problem because...?
Thanks for posting it Revenant, I hadn't seen it. :)
It isn't a terrible looking suit at all. It just doesn't look like Batman. I just want to say, "Tony Stark called, he wants his stealth armor back." I wish they would just used the suit from Batman Dead End. That looks like an Alex Ross painting come to life. :(
Quote from: Mowgli on June 17, 2007, 09:57:07 AM
And even if Revenant posted a pic that was already posted, that would be a problem because...?
Thanks for posting it Revenant, I hadn't seen it. :)
It isn't a terrible looking suit at all. It just doesn't look like Batman. I just want to say, "Tony Stark called, he wants his stealth armor back." I wish they would just used the suit from Batman Dead End. That looks like an Alex Ross painting come to life. :(
Exactly Mowgli, for once you and I are in complete agreement. Still, I'm sure it will turn out alright. I would like to see it in action, and I hope the theories are correct and that this will lead to better fight scenes!
Pictures of the Batcycle...err.... Batpod.
Pic 1 (http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/?track=leftnav-entertainment)
Pic 2 (http://www.latimes.com/media/photo/2007-06/30587348.jpg)
Article (http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/la-et-batpod18jun18,1,392372.story?coll=la-headlines-entnews)
Video (http://video.msn.com/v/us/fv/fv.htm??g=13f4067e-e33c-4d98-96b1-51bafdd4f35e&t=m17&f=06/64&p=source_today%20show&fg=>1=10056)
Hi-Res Batsuit (http://photos.imageevent.com/batmanonfilm/bofimagesbofimages/TDK_first-pic-of-batman_LARGE.jpg)
ummm where's the rest of it, it looks like it wasn't finished being built
QuoteSource: JoBlo.com by: Mike Sampson
It's been a while since we've had a good ole fashioned spy report from a comic book set but this Monday morning we get a doozy of a whopper of a report courtesy a JoBlo.com insider. Said source wants to remain anonymous, of course, but "anonymous" isn't a very interesting nickname so heretoforth we'll call him The Gotham Lurker. Just 'cause. Lurker filed two reports, the first of which is below (in the interest of full disclosure, I have redacted some parts of Lurker's e-mail that may have given away his identity) the second following shortly thereafter. Take a gander at what our man on the scene had to say for himself:
The scene is a fundraiser for Harvey Dent (Aaron Eckhart) and it was in the lobby for either a hotel of some sort or of Bruce Wayne's mansion. First part of the night was Eckhart coming in from an elevator and making his entrance. Michael Caine was there and filming his shot for a good three hours. After that was done, then it was Batman's turn. He came in out of a helicopter with a hot model on each side, he truely knows how to make an entrance. But the big news is THE JOKER IS CRASHING THE ****ING FUNDRAISER. Yessireebob, you read that correctly. He is going to make an entrance (hopefully involving the breaking of a window or two) and 'crash' the party.
Seems like Joker has as much of a beef with Dent as he does with our friendly Batman. Joker's issues with Dent are further evidenced in another scene, which Lurker says went a little something like this:
Tonight was an outdoor scene with Aaron Eckhart as Harvey Dent doing a political ad that was to be played on a TV in the background during the movie. Since there would be no audio of it in the movie, he was screwing around and yelling random stuff like he was going to go to Washington D.C. and to bring us Grilled Cheese sandwiches. He was a riot. Then it was back to the condo scene [Ed. note: referenced above]. I. saw. the. JOKER! He comes out of an elevator with 4 or 5 of his masked minions, two with actualy plastic masks and guns, and the others had painting on their faces. The Joker does not look as grotesque as he did in the photo on the harveydent site. He has long hair with green highlights in it, he was wearing a long purple jacket with a blue sport coat under it, purple gloves and I regret to say I forget the color of his pants. But anyways, he comes in shooting and people are being hurt and killed left and right, he's looking for Harvey Dent (his first line says so). As Joker is hitting people along the way (he's slapping extras!), comes in Batman in that new suit that was in Entertainment Weekly this week. They fight, it's all long and drawn out and during this, JOKER DOES HIS LAUGH. It was high pitched, unique and really hardcase. Not exactly like Nicholson's, but who the hell can pull that off? It was awesome, just leave it at that. After all that, the Joker grabs Rachel (Maggie Gyllenhal) and begins his escape.
Wow - I gotta say I'm a little jealous. And I love the touch of Heath Ledger just smacking extras around. There's a tabloid headline for you. I'm dying to see a real trailer for this and hopefully we've got one on the way. Thanks again to The Gotham Lurker for sending in the report!
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v367/madsci/smoldman23.jpg)
QuoteIn a drowsy London hotel room, from behind a bushy policeman's moustache, a quiet, reserved Gary Oldman is considering his reputation as - his words - 'Crazy-Scary-Gary'.
Gary Oldman
Gary Oldman: 'I don't have a publicist. I don't go to premieres. I don't go to parties. I just have dinner at home every night with my kids'
That is: Gary Oldman, brilliant portrayer of skinheads, punks, vampires, assassins, psycho-cops, psycho-pimps, psycho-psychos.
The actor fundamental to the success and magic of Mike Leigh's Meantime, Stephen Frears's Prick Up Your Ears, Alex Cox's Sid and Nancy, Francis Ford Coppola's Dracula, Oliver Stone's JFK, Luc Besson's Leon, Tony Scott's True Romance and Alan Clarke's The Firm.
The writer-director whose gritty south-east London upbringing formed the backdrop to 1997's Nil by Mouth: a semi-autobiographical tale of alcoholism, drugs, criminality, wife-beating and the misery man hands on to man.
The 'bad boy' who, almost as soon as his career started, escaped Britain for high times in New York and Los Angeles.
advertisement
The thrice-married, thrice-divorced drinker who went into rehab in 1995 and hasn't, he says, touched a drop of alcohol since.
'I don't know how it happened,' Oldman says of his pigeonholing as a natural born gangster. He speaks slowly. Very slowly. In clipped sentences. 'I really don't. I was this... psycho guy. I just got into these parts. Then it... it... contaminates people. And they think that you're Crazy-Scary-Gary. The closest character to me,' he adds with ponderous gravity, 'is Jim Gordon.'
Jim Gordon is the police lieutenant in the Batman stories. Oldman played the veteran cop in Chris Nolan's hugely successful franchise reboot Batman Begins (2005). He is reprising the role in The Dark Knight, in which Lt Gordon teams up with Batman (Christian Bale) to take on the Joker (Heath Ledger). It is currently being filmed in the UK, which is what has briefly brought Oldman from his home in LA back to England.
The portrayal of kindly Lt Gordon also explains the droopy, salt'n'pepper moustache he is sporting today, if not the orange trainers the 49-year-old is wearing at the bottom of his sloppy-joe ensemble (dark suit jacket, grey cartoon T-shirt, jeans).
I tell Oldman that the first word that comes to mind when you think of Jim Gordon is 'avuncular'. 'Yeah,' he replies with a light shrug. 'Got a good sense of right and wrong. Family man. Just a regular geezer.'
Is this something that has come to Oldman as he approaches his 50th birthday, a good quarter of a century since he started out as an angry young man of British film?
Another shrug. Another reply so low and quiet my tape-recorder will barely pick it up.
'I've always been that way,' says Gary Oldman.
Here's a pic of the figure from Wizard:
[spoiler](http://i94.photobucket.com/albums/l108/r373nant/BatmanToy1.jpg)[/spoiler]
[spoiler]Maybe its just me but I get the impression they're slowly evolving the suit to be something closer to the comics but that could be just because of the grey[/spoiler]
I'm happy that the color scheme is getting closer to the comics version. Also, an all-black suit makes sense for practicality and function, but on the screen it can be hard to see all the action.
In Batman Begins, during some of the fight scenes, it was hard to see Batman sometimes, also due to the darkness and night-time setting
A tidbot from Atomic Comics Weekly Newsletter
QuoteTwo surprising stars showed up on the sets of Iron Man and The Dark Knight in the past week. Late at night, the Batman Begins sequel filmed a shoot out between gangs in which Cillian Murphy appeared in his Scarecrow mask and gassed Batman.
The other "surprising star" refers to the Ultimates movie having Samuel L. Jackson play Nick Fury.
QuoteDetails on The Dark Knight Tie-Ins
Source: batman205
July 12, 2007
A licensing sheet for The Dark Knight was recently posted online, but a lot of the text was too small to read. Now, 'batman205' has given us the scoop on just what it said. Here's Warner Bros.' plans for "The Year of the Bat":
- A direct-to-video anime-style series that takes place in the time period between Batman Begins and The Dark Knight, and further explores the Batman legend.
- Multi-platform videogame inspired by The Dark Knight.
- Extensive consumer products range to support both the new film and classic Batman brand.
- DC Comics will publish an extensive range of material surrounding The Dark Knight including a comic book adaptation of the film, coffee table books, children's activity books and more!
Anime style? Why does Hollywood hate me?
Quote from: Glitch Girl on June 27, 2007, 06:25:24 AM
A tidbot from Atomic Comics Weekly Newsletter
QuoteTwo surprising stars showed up on the sets of Iron Man and The Dark Knight in the past week. Late at night, the Batman Begins sequel filmed a shoot out between gangs in which Cillian Murphy appeared in his Scarecrow mask and gassed Batman.
The other "surprising star" refers to the Ultimates movie having Samuel L. Jackson play Nick Fury.
the IM director has already said the sam jackson cameo is just rumors and not true
Quote from: BentonGrey on July 12, 2007, 10:57:07 PM
Anime style? Why does Hollywood hate me?
What's wrong with anime style? You like Timmverse which has similar aesthetics as anime (if you go on Bruce Timms site he has done alot of fan art for anime characters). The Hellboy movies are "anime inspired" and they are both good. So don't judge something because it isn't your lord and master Alex Ross.
Yikes, what's your problem? I love the Timmverse stuff, and even though it might be called anime inspired, I don't really see the influence all that strongly. I greatly prefer more traditional animation, of which I consider Timmverse stuff an excellent example. Alex Ross is a fantastic artist, but I would hardly want everything to be like his work. In general, the 'anime' style shows and movies I've seen produced in America were terrible, and indulged in the things I hate worst about anime. (Teen Titans, I'm looking at you) Slightly exaggerated character models don't bother me, throwing in tons of anime troupes because it seems popular hurts my soul.
Well it's Batman and I doubt you are going to see anything along those lines. Batman isn't going to have the over the top facial expressions or chibi-ness. If it did it wouldn't be Batman but a parody. What you are probably going to see is something closer to what they did with the anime Highlander movie. It's going to borrow the over the top action sequences and blend it with western story telling. So you'll see Batman punch someone through a wall but you aren't going to see him turn into a mecha or something ridiculous like that.
Something closer to 'The Batman'? My other cartoon nemesis? Something where everyone knows kung-fu and even the Penguin can apparently fly? I just wish Paul Dini and Bruce Timm would be put in charge of this...I'd have a lot more faith then!
Quote from: BentonGrey on July 13, 2007, 12:44:18 PM
Something closer to 'The Batman'? My other cartoon nemesis? Something where everyone knows kung-fu and even the Penguin can apparently fly? I just wish Paul Dini and Bruce Timm would be put in charge of this...I'd have a lot more faith then!
In charge of "The Batman"? If it makes you feel any better, one of the producers from Batman: TAS is taking over "The Batman" :)
Sorry this is sideways.. it's from a friend at the DC boards:
(http://i160.photobucket.com/albums/t190/wws1fan/BatmanAnimeDVD.jpg?t=1184368429)
Well from the writers they listed I think it's safe to say this should be a treat. If those are the character designs in the background I am really looking forward to this.
Quote from: Midnite on July 13, 2007, 01:46:59 PM
In charge of "The Batman"? If it makes you feel any better, one of the producers from Batman: TAS is taking over "The Batman" :)
Hmm......well, if they change the artists and writers, I'll be happy. As it is...I'll wait and see.
Those designs look pretty good, I don't see that it's very 'anime-ish.'
Quote from: BentonGrey on July 13, 2007, 08:53:06 PM
Those designs look pretty good, I don't see that it's very 'anime-ish.'
Then your exposure to anime must be very limited. "Anime" is a very broad term. It just means "Animated" and refers more specifically to anything animated from Japan. That Batman design is very reminiscent of many japanese animes. Thinking all animes are like Pokemon or DragonballZ is like assuming all western animation looks like Johnny Bravo or the Power Puff Girls.
BentonGrey, you really have to get over the notion that anime is a particular fixed "style". As Pyro alluded to, it's simply the Japanese-phoneticized term for "animation", and it means exactly the same thing as the English word. Your attitude towards anime is equivalent say, to a French person preferring bande désignée (French term for comic books) and dismissing all English-language "comics" out of hand, when in actuality, the two terms refer to the same thing: sequential art accompanied by dialogue. Not all anime (by which I mean animation created in Japan) has stylized renditions of the human figure or use some of the quirky, culture-specific shorthand (bulging veins = anger/annoyance, large sweat drop = embarrassment, etc.) that you seem to be averse to. Let me recommend you two excellent anime films that I assure you has none of what I think you dislike about the stereotyped notion of anime:
Jin-Roh: The Wolf Brigade (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0193253/) - an excellent political thriller set against the backdrop of a growing rivalry between local Tokyo police and a federal counterrorism unit assigned to combat anti-government insurgents. The main plot focuses on one of the counterterrorism operatives getting caught up in the personal lives and drama of the people he has sworn to pursue. An excellent film, and it's probably better than the majority of live-action Hollywood spy/political drama.
Grave of the Fireflies (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0095327/) - a poignant tale set in post-war Japan showing the struggles of orphaned siblings in the wake of the Reconstruction Period.
Trust me on this, give one or both of these films a try and see if you don't come away with a different opinion about Japanese animation.
EDIT: I hope I didn't come off as sounding like I'm forcing you to like Japanese animation... you're free to decide what you like or don't like, of course, it just seems like you're making somewhat misinformed generalizations based on a very limited subset of what's actually out there. It's akin to someone concluding that all American comics feature overly-muscled men and women with breasts bigger than their head who wear their underwear on the outside based on a cursory examination of the most popular titles being sold.
Seems to me that "Batman Anime" is a bit off subject. Heh.
-MJB
QuoteUpdated! Dark Knight Teaser Debuts in Two Weeks!
Source: Superhero Hype!
July 13, 2007
There have been rumors circulating around the normal internet circles that Warner Bros. won't have anything related to the Batman sequel The Dark Knight ready to go for the San Diego Comic-Con.
Well, guess what? That isn't so.
Superhero Hype! has just received confirmation from one of our most reliable sources that Warner Bros. plans on debuting a teaser in front of some screenings of 20th Century Fox's The Simpsons Movie on July 27, which just so happens to be the same day as the Warner Bros. panel at Comic-Con in San Diego. Don't be too surprised if they decide to spring an unannounced premiere of the teaser for The Dark Knight sometime during that 10:30 AM panel. Stay tuned to Superhero Hype! to find out more about this teaser, and remember where you heard it first!
Update: Our source has suggested that Warner Bros. might not even wait until the official Warner Bros. panel on Friday morning, because on the description for the premiere screening of Warner Bros. Home Video's new animated feature film "Superman Doomsday," it states "And stay 'til the end—there might just be a glimpse of future DC Universe films." Could be a surprise showing of The Dark Knight teaser? Only one way to find out.
Quote from: MJB on July 14, 2007, 03:02:40 AM
Seems to me that "Batman Anime" is a bit off subject. Heh.
-MJB
could we call it "Batmanime"?
Joker pics/footage (http://batman-dark-knight.moviechronicles.com/2007-07/the-joker-pictured-on-set/)
(http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1064/830560745_980d94e8f0_o.jpg)
Quote from: zuludelta on July 14, 2007, 12:10:47 AM
BentonGrey, you really have to get over the notion that anime is a particular fixed "style". As Pyro alluded to, it's simply the Japanese-phoneticized term for "animation", and it means exactly the same thing as the English word. Your attitude towards anime is equivalent say, to a French person preferring bande désignée (French term for comic books) and dismissing all English-language "comics" out of hand, when in actuality, the two terms refer to the same thing: sequential art accompanied by dialogue. Not all anime (by which I mean animation created in Japan) has stylized renditions of the human figure or use some of the quirky, culture-specific shorthand (bulging veins = anger/annoyance, large sweat drop = embarrassment, etc.) that you seem to be averse to. Let me recommend you two excellent anime films that I assure you has none of what I think you dislike about the stereotyped notion of anime:
Jin-Roh: The Wolf Brigade (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0193253/) - an excellent political thriller set against the backdrop of a growing rivalry between local Tokyo police and a federal counterrorism unit assigned to combat anti-government insurgents. The main plot focuses on one of the counterterrorism operatives getting caught up in the personal lives and drama of the people he has sworn to pursue. An excellent film, and it's probably better than the majority of live-action Hollywood spy/political drama.
Grave of the Fireflies (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0095327/) - a poignant tale set in post-war Japan showing the struggles of orphaned siblings in the wake of the Reconstruction Period.
Trust me on this, give one or both of these films a try and see if you don't come away with a different opinion about Japanese animation.
EDIT: I hope I didn't come off as sounding like I'm forcing you to like Japanese animation... you're free to decide what you like or don't like, of course, it just seems like you're making somewhat misinformed generalizations based on a very limited subset of what's actually out there. It's akin to someone concluding that all American comics feature overly-muscled men and women with breasts bigger than their head who wear their underwear on the outside based on a cursory examination of the most popular titles being sold.
Hey ZD, I think I vaguely remember a similar discussion in that anime thread from a while back, but I could be wrong. Either way, no, I'm not offended by your suggestions, (I appreciate them, and that wolf one sounds somewhat interesting) but I feel like I should perhaps explain myself a little better, though it be at the risk of further derailing this topic.
[spoiler]I am the first to admit that I don't have a broad sampling of anime, being, like most Americans, only exposed to what reaches the mass market (read TV) here....99% of which is drivel and indulges to the umpteenth degree in those troupes that I hate so very much. That being said, I HAVE seen anime that I really loved, things like Cowboy Beebop, and I recently rented Lodoss War which I thought was pretty decent (based on the recommendations from the aforementioned thread). So, no, I don't hate ALL of Japanese anime. Perhaps I am wrong in using the term anime to describe the dregs that reach American markets, but I don't know of another that is more appropriate. This, combined with the fact that most of the American shows claiming 'anime influence' pull from only the very worst, or at best, neutral aspects of Japanese animation (like Teen Titans, The Batman, etc.) leads me to be very disparaging of anime, in-so-far as it includes the American markets, the only things I have contact with. [/spoiler]
Back on topic: Hmm....that Joker doesn't look too bad from here....the suit looks good, but are his hands normal looking?
Last Friday when I left work there was a Gotham PD SWAT van parked next to my office building. Of course I had no camera. :doh:
QuoteBack on topic: Hmm....that Joker doesn't look too bad from here....the suit looks good, but are his hands normal looking?
The impression I've been given so far from photos is that the white face and dark circles around the eyes are meant to be makeup in the movie and not his actual face. At the same time, his "joker's grin" really seems to be scarring from someone's attempt to "widen" his smile with a knife.
I could be wrong though.
Ohh I hope not! I remember how it struck me when I read the original Batman stories with the Joker. In one of them, he gets stabbed, and you see that his chest is white...he's actually white all over, not just wearing make-up. It gives him a more other-worldly appearance.
This just in, it apparently has been announced that Harvey Dent will become Two-Face during this movie. Whether or not this happens at the very end has not been announced.
The Riddler is heavily rumoured to make a cameo too.
I hope this film doesn't pull a spider-man 3 and cram in too many characters.
Well, Batman Begins managed to fit in 5 different Batman comic book villians, without much of a problem.
Quote from: catwhowalksbyhimself on July 18, 2007, 06:31:19 AM
Well, Batman Begins managed to fit in 5 different Batman comic book villians, without much of a problem.
5? Let's see... Scarecrow, Ra's, Zsasz, Carmine Falcone... who's the fifth?
Ubu maybe? played by watanabe.
Quotewho's the fifth?
Joe Chill
"Well, Batman Begins managed to fit in 5 different Batman comic book villians, without much of a problem."
Zsasz was a cameo with no lines, and Carmine had little screen time. And both are second-tier Batman characters. Essentially the two main villains were Ra's and Scarecrow.
The second Batman is (rumoured) to feature Two-Face, Riddler, Joker, Scarecrow and Talia Al Ghul ... to me, thats getting a little crowded, because they are all fairly well known characters. Although, I admit I'm intrigued by what they'll do with Talia and Riddler.
I knew about Joker, Scarecrow and Two-Face.
This is the first I heard about Talia and (squee!) Riddler.
More information, please!
I have heard nothing about Talia and Riddler, and they may very well only have cameo roles in this one, just as Zsasz and Joe Chill did. Saying they will be in the film hardly means they'll be features.
Joker we know for sure, and the Two-face news comes from very reliable sources, with an interview from the actor who plays Dent. Scarecrow would make sense, although I'd like to bet that he only makes a brief apparance. Dent may become Two-Face at the end, which has been rumored for a while. This would leave plenty of room for another featured villain.
[spoiler]
From what I understand, Anthony Michael Hall is playing Edward Nygma. I don't know if they will have him as The Riddler in the film or not. It is a rather minor role either way. The Scarecrow will make an appearance. I've been given the impression that this will be one or two scenes to wrap up the fact that he escaped last movie. One of the themes of this movie will apparently be the shift in the "old style of gangster" (Maroni, Falcone, Gamble) vs. the "new class of criminal" that Batman is more needed for like The Joker, Ridder, Scarecrow, etc.
Sal Maroni will probably have the same size of role as Falcone had in the first film. The same as the character Gamble (who is also a gangster).
As for the Two Face, there is a confirmed scene where Aaron Eckhardt will be in the make-up. I suspect it will be foreshadowing events in the third film.
Talia? I've not heard anything about.
We know The Joker will be there. I've also heard rumor that Harleen Quinzel will have a cameo at the very end.
[/spoiler]
As Cat who walks by himself said, saying those characters will be in the film is hardly indication that they will be prinicipal characters or featured characters.
Quote from: Zapow on July 17, 2007, 08:36:39 PM
Last Friday when I left work there was a Gotham PD SWAT van parked next to my office building. Of course I had no camera. :doh:
I'm redeemed. The van was back today. I snagged a disposable camera and blew a roll on the van and two trucks that HAVE to be part of Joker's tools.
We'll see how they turn out.
(http://photos.imageevent.com/batmanonfilm/thedarkknightimages/TDK_Chicago2_thejoker-in-joker-truck1.jpg)
(http://photos.imageevent.com/batmanonfilm/thedarkknightimages/TDK_Chicago2_thejoker-in-joker-truck2.jpg)
Batpod video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tmxmp6Z6_cI)
Joker video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cI-VoLS9Pdo)
Those are the trucks. I'll have my pictures later today.
Here's a few shots of the van and trucks.
(http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a309/Zapow21/417728-R1-018-7A.jpg)
(http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a309/Zapow21/417728-R1-008-2A.jpg)
(http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a309/Zapow21/417728-R1-042-19A.jpg)
(http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a309/Zapow21/417728-R1-040-18A.jpg)
"Slaughter is the best medicine". LOL!
-MJB
Quote from: MJB on July 23, 2007, 09:48:02 AM
"Slaughter is the best medicine". LOL!
-MJB
you mean its not the best medicine?
Nice bit of detail with the license plate.
Man, this movie is looking better every day.
is Gotham a state now?
Video of The Dark Knight teaser attach to The Simpsons? (http://youtube.com/watch?v=nb4TstBBHYE)
nice. about what I was expecting. a second teaser should be out soon too. well, not that soon . . . around december I suspect.
Quote
New Dark Knight Viral Site?
Source: EmpireofDarkness, Nate Buchman
July 26, 2007
Fans have pointed us to WhySoSerious.com, which appears to be yet another viral site for The Dark Knight. Remember IBelieveinHarveyDent.com and IBelieveinHarveyDentToo.com? At the new site, the Joker seems to be recruiting people for his gang. But what's very interesting is that the page includes coordinates in San Diego and that the clock is counting down to approximately when the Warner Bros. panel takes place at Comic-Con. Hmmm...
I wonder what's going to happen on that day.
www.whysoserious.com
You guys on the site?
The 1st password is: Inside Joke
2nd: Jack the Ripper
There's a phone number in the sky its 1 800 395 9646, its creepy.
[spoiler](http://whysoserious.com/images/theknife.jpg)[/spoiler]
:blink:
HD Teaser (http://video.whysoserious.com/TDK_Teaser_HD_Best_L98hufT.mov)
what the hell's the crap with the make-up, instead of it being his skin
Got a non-HD version? Youtube took down that copy.
Quote from: catwhowalksbyhimself on July 27, 2007, 12:14:53 PM
Got a non-HD version? Youtube took down that copy.
http://www.comingsoon.net/films.php?id=15813
Those links are ALL HD. None of them fit my monitor and are unwatchable, not to mention taking a while to download, even on DSL.
Sorry about that, I thought I had the youtube link there too.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=boIhrBtsj-Y
That one works, for now. They already pulled other copies, though, so I doubt it will be up for long.
A recap of today's viral event:
WB rolled out another crazy viral marketing push today.
The International Comic-Con began yesterday, and found on the convention floor were phony dollar bills (see here) with clown makeup scribbled over George Washington, and the message "Why So Serious?" Fanboys everywhere visited www.whysoserious.com to find a defaced "I want you!" poster (here), and a Joker-esque message encouraging people to apply for a "job." There was a clock ticking down to noon today, and a set of coordinates (which pointed to an area just outside the convention).
A later update revealed that fans who showed up there when the clock hit zero would work together with fans online to some end. When the time came, the hundreds of fans who showed up were all painted in Joker makeup, and moved from checkpoint to checkpoint getting clues to help solve the puzzles for those online. Finally, when all the checkpoints had been reached, one fan was selected (by what means I'm not sure; perhaps he wast the first there) and driven away in an SUV with Gotham City plates.
Online, with the last puzzle solved the teaser trailer (here) was revealed. Shortly afterwards, a mock police report appeared, featuring a photo of the selected fan, having been "killed" (here). The police report mentions him holding the note "See You In December," which as I mentioned in my earlier post has appeared elsewhere during this campaign. Prior to this, two other police reports also appeared on the site (here and here), as well as this picture of The Joker (Ledger), and Rachel Dawes (Maggie Gyllenhaal).
The puzzles have since been removed, and displayed on the website (http://www.whysoserious.com/) is the final page (which was originally displayed only once the puzzles were solved). You'll notice a little flashing pixel--if you click it, it brings you to the trailer page, which includes a hi-defionition download.
Oh, this is neat, too: the first puzzle involved dialing an 800 number which played a recording of some guy being "held hostage" by the Joker. I actually found it to be genuinely unsettling.
Quote from: Midnite on July 27, 2007, 10:34:06 AM
www.whysoserious.com
You guys on the site?
The 1st password is: Inside Joke
2nd: Jack the Ripper
There's a phone number in the sky its 1 800 395 9646, its creepy.
You aint lyin, brother. Creepy as heck. Sent delightful shivers racing down my spine.
BTW, the trailer is now avaliable on that site, if youtube pulls down the linked copy.
Its hidden, but not hard to find.
Yes, I KNOW THE TRAILER IS AVAILABLE ON THAT SITE. SHEESH WHY DO PEOPLE IGNORE HALF OF WHAT I SAID!
The trailers on the site are of various qualities, but are all meant for HG. They don't fit my screen, plus they'll take a bit to download. I imagine I am not by any means the only one.
Direct downloads:
http://video.whysoserious.com/TDK_Teaser_HD_Medium_bV78g1K.mov (http://video.whysoserious.com/TDK_Teaser_HD_Medium_bV78g1K.mov)
http://video.whysoserious.com/TDK_Teaser_HD_High_Yuu675D.mov (http://video.whysoserious.com/TDK_Teaser_HD_High_Yuu675D.mov)
http://video.whysoserious.com/TDK_Teaser_HD_Best_L98hufT.mov (http://video.whysoserious.com/TDK_Teaser_HD_Best_L98hufT.mov)
*Sigh*
Those exact same links were given in an earlier post above. They are all HD.
I've seen the trailer anyway, so I really don't care. I probably ought to stay away form this thread for a while anyways, as this constant going in circles is driving me nuts.
I mean, I appreciate you people trying to be helpful, but when you're just repeating EXACTLY the same thing that everyone else did, it gets maddening pretty quickly.
Okay....I'm really getting unhappy with the Joker's look. Even my wife said he just looked 'wrong.' This is not to say I'm not still really excited about the movie, but I really want to see an all white Joker, not this freak show.
I kind of agree. all I can think of is the Cesar Romero Joker being channeled by heath ledger. I'll still will see the movie but the look is kind of turning me away.
The Joker's look? Does the teaser even show anything? I just get dialogue with the bat-symbol sort of disintegrating, with the title and a date at the end. Or is this just referring to the earlier pics of the Joker?
I am refering to the previous pics. there is a new one under a spoiler tag on the previous page. The voice does sound relatively interesting. *sigh* if only Mark Hammil was younger, lol. You know I kind of wish Cillian Murphy wasnt the Scarecrow. I would like to see him in Joker makeup just because the dude has some pretty creepy eyes I think. Anyway I am still curious how the joker will play out.
*edit* You know I like the Laugh but I wish it was drawn out more. I always think of jokers maniacal laugh as a little bit more drawn out :)
I got the video to play just fine without it being in HD. I just went to http://whysoserious.com/ (http://whysoserious.com/) and clicked the box on top of the page. No HD, no size issues and a quick download. Sometimes it just pays to look for yourself. ;)
-MJB
Yeah, I looked back on this page anyway, and actually got a good answer.
Part of the problem is the sheer number of times that web page has been changed today. Three times that I've seen, so I had no idea the movies were even accessible form there, and that format of the movie was not there at all.
Personally I like the make-up because Nolan is attempting a more realistic approach. He is giving the Joker a bit of make over to carry to the big screen. I've seen some set footage of Ledger in make-up and in costume, and I think he looks great. Honestly did you think a mystery cyntric director like Nolan would give away the Joker's origin. Do I wish the make up were more cleanly done yes, but I think that given a chance Ledger and Nolan will give us a great Joker, he's following the killing joke and the first apperances for crying out loud, and if you add a dash of long halloween it will be great.
I hate the Killing Joke, I really don't see what people think is so great about it. The Joker is the embodiment of chaos, the man should be an enigma, and his origin shouldn't ever be revealed. Still, I don't think the make-up is any more realistic really, I think it's just stupid. I've been all for all of the changes they've made in this Batman, (didn't really love the Batmobile, but it worked out alright) and I still have some faith, but I REALLY don't like this look the Joker has...he just looks....sloppy.
Quote from: BentonGrey on July 29, 2007, 12:55:11 PM
I hate the Killing Joke, I really don't see what people think is so great about it. The Joker is the embodiment of chaos, the man should be an enigma, and his origin shouldn't ever be revealed.
That's the cool thing about Killing Joke; Moore leaves it very ambiguous. Even the Joker admits he's not sure if he's remembering what really happened, or if it's just another delusion: "If I'm going to have a past, I prefer it to be multiple choice!"
Yeah, and I like the fact that it's not necessarily canon, but I still don't care very much for the story.
Even if you don't care for the plot, you have to admit the art and Joker's dialogue is fantastic.
Moore didn't really like The Killing Joke either, did he?
the killing joke is canon, dc has said that many times, and even referenced it in the hush returns story
of course its canon. how can there be any debate. babs is in a wheelchair aint she?
*slaps forehead and then slaps detourne for good measure*
the man makes a point
what's "not necessarily canon" about it is The Joker's memory of the origin. The Joker doesn't even have a coherent memory of how got to where he is. That's the point of the story.
Having said that . . .
Certain things have been revealed about The Joker over time. The Killing Joke ties them together and elaborates.
As for The Dark Knight, it is not going to be solely based on The Killing Joke. It's been said several times that The Dark Knight script draws from five different sources: The Joker's first appearance (which I have a reprint of), a story that Denny O'Neil did called "The Joker's Five Way Revenge", The Killing Joke, Long Halloween, and Batman Beings.
Exactly Mr. Hammick, I didn't mean the story itself, merely the Joker's origin. I'd be much happier if they were sticking to the Bob Kane stories, with a dash of B:TAS thrown in.
Quote from: BentonGrey on July 30, 2007, 08:46:22 PM
Exactly Mr. Hammick, I didn't mean the story itself, merely the Joker's origin. I'd be much happier if they were sticking to the Bob Kane stories, with a dash of B:TAS thrown in.
The Denny O'Neil material is the reason The Joker is the character he is today. Without O'Neil doing the very story they are using then you'd have the Ceasar Romeo version . . . aka The Harmless Buffoonish clown from the 50s and 60s.
As for the inclusion of Long Halloween, we all know that is because of The Dent element.
I doubt we are going to get the whole Killing Joke backstory. I know we won't in fact. There's no way Nolan can use TOO much of it. That feeds into where the film IS a continuation of Batman Begins.
Bottom line, Benton, is that Nolan is not going to give up 100% of any of the old material he is drawing from for Joker's origin. However, what he will do is give us as good or better than Batman Begins. Nolan is more suited to doing the Batman movies on his worst day than Tim Burton on his "best". The work he did and surprises he gave with Batman Begins proves it.
I suppose I should have clarified that I don't know O'Neil's work, (at least not off the top of my head, although there is a good chance I read some of it at some time or another) and therefore have no opinion on it.
Long Halloween's Joker.....nothing really against it, and the Dent story is.....good, but I prefer (yes, again, I'm sorry but I have to say it) the TAS version....I feel like there is more hope in it.
I agree, Nolan has my faith still....but that doesn't mean I like the look of the Joker.
read Denny's Batman ... you'll like it. Jokers 5 Way Revange is great.
Where can I find it? Is it a particular run in a certain title or collected in TPB?
Heath Ledger looks good as the Joker from what has been shown. Oh, and the makeup looks great, too.
I don't see the problem, mostly because there isn't one.
- "See You In December" the site mentioned at "IBelieveInHarveyDentToo.com" if you take away all the "HAHAHAH"s refers to the forthcoming film "I am Legend". I suspect this will be the film of which the next teaser or a full trailer (though probably too early for a full trailer) will be attached to. The trailer will be up on that site after some sort of gag.
- Stay Tuned! A new Joker site to appear next month. OR was that this month.
- There will be a panel at Wizard World Chicago. Could the full cast be annouced? Could be get a new viral site game? Could we get a second teaser? Again, stay tuned.
- I'm pretty sure I know who Anthony Michaell Hall is playing. I think he will look interesting if he is that character and he is in costume.
Quote from: ips on July 31, 2007, 09:01:14 AM
just assuming everyone has seen this... but if they haven't...
http://www.popoholic.com/photo.php?id=theknife&title=Joker%20from%20Batman%20Dark%20Knight%20Pictures
*sigh*
Well, Anthony Micheal Hall...........Riddler? He'd do a great job.....much better than Jim Carey...ugh....
the fact that the thing on his face is an ACTUAL chelsea grin and not just makeup he put on to look weird...well...it's creeping the hell out of me. :mellow:
Quote from: The Pwime on August 01, 2007, 06:47:59 PM
the fact that the thing on his face is an ACTUAL chelsea grin and not just makeup he put on to look weird...well...it's creeping the hell out of me. :mellow:
If I remember right Bob Kane was inspired to create Joker (DC denies it though) by an old silent picture about a man who goes crazy after recieving a chelsea grin.
Conrad Viedt from the film The Man Who Laughs. Great film.
I've always heard that Kane saw the film and that Conrad's character inspired the look of the character. I presume that is what Nolan went for with the look of the character here.
Yep, I'm pretty sure that Kane himself had confirmed that somewhere.
Behind the scene Joker footage (http://www.myfoxchicago.com/myfox/pages/Home/Detail;jsessionid=1180BA1F4E76C1A81069C939E0E09CB5?contentId=3964124&version=4&locale=EN-US&layoutCode=VSTY&pageId=1.1.1&sflg=1)
Still shot from the footage:
(http://www.hollywoodchicago.com/uploaded_images/joker2_fox.jpg)
[spoiler]Wizard Universe article (http://www.wizarduniverse.com/movies.../005607875.cfm)
QuoteMinutes ago, the capacity crowd at Wizard World Chicago was treated to the first look at "The Dark Knight" – the much anticipated sequel to fan favorite "Batman Begins." With actors Christian Bale, Gary Oldman and Aaron Eckhart on hand along with Nolan and screenwriters Jonah Nolan and David Goyer, DC Publisher Paul Levitz led the crowd through a spirited and secretive Q&A before getting to a sneak peek at the Dark Knight's most recent on-screen battle with his arch nemesis, The Joker.
Fans were only allowed to see it once, and while it might be some time before the footage will be released to theaters across America, Wizard Universe was on hand to witness the action and give a full report.
The footage started with a silhouette of a dark figure in front of one of Batman's armored vehicles before quickly cutting to Bruce Wayne and Alfred delivering the brief lines heard in the "Dark Knight" teaser trailer.
"Some people just want to watch the world burn," advises Alfred before the camera jumps to Batman in action on the Batpod, the new iteration of his motorcycle.
The action built up as the Joker was seen in full for the first time with a mess of white face, smeared red lipstick and sweaty, straggly green hair. Apparently, the clown prince of crime gets arrested at one point in the film, as the montage presented Jim Gordon (complete in SWAT gear) at the Joker's booking, saying, "no prints, no ID, custom clothes, no tags." The clown smiles with what appears to be blood over his face from the inside of an interrogation room.
Checking back in with Bruce Wayne, the billionaire playboy has a brief scene with Eckhart's Harvey Dent where he says "Rachel's told me everything about you."
"I truly hope not," responds Wayne.
The footage sped up at that point into an intense montage of action, featuring the following clips:
- The new batsuit rising up from a trap door in the ground and held in a chain metal case.
- Rachel Dawes (played by Maggie Gyllenhaal) close to an unidentified man either kissing him or being threatened by him as the camera rotates around them.
- The Joker and Batman battling in close quarters (possibly a hospital room). Batman throws Joker over a table and crashing into the ground while the clown smiles at him. It should be noted that the Joker was done up in his signature purple suit.
- Plenty of big, bold Batmobile action including a shot where the tank-like car drives through a wall of flame. In fact, flames were pretty much everywhere in the footage as it appears Joker does actually make the world burn.
- There is also a shot of a somewhat grim-faced Joker walking across a city street mercilessly firing a machine gun as well as a television close-up of the Joker laughing hysterically.
- Two major additions to the speculation that Two Face will appear in the film came in the form of a single shot of a spinning 50 cent piece and the final image: after the action montage has slowed down, the camera cuts to a bartender looking at Harvey Dent, whose only onscreen presence is his left shoulder and a bit of a reddish-purple scarred neck. "Dent! I thought you were dead!" the man gasps, to which Harvey replies, "Half."
[/spoiler]
Ok...so that sounds....amazing. :o
http://ca.share.geocities.com/cfadw_100140412/tdk.jpg
If only they'd give him good makeup...........everything else looks fantastic, even the Joker's costume...
Leaked Photos:
http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=1142239954&size=o
More photos ... a lot of Joker.
http://www.cinemablend.com/new/7-Minutes-Of-Dark-Knight-6656.html
Quote7-Minute Dark Knight Prologue in December?
Source: Superhero Hype!
October 15, 2007
Omelette is reporting that Warner Bros. Pictures is planning to show a 7-minute The Dark Knight prologue featuring Heath Ledger as The Joker in front of screenings of Will Smith-starrer I Am Legend in IMAX theaters on December 14.
Stay tuned for possibly more on this...
I agree with Benton Grey- Joker's makeup is NOT supposed to stop at his neck. :(
Still dying to see this, though.
Regarding the Joker's makeup:
from what I've heard, he starts the movie in this makeup then befalls his chemical accident, which actually disfigures him and bleaches his skin.
at the very least, this is what I hope happens.. cuz that whole Joker costume is PERFECT except for the whole 'makeup-ending-at-the-neck' thing..
-CM
Quote from: Cardmaster on October 17, 2007, 06:57:40 PM
Regarding the Joker's makeup:
from what I've heard, he starts the movie in this makeup then befalls his chemical accident, which actually disfigures him and bleaches his skin.
at the very least, this is what I hope happens.. cuz that whole Joker costume is PERFECT except for the whole 'makeup-ending-at-the-neck' thing..
-CM
hate to say it CM, cause i'm in agreement with you, but the whole white face is going to remain make-up its the scar smile which makes him go nuts
all in the name of realism :rolleyes:
As I said before, that's a HORRIBLE idea.
Ditto on the horrible Joker makeup job. Part of the Joker is looking larger-than-life, which includes the well-combed green hair, bright red neat lipstick, and bleached white skin. This just makes him look like a strung-out drug addict.
Oddly enough, the portrayal of the Scarecrow in Batman Begins didn't bother me nearly as much as the apparent style of the Joker's makeup. I mean, you pretty much only saw the Scarecrow in his mask, with no other themed costuming, but it still worked.
am I the only one who thinks the makeup thing isn't a big deal?
Quote from: TheMarvell on October 18, 2007, 02:26:38 PM
am I the only one who thinks the makeup thing isn't a big deal?
no there are a lot of fans who don't mind, though the majority of them basically agree with anything nolan puts forward.
If I might make a suggestion here, despitenot really keeping up with everything :huh:
As I recall, Two-Face is supposed to be in this one too, right? If so, the "makeup only" thing makes more sense, at least from the standpoint of bringing the story together. Having both main villains with faces altered by chemicals makes them seem unoriginal, and would horribly distract viewers from the actual story. It comes down to a simple truth: Joker's accident is part of the character's history, yes, but the core of the character is that he's a psychopathic clown. However, the core of Dent's character is his tragedy, the fact that everything was taken from him the moment chemicals splashed in his face. We might not like it, but of the two characters Joker is the one better suited to lose the chemical bath.
In the end, if they do him right it won't matter if he's in makeup or acid-burnt. He'll be the psycho we all love, and that's all that really matters, right?
^my thoughts exactly. Besides, at least he's not wearing a rejected Power Rangers villain suit or a paintball outfit with a snowboard. :banghead: Why Raimi? why?
The last time I checked the Joker was an insane, homicidal, maniac... why would he care what he looks like?
-MJB
Quote from: MJB on October 18, 2007, 11:34:07 PM
The last time I checked the Joker was an insane, homicidal, maniac... why would he care what he looks like?
-MJB
*raises hand quietly*
...that was kinda my mentality.. I mean, I just like to see different peoples' interpretations of characters.. :)
-CM :cardmaster
guess we're getting something new soon
www.whysoserious.com
I think the make-up issue was a huge problem with Burton's version because retakes made it hard to fix issues with the makeup being smudged or rubbing off on other things. This was addressed in a interview in the Special Edition 2-Disc set of Batman when the editors were forced to use a scene with Jack Nicholson doing a line with an obvious makeup error. Due to the white makeup rubbing off on the jacket he was wearing they had to do several retakes and used purple shoe polish to fix the white spots on the neck of that jacket. Now the best take used in the film shows Jack stepping out of the shadows to say his intro line and if you slow frame the scene there is a giant purple mark on his neck from the boot polish. That error has been a thorn in the makeup artists side for years now because any full-body makeup just keeps getting on everything that the actor wears or accidently rubbed against their face or neck.
I think they stuck to the face-only makeup to avoid this issue and if they do have him transform into his white-skin look later in the film it should be during the finale and probably shot in a single scene to avoid the makeup smearing issues.
- CrimsonQuill
CQ, they're filmakers, they're supposed to find ways around things like that. I still say this just looks terrible. The more often I see it the more I dislike it.
Er... I agree with Benton on this. If they can find a way to make Mystique in full blue body makeup, they can design a white face makeup that doesn't smudge or do something to avoid the smudging.
Again, I don't think it's a bad thing that he isn't full body, as long as they give good reason for his craziness and they do his character properly. But if it's just "It wuz tu hard!" rather then anything to do with the story, then it's complete BS.
Quote from: TheMarvell on October 18, 2007, 02:26:38 PM
am I the only one who thinks the makeup thing isn't a big deal?
A big deal in that it will stop me from seeing the movie? No.
But I dont see what the big deal wouldve been in getting it right, either.
Quote from: crimsonquill on October 19, 2007, 02:27:41 PM
I think they stuck to the face-only makeup to avoid this issue and if they do have him transform into his white-skin look later in the film it should be during the finale and probably shot in a single scene to avoid the makeup smearing issues.
To me, at least, the primary motivation to keep Joker's look grounded in reality is to get away from the horribly cheesy visuals of the Schumacher Batman films (and the less cheesy but still "acquired-taste" stylings of the first 2 films helmed by Tim Burton). I just recently saw "Batman Forever" again on cable (I know, I'm a glutton for punishment) and I can't believe they actually released that turd. For all the millions it cost to make the movie, in terms of visuals, it looked no better than a Power Rangers episode. I know Schumacher wanted to recreate the campy feel of the Adam West Batman show, but if that was the whole idea, they could have just made the film using the equivalent effects-and-costumes budget of three episodes of Black Scorpion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Scorpion_(TV_series)).
Nolan wants a totally clean break from the previous series of Batman films, so I'm not surprised with the decision to render Joker in the manner we're seeing in the leaked photos and the teasers. Despite the recent commercial
and critical success of films like Batman Begins, Spider-Man 1 & 2, X-Men 1 & 2, Hellboy, and Blade 2, there are still a lot of people who immediately dismiss any media related to superheroes as being fodder for children and "Comic Book Guy"-type hobbysists. I'm not saying Heath Ledger in mime make-up is going to change their minds, but at the very least, it'll add to the growing list of comic book-to-film adaptations that have finally started to realize that comics and film are two distinct media, and that sometimes, material has to be adapted accordingly for them to achieve as much wide appeal as possible.
Note that I'm not saying that they had to re-do Joker's appearance to make him palatable to current audiences (personally, I think "comic book Joker" doesn't look any less "silly" than the version of Batman's costume on Batman Begins), but I can understand the logic if the primary reason for the departure from his comic book look was to garner more non-comic book reading viewers.
Quote from: BentonGrey on October 19, 2007, 03:02:22 PM
CQ, they're filmakers, they're supposed to find ways around things like that. I still say this just looks terrible. The more often I see it the more I dislike it.
Quote from: Tomato on October 20, 2007, 09:42:44 AM
Er... I agree with Benton on this. If they can find a way to make Mystique in full blue body makeup, they can design a white face makeup that doesn't smudge or do something to avoid the smudging.
Mystique's makeup was 60% rubber latex for the body and 40% body paint which was maticuliously layered for hours so that it looked as seemless as possible. And note that she never wore any clothes at all with the blue paint on and when Mystie was in her human mode (X-Men 2 & 3) she just had to wear her contacts to give the audience the impression that she was a mutant. Under hot lights and sweaty conditions there are very few makeups that don't smear or rub off after numberous takes. The way to avoid that problem is try to limit the use of that appearence or do single take scenes that only need "touch-up" work if some reshoots need to be done.
If they had gone with a more extreme use of makeup for Joker like having an extended chin and a wig for his hair then they could have a neck/shoulder mask peice made which could be albino white complete with blood vessels showing under the surface. This would avoid the issue of makeup rubbing off on clothes and allow the costume designers the freedom to not have to hide his neckline.
The more I think about it... Joker's makeup in the Batman: Deadend fan film still is the definite look as far as I'm concerned because it was realistic and required no makeup peices to pull off his nose or chin.
- CrimsonQuill
I think Joker's look is fine ... its grounded in the semi-realism that these Batman films are obviously aiming for. Heath Ledger's acting is what I'm a little worried about.....
ZD, I don't think his goofy, half-a'ed appearance is going to help win any converts.
Amen Breden. Some things are just right the way they are. Superman's costume, the Flash's suit, the Joker's appearance. They don't need to be screwed with. While I can appreciate the idea of removing these films from the horror that is Schumacher, the Joker looking like the Joker has nothing to do with that.
personally I'm 60/40 in the realism argument, i do agree it helps add to certain characters, but i feel that if nolan sticks to his guns that everything has to be grounded in reality then we can kiss good bye to a lot of classic villains or see them horribly butchered and changed.
i think ledger will be a fantastic joker and will play the part fantastically but i just cant help but feeling the artists stopped about a stage too soon.
also i might be late to the dance here but i'm starting that in a the majority of fan citcles to notice that if you enjoyed burtons films your basically not a fan and treated like an outcast. note i'm in no way saying that's happening here but some of the bat boards are like war zones
The site: http://whysoserious.com/ has been updated. Looks like the candle is actually melting. So something could happen in days or on Halloween. Interesting...
The last 5 days screenshot
(http://i23.tinypic.com/2dvkec7.jpg)
Personally, I don't mind the Joker as make-up vs. chemically altered skin. Perhaps this is the "ultimatization" of the character, but I don't personally see it as that important. What makes the Joker the Joker is what's between his ears, not on his skin. I would be much more upset if they were somehow fundamentally changing the persona of the character as opposed to the "detail" of how/why he looks the way he does.
I love the first Batman, but the second was just so.....wrong, on so many levels. Still, I don't think anyone here is talking that bad about the Burton films...Schumacher...yeah.
huh ... I thought the second Burton Batman film was a lot better than the first one, after watching them both not too long ago.
the second one gets a lot of flak due to the changes made to catwoman and penguin, though i still say the changes to Oswald added to the character
By making him a sewer mutant? Making him feel like an outcast has always been part of the character, but making him a freak like that is something else.
:EDIT: To be fair, I liked it when I was a kid, but that was before I was old enough to realize that everything out of the Penguin's mouth was a filthy euphemism. I can't say I really care for that.
Batman 1 was good, a little dark perhaps, but not bad. I think alot of that was because Jack Nicolson owned Joker for that era, no matter what nitpicks we have now.
Returns on the other hand, took that dark uber-Burton aspect and beat the movie to death with it. Catwoman was ok(a bit overly insane, but again, burton) but yeah, Sewer-mutant Penguin=fail.
Forever was... well I won't say good, but conceptually it was nice to steer away from the uber-dark of the first two. Horribly horribly campy, but if they'd moved on to something a little more grounded I might have liked it better in context.
& Robin-Uber-fail. I give a good ammount of slack to forever, but & Robin sucked. Dying Alfred? Neon Biker races? *shudder*
Ok, I am going to be a bit of a voice of dissent here. The 1989 Batman movie was okay at best. Taken for what it was, it was good. As a "Batman" film, it was ok at best. As much as I like Jack Nicholson, I think had be given the REAL ability to run with The Joker character, he would've been so much better. Instead, we got a gangster in clown make-up who, while he was a sociopath, was hardly "The Joker" from the comics. Burton was great with the visuals on the film. However, there were a lot of places where he dropped the ball. This is even more evident with Batman Returns and all the character backstory changes. Go back and watch the 1989 film again, the scenes with The Joker had more detail put into them and seemingly more effort.
As for Nolan's vision on The Joker, I've heard nothing but good things from the set. I suspect that we are getting the whole story based on a couple of production stills. I could be wrong on this but I have my reasons for suspecting this. I suspect, like many have suggested, that The Joker's makeup look will evolve as the film progresses. One of my reasons for this suspicion is this:
[spoiler] The Joker is apparently going to be in parts two and three as well as Two Face. There are some additional rumors that we are getting Harley Quinn and The Riddler somewhere in the mix of parts two and three. [/spoiler]
I largely enjoyed the Burton films, even if I had quibbles with what was done with some of the characters.
Jack Nicholson as the Joker, based on the material available at the time, was in my mind a solid Joker performance. I feel that it was later trumped by the version created by The Animated Series on Fox, but I don't hold that against Nicholson and Burton for how they previously envisioned the character.
I certainly plan to see the Dark Knight with an open mind. I'm willing to be pleasantly surprised by a new take on the Joker, if it looks like it works.
However, the characterization of the Joker that I have seen and enjoyed has typically been one of an insane, violent psychotic that still very much cares about style and presentation. The style, the toy-and-novelty gags, the clown-like appearance... these all became part of his psychosis, and helped define the character that I loved to watch.
Hence, when I see a Joker with stringy hair, partially applied white greasepaint, and smeared lipstick, I don't see a devilish psychotic that can pull off atrocities with style. I see... a dangerous and disturbed thug, pretty much. And that's what makes me hesitate initially, because it suggests a character that I don't expect to find particularly engaging.
My view of both Burton and Nolan is that they're pretty good at mood, but lousy at action. Batman is scary and angsty and all that, but he's also an action hero. He's a supremely skilled acrobat and martial artist -- he should be pulling off moves that make Jackie Chan gasp in envy. Instead, we get heavy shadows and quick-cuts to hide the fact that the actors (or stuntmen) can barely move in those silly rubber gimp suits. I still remember the hilarious scene in Burton's 1st movie where Keaton hears something above him, and has to bend at the waist to look up, because he can't turn his head at all. It's like all they care about is how the suit will look on the movie poster, and give no thought to how it will actually function on-screen. Lame.
As for the Joker, we'll just have to see. I agree that the fact that Joker is a bit of a dandy is actually a large part of his charm: Stylish and a bit goofy on the outside, monster on the inside. It looks like Nolan is taking a pass on that dichotomy, and trying to make the outside as freaky and disturbing as the inside. It could work, though it's a little overly-literal for my tastes -- I think superheroes work best when they're highly metaphorical, but that seems to be the minority view these days.
Yeah, that's one thing I'm really hoping that they've learned their lesson about. The action for Batman begins was really quite good, all things considered, but hopefully we'll get away from the claustrophobic shots and actually see some of the action in this movie. The signs look good, just take a gander at the new batsuit. It's definitely designed to make that kind of movement easier.
Latest rumour:
Apparently The Dark Knight is still filming in the Battersea Power Station after last week's shocking explosion. Here's an update posted on SpoilerTV:
On the evening of Sunday 21st Oct a couple of dark blue SWAT vans with 'City of Gotham Police Dept.' written on the sides were parked on the site, and a dark blue helicopter (didn't see any insignia) was flying low near the power station. This morning (Monday 22nd Oct) as I passed the area on the train again, the two SWAT vans were still in the same place, but a long white tent had now been erected nearby and there were quite a few cars on the site, so I guess some filming must have taken place at some point during the day as well.
Meanwhile, a German website Kino.de has a very good article about The Dark Knight. The site is in German, after I translate it with Yahoo here's what I got:
:spoiler:
* Batman will go to Hongkong for some kind of "gangster hunting", but the producer Chuck Roven won't tell us why Batman travels to Hongkong.
* The IMAX preview with I Am Legend is the first five minutes of the film.
* "The whole thing is not 'Joker Begins', because we did not tell how the Joker became what he is", says director Christopher Nolan. "During these five minutes it is shown how the joker of the small crook becomes the most-dreaded gangster of the city - it is more of a "The Rise of the Joker"
* Batman's new mask will have white lenses on the eyes when he turn on the Bat-sonar detection.
Source: http://www.batmovienews.com/tdk/batm...-white-lenses/
I like the white lens thing, that will look cool.
Hmmm...
anyone else been checking out the whysoserious website?
Sure the candle has burned down to almost nothing, but notice how the rightside of the pumpkin is now starting to rot?
Hmmm...
RTT
im probably last to notice this, but the mouth is shaped like the bat-signal
great observation
[spoiler]it almost looks like that pumpkin is being beginning to have a scarred left side of the face . . . . making it look like that there are two parts of it. what could it mean?[/spoiler]
Its going to end up looking like this:
[spoiler](http://i21.tinypic.com/21bk4ua.jpg)[/spoiler]
After 10 days:
(http://i22.tinypic.com/vd0rxf.jpg)
I agree Middy. I also suspect that we may get something else from the occasion as well.
nice find middy
Heh, according to Wikipedia, Long Halloween was one of the direct inspirations for the storyline of Dark Knight...
Excellent find, Middy... Excellent find....
god, this movie is going to be amazing...
maybe Two-Face revealed?
A little reminder, check out the site at midnight. Can't wait to see what it is.
The burning pumpkin over at www.whysoserious.com (http://www.whysoserious.com) has been replaced with a game.
sunrise tomorrow it begins. and there are landmarked destinations up for several cities
if i didn't have something to do in the morning i would be tracking down the Atlanta one.
curious
edit:
Each city has TWO destinations apparently. The two Atlanta ones are in two blocks of one another approximately. One of the locations is the court of appeals and the other is near GA State Univ.
Does that remind anyone else of Edward Nigma?
Quote from: BentonGrey on October 30, 2007, 09:47:17 PM
Does that remind anyone else of Edward Nigma?
no, not at all. considering the last romp that was done. Mr. Nygma asks riddles, he doesn't create elaborate games.
Got one Miami clue down...
... and I even found a picture of it online that I can send in. :)
The other clue I know where it is, but no idea what they're asking for. Oh well.
RTT
anyone else getting annoyed with this, its fun tease and great marketing but come on. it better be worth it
"The Only Way To Live In This World Is Without Rules"
When you click on the picture beneath that note, you get a another production still from the movie. This one looks to be The Joker in the backseat with someone else driving the car. The person driving the car's face is blurred.
There is audio: "So, tonight you're going to break your one rule." said in a bit of a whisper.
And there is another link when you click on that site. You are taken to a site called "www.rorysdeathkiss.com (http://www.rorysdeathkiss.com)" and another game is revealed. This one involves taking your picture while made up like The Joker in front of one of your city's most favorite landmarks. He is asking that the game begin tomorrow.
anyone else feel let down all this for a picture and another blooming game, we better get something major sometime soon
Quote from: the_ultimate_evil on October 31, 2007, 04:19:45 PM
anyone else feel let down all this for a picture and another blooming game, we better get something major sometime soon
Well the big thing is suppose to happen in December. This was just a Halloween treat, they didn't have to do anything you know.
the thing in December has already been confirmed as the 5 minute preview linked with i am legend
well the deadline on the picture contest has past.
there is a note on Rorysdeathkiss.com that says all the people who sent in pictures will be receiving a little something in the mail just "after the Turkey's been carved" so I presume that those participating will be getting a little present from The Joker.
we'll see what happens.
Your very own Smilex™ laced votive candle!!
http://www.thegothamtimes.com (http://www.thegothamtimes.com)
the people who participated in the last stunt got hard copies of the thing mailed to them.
Quote
The newspaper that comes as the prize has a giant headline that says: CITY AT WAR: Batman Saves Entire Family.
There is an article 'Dent Tip Line Targets Dirty Cops.'
Other articles include:
Family Torn Apart By Fear;
Probe: Mental Hospital Overcrowding;
Housing Prices Plummet As Families Flee City;
and Playboy Bruce Wayne Can't Stop Partying!
There are dozens more in the 4 page paper. They sent 25 copies!"
Hate to double post but . . . The Gotham Times site is online . . . and so are these:
http://www.thehahahatimes.com (http://www.thehahahatimes.com)
http://www.wearetheanswer.org/ (http://www.wearetheanswer.org/)
http://www.gothampolice.com/ (http://www.gothampolice.com/)
http://www.gothamcityrail.com/ (http://www.gothamcityrail.com/)
http://www.rememberinggina.org/ (http://www.rememberinggina.org/)
Plus, http://www.whysoserious.com (http://www.whysoserious.com) has a personality profile up
News
The Joker Revealed Early!
Source: Darrell
November 27, 2007
The new Empire magazine cover (January 2008 issue) featuring Heath Ledger as The Joker in The Dark Knight, that was supposed to debut in full online in 1 day http://www.empireonline.com/heiscoming/ , has already been leaked and can be viewed below. Warner Bros. will release the Batman Begins follow-up on July 18.
http://www.superherohype.com/news/topnews.php?id=6554
Well..........that looks terrible. He looks like Beetlejuice.
I like it. It isn't the clearest shot of his face, but the attire looks cool. It looks cooler with the overcoat on, too.
I just want to see a trailer of him moving and speaking, still.
The vest isn't bad.....but I don't know, I just don't care for the grungy freak Joker. I like the stylish clown of B:TAS much better.
Quote from: BentonGrey on November 27, 2007, 11:56:18 AM
The vest isn't bad.....but I don't know, I just don't care for the grungy freak Joker. I like the stylish clown of B:TAS much better.
Yeah, I could see why. You might be in luck though. He might go through a change of clothes towards the end of the movie, you know?
Maybe he'll get a fancy suit on ala classic Joker ;)
Sucks! :angry: thats I gotta say about that........
He truly looks sick and twisted in that pic.
-MJB
UPDATE #9: The Dark Knight Viral Campaign (http://www.superherohype.com/news/topnews.php?id=6470)
I don't know if superherohype.com is Firefox compatible - both of the about links load blank pages . . .
Quote from: MJB on November 27, 2007, 01:51:37 PM
He truly looks sick and twisted in that pic.
-MJB
hell yeah!
this is the Joker as a psychopathic murderer who knows no fear! which is why he's the perfect villain, Nolan built Batman Begins as a complete study on fear and what it does to people. Now in the dark knight we'll have an established hero, who is used to utilizing fear in crimefighting, he won't have that luxury with the joker. and Batman's use of fear is going to come back and bite him on his arse as Dent's citywide campaign will try to take down Batman and James Gordon.
I'm really excited about this.
I went to the Harvey Dent website, wearetheanswer.org and filed a fake report about Lt. Gordon being corrupt in dealings with a shadowy figure, and I got a reply back thanking me, saying that that officer is already under suspicion because of other reports like mine.
UPDATE #10: The Dark Knight Viral Campaign (http://www.superherohype.com/news/topnews.php?id=6470)
[spoiler](http://i219.photobucket.com/albums/cc131/Jokerfan1980/195c.jpg)[/spoiler]
I'm personally excited. Just as Nolan is giving us his version of Batman, we're getting this twisted freak of a clown as his universe's Joker, and he looks phenomenal in my opinion.
-CM
Quote from: detourne_me on November 28, 2007, 09:00:48 AM
I went to the Harvey Dent website, wearetheanswer.org and filed a fake report about Lt. Gordon being corrupt in dealings with a shadowy figure, and I got a reply back thanking me, saying that that officer is already under suspicion because of other reports like mine.
Me too. I reported Harvey Dent for secretly being two-face, they sent me back something saying I was an idiot. Well, not in those exact words but I got it.
Quote from: Cardmaster on November 29, 2007, 10:27:53 PM
I'm personally excited. Just as Nolan is giving us his version of Batman, we're getting this twisted freak of a clown as his universe's Joker, and he looks phenomenal in my opinion.
-CM
Ditto.
Bah. He could have done that AND made the Joker look like the Joker, not Beetlejuice.
Quote from: BentonGrey on November 30, 2007, 12:51:55 PM
Bah. He could have done that AND made the Joker look like the Joker, not Beetlejuice.
But the point is that there's no definitive version of the Joker; just think of this like an Elseworlds rendition.
And don't be such a negative nelly. :P
-CM
Quote from: Cardmaster on November 30, 2007, 02:13:32 PM
Quote from: BentonGrey on November 30, 2007, 12:51:55 PM
Bah. He could have done that AND made the Joker look like the Joker, not Beetlejuice.
But the point is that there's no definitive version of the Joker; just think of this like an Elseworlds rendition.
And don't be such a negative nelly. :P
-CM
I would definitely disagree with that. My wife, by no means a comic book fan, looked at that picture and said, "That's not the Joker." For her, and for the culture at large, there IS a definitive Joker. He's something between Ceaser Romero, Jack Nicholson, and TAS. Still, those three have a great deal in common.
However, as I've said before, despite the fact that I really hate the look for the Joker, I still have faith that we'll get a good movie here.
Quote"That's not the Joker." For her, and for the culture at large, there IS a definitive Joker. He's something between Ceaser Romero, Jack Nicholson, and TAS.
Yes but each of those was appropriate to the batman universe they inhabited.
The world Nolan created is much more based in the grimy 'real' world of like Seven or Fight Club. As a result the Jokers you mentioned are all too "bright and shiny." While the character is a clown and basically a living cartoon character, its a cartoon character that has to fit in the reality he inhabits.
I'm totally excited by it.
Rather than trying to map a really dark homicidal serial killer onto a clown that feels out of place, they are mapping the clown imagery onto a really dark homicidal serial killer that looks and feels like Nolan's version of Gotham City. I think its definitely the right way to go. The big question for me is to whether Heath Ledger can come up with something equally as creepy and dirty in the performance.
I dunno. Doesn't work for me or my family either. i still think the movie will be good but I don't like the look big time. he looks to have no style and what's the fun in that? Feels like just another inferior to the original "reimaging" visually to me.
new picture up at SHH:
http://www.superherohype.com/news/topnews.php?id=6562
I don't hate it but it's not my favorite. Joker isn't someone who needs to be redone to look more scary like Scarecrow. Why does he look so Heath Ledgery? That's creepy in a totally different way.
Quote from: BWPS on December 01, 2007, 07:31:17 AMWhy does he look so Heath Ledgery? That's creepy in a totally different way.
Now THAT is funny! :D
New shots of Batman and Joker http://www.aintitcool.com/node/34945
I have to say that i`m a bit dissapointed with the bat-suit, dunno why, maybe because the grey on his chest doesn`t match with the rest of the suit.
What? No nipples?!
Why'd they change his suit again, I thought it looked cool in 'begins.
Not that I absolutely love the new suit or anything, but the design is much more FUNCTIONAL. You may have noticed that Bale couldn't turn his head in the suit from the first one, this one doesn't have that problem. I think they should have either made it comic colors, gray, or stuck with completely black. Still, I don't think it looks bad or anything.
On that Empire cover (http://www.superherohype.com/news/topnews.php?id=6554), the new Joker looks lame to me. He doesn't look scary or even particularly psychopathic. He just looks like a homeless guy, without a comb, wearing an ugly polyester suit. Unimpressive.
Quote from: stumpy on December 02, 2007, 06:40:11 PM
On that Empire cover (http://www.superherohype.com/news/topnews.php?id=6554), the new Joker looks lame to me. He doesn't look scary or even particularly psychopathic. He just looks like a homeless guy, without a comb, wearing an ugly polyester suit. Unimpressive.
THANK YOU! I'm telling you, it's like an out of work Beetlejuice. He's creepy in the same sense that the homeless guy on Main St. is creepy.....a weird crazy, but not SCARY crazy.
QuoteThe Dark Knight Trailer Update & Promo Shots
Source: ComingSoon.net
December 2, 2007
ComingSoon.net reports that, in addition to the 7-minute opening scene for The Dark Knight, we'll get to see the teaser trailer soon as well:
In just two weeks, on December 14, Warner Bros. will release the teaser trailer for Batman Begins sequel The Dark Knight in standard theaters with I Am Legend. As was previously announced, the studio will be showing the 7-minute opening scene of "Dark Knight" before the screenings of "Legend" in IMAX.
Some TDK coverage (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vFSIq2Tgp-8)
anyone grab the shots before the legals showed up
Quote from: the_ultimate_evil on December 03, 2007, 12:53:43 PM
anyone grab the shots before the legals showed up
I did! You wants 'em emailed to ya?
-CM
yeah please cm
the.ultimate.evil at googlemail.com
also the teaser poster is up
http://www.superherohype.com/news/topnews.php?id=6571
colour me not impressed
Sent 'em.
This week at the following locations there will be screenings of TDK 7min preview
NEW YORK: Dec. 6th, 6:30 pm
AMC Loews Lincoln Square IMAX
1998 Broadway
New York, NY 10023
PHILADELPHIA: Dec. 6th, 7:00 pm
King of Prussia IMAX
300 Goddard Blvd.
King of Prussia, PA 19406
CHICAGO: Dec. 6th, 7:30 pm
Navy Pier IMAX
600 E. Grand Ave. Ste.115
Chicago, IL 60611
LOS ANGELES: Dec. 6th, 6:30 pm
Bridge IMAX
6081 Center Drive
Los Angeles, CA 90045
TORONTO: Dec. 7th, 6:00 pm
Scotiabank IMAX
259 Richmond St. West
Toronto, ON M5V 3M6
http://www.whysoserious.com/steprightup/register.aspx
Early reviews of the prologue can be found here:
Major spoilers alert!!! (http://movieblog.ugo.com/index.php/movieblog/more/first_six_minutes_of_the_dark_knight_debuted_on_imax_in_nyc/)
Joker invites for prologue screenings:
http://www.movieweb.com/news/91/24891.php
http://www.comicbookresources.com/news/newsitem.cgi?id=12526
Anyways I went to the screening on Friday and the prologue was awesome. It doesn't really spoil the movie at all. Its 6 mins of the beginning of the movie. If you plan to go see I am Legend, pay the extra cash for the IMAX. Just make sure you call your theater to see if they have the prologue.
This won't last long, be quick about it...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lwT8GyLxIhk (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lwT8GyLxIhk)
RTT
still dont like the make up but ledger has got the personality down perfect
Quote from: RTTingle on December 14, 2007, 04:46:33 AM
This won't last long, be quick about it...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lwT8GyLxIhk (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lwT8GyLxIhk)
RTT
I wish they would hurry up and get those "snowblowers" on the market. (read the title of the vid)
You guys seen the new posters? :D
Glee! (http://www.superherohype.com/news/topnews.php?id=6604)
-CM
that first poster with Joker's back to us is pretty damn awesome :D
I agree. That poster looks quite cool.
From what I saw of the bootleg trailer this movie looks incredibly sweet. Ledger's voice sounds so..sinister.
Leaked trailer (http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=j7Dyb2_mxL8)
Probably its going to be up for awhile. Love the misleading title. :P
I dig Ledgers Joker so far witht he little peeks and whatnot.
Lot of flack about him copying Jack. I don't agree. Seems to be a difference in what they both did. Jack did funny with a dash of creepy. Ledger is doing creepy, with a dash of funny.
RTT
Okay......the trailer looks AWESOME. Tons of action, great stuff, Ledger's voice is OK...he's no Mark Hamill, but still, it'll work. However, all through the trailer, all I could think was.......dang, Joker needs a freakin' shower. He just looked NASTY. Where 'o where is my Clown Prince of Crime!?
So I went and saw "I am Legend" tonight (eh, it was alright, it had its moments with a weak ending) and I gotta say on the big screen the trailer is pretty impressive. I've been looking forward to it for a while (I have always loved what they did to the joker myself) and the trailer did nothing but psyche me up even more for it.
What I find funny is how many non-comic fans have no idea that its Heath Ledger playing the joker. All around us in the theater were people asking "Who is that playing the joker?"
...whoa. That trailer looks damn awesome!
also, theres a new poster on SHH. It's just of Batman looking over the city though.
Awesome trailer.
-MJB
Popular opinion seems to be that sometime today (I hope!) or at worst next Sunday, we'll find the trailer here...
http://atasteforthetheatrical.com/ (http://atasteforthetheatrical.com/)
Heh. Cute.
Is it just me, or is anyone else really enjoying this stuff? It's like we're being pulled into that world with all the puzzles and props. It helps build anticipation and it just seems --- fun.
RTT
I like the Joker in the preview even if he does look really sticky and gross. I also like the way Michael Caine talks. This looks to be a very action-packed and awesome movie. The kind that is like 2 and a half hours and when its over you're like, Man, this should've been 5 hours.
Saw the preview last night before getting freaked out by I Am Legend.
I couldn't be more excited for this movie! :D :D :D :D
There's six minutes or so of the movie online at Ain't It Cool News (it may not be there long, of course):
http://www.aintitcool.com/node/35081
Quote from: Bujin on December 16, 2007, 10:30:38 AM
There's six minutes or so of the movie online at Ain't It Cool News (it may not be there long, of course):
http://www.aintitcool.com/node/35081
:blink: That was...so..cool.
Wow.
-MJB
I'm torn.. part of me really wants to see that footage, but the other part reaaallly just wants to wait until I can see it for myself up on a big screen without scratchy audio... :unsure:
-CM
And... its up! Check out the previous mentioned website.
RTT
For those who are lazy to go back a page. :P
http://www.atasteforthetheatrical.com/deathtrap/default.htm
We saw the trailer at "I am Legend" ( Excellent film , Will smith really shows he can act.) and my wife said " Well I see the problem with the not-joker but The rest of the cast can most likely carry the film. I wish they didn't feel the need to do something different." The trailer actually turned me off all chaos and explosions little Batman goodness and a Joker I couldn't wait to leave the screen. I really loved the first film so my hopes aren't completely gone but....
It still bugs me that the Joker's makeup stops at the neck.
It wont stop me from seeing (or enjoying) the rest of the movie (which looks AWESOME) but its just incongrous enough to ruin the immersion. I'm not going to be able to forget I'm watching a movie like I usually do when I watch really good flicks. The whole time there's going to be a little voice in my head going "They got SO MUCH ELSE right - why did they stop literally half an inch from perfection."
It's like walking through the coolest, most tastefully designed house ever- then turning a corner and seeing a velvet Elvis. Oh, you can continue the tour, but there's always going to be a part of you wondering about who made the questionable artistic decision. And why.
I'm glad to finally see it at its full size.
Looks amazing. Yes, even the Joker. How dare I?! :rolleyes:
anyone know if Scarecrow will be returning?
There was a rumor of a cameo but it hasn't been confirmed.
-MJB
Just saw the trailer.
The Joker design...I don't know what I really think of it. It could very well work. And work very well.
Maybe it is the stringy hair, but the Joker's design and the way he talked almost seemed like something out of a cowboy movie. That is just the way it struck me.
A few of the scenes in the trailer reminded me of the first Burton Batman film ... such as Joker menacing Dawes in the ballroom / Basinger in the library, and facing down Batman's motorbike with a machinegun / facing down the Bat Jet with the huge pistol. It's probably an intentional homage, I'm guessing.
I've gotto say ... they should have kept The Joker out of the ads. They're really presenting this as the Joker show featuring Batman.
Aside from that, the film is looking great. Ledger's Joker is reminding me of some of the characters best appearances ... like his first story, Joker's Nine Way Revenge and Gotham Knights. And his "look" is quite good considering its a more realistic take on a very cartoony-looking character.
Quote from: Jakew on December 17, 2007, 10:14:28 PM
A few of the scenes in the trailer reminded me of the first Burton Batman film ... such as Joker menacing Dawes in the ballroom / Basinger in the library, and facing down Batman's motorbike with a machinegun / facing down the Bat Jet with the huge pistol. It's probably an intentional homage, I'm guessing.
I've gotto say ... they should have kept The Joker out of the ads. They're really presenting this as the Joker show featuring Batman.
Aside from that, the film is looking great. Ledger's Joker is reminding me of some of the characters best appearances ... like his first story, Joker's Nine Way Revenge and Gotham Knights. And his "look" is quite good considering its a more realistic take on a very cartoony-looking character.
Ditto that.
Bah. My wife watched the trailer with me, and was disgusted (both literally and figuratively) with the Joker.
Yay! My wife watched the trailer with me, and is excited with this take on the Joker.
;)
That trailer both fills me with glee and dispair. :wacko: I love the way Ledger sounds and the body movement looks great but that make up makes him look like a homeless man with palsy applying lipstick. If they could have kept it neater with a sense of style it would be so awesome. Any nut job can smear lipstick allover himself but it takes a true maniac to go through with the effort of getting it right
I think it looks ok (and that's coming from somebody who isn't really a fan of Batman).
New images (http://www.superherohype.com/news/topnews.php?id=6723)
That poster has a Batman '89 feel to it.
Linky (http://www.superherohype.com/news.php?id=6905)
New pics!
Quote from: BentonGrey on December 17, 2007, 11:44:35 PM
Bah. My wife watched the trailer with me, and was disgusted (both literally and figuratively) with the Joker.
We saw the Iron Man trailer at the same time and my wife who loved" Batman Begins" thinks its the best Batman movie ever but finds Iron Man just ok normally, Said she was way more interested in Iron Man. I really hope its better than the trailers. I want to see a batman movie not a Joker movie.
i always hated the joker but i do like the way he looks in the new batman.
Bale and Nolan on Heath.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7PWB8Spe0JY
Actually, shouldn't the Joker be disgusting? He isn't a nice fellow. Even the TAS version was severely lightened. You should fear the joker and be revolted by him. So far, I'm okay with it, in spite of the sloppy make up.
Quote from: catwhowalksbyhimself on March 16, 2008, 05:55:47 PM
Actually, shouldn't the Joker be disgusting? He isn't a nice fellow.
Too literal. The whole point is the irony of a silly-looking clown who is deep down a psycho. He's the flip-side of Batman, a scary demonic-looking guy who is really a hero.
Quote from: JKCarrier on March 17, 2008, 09:35:27 AM
Quote from: catwhowalksbyhimself on March 16, 2008, 05:55:47 PM
Actually, shouldn't the Joker be disgusting? He isn't a nice fellow.
Too literal. The whole point is the irony of a silly-looking clown who is deep down a psycho. He's the flip-side of Batman, a scary demonic-looking guy who is really a hero.
Thank you, and that is precisely it.
Quote from: ips on March 17, 2008, 10:36:09 AM
change is good. these characters need to find context in a more sophisticated and modern generation. they need to be re imagined. the previous interpretations of the character worked for that time because it was a less sophisticated time with less discerning minds that hadn't seen it all done before - the way our world is now. a stupid looking clown would look stupid to our modern audiences and would end up being more Burton-esque crap.
benton: you've beaten this argument to death here for months now since the pics were first shown. i think the whole board knows how you feel about the joker design, let it go.
i happen to think your interpretation is incorrect. but that's my opinion, just as much as you claim this new design is too literal and isn't supposed to be that way. we will all interpret characters differently. in the end the public will decide if the design is a winner or not by how well they receive the character when they watch the movie.
IPS, I've stayed out of this debate in any substantial way lately because I feel like I've voiced my opinion enough, however, I would kindly thank you not to tell me how I can express myself. If I feel obliged to agree with what
someone else said, I will jolly well do so. You've expressed your opinions on this before as well, you know.
As for your thoughts on change...Suffice to say that change is not always good. Change is neutral, but it does allow the possibility of a new development being good. Great characters, like great stories, are universal. They don't need 're-imagining,' the don't need 'interpreting,' or anything else. You have your view of the issue, and I can understand that, but you have to acknowledge that the character loses some depth when the very metaphor of his existence is stripped away.
The Joker has been represented as being more twisted in appearance than comical for many years. One problem with the comical and well-dressed look is that in real life it is the epitome of camp. The new Batman franchise eliminates the camp for something dark & twisted. It's not so much a reimagining, but an evolutionary trend (or devolution if you choose) I prefer the darker Joker. I've preferred him that way for as long as I can remember. Sure, this Joker wears makeup instead of having white skin, but to me, he's still the Joker I enjoy.
i do agree and disagree, i love the look of the costume and the actual face( the dark circles and hair, still not 100% on the scarring but i can live with it), but what i dont love is the fact that its not him, it's make-up. the disturbing fact about the joker even in his first story is that at the end we find out that it is his real face and not just a mask, tat may still happen but at the moment i'm going by the info i have
Quote from: ips on March 17, 2008, 02:04:18 PM
great characters and great stories are great because they resonate inside us. that means they reach us and we can relate to them. people change over time and generations so the characters MUST be adapted for an audience to relate to the same characters and stories. otherwise the audience cannot relate and the story finds no audience.
Well said, IPS.
Art historians evaluate art based on the principle that art is a reflection of the time it was created. The Joker of yesteryear doesn't have a place in our time, and thus a new version is created to reflect the previous version, but it terms that a contemporary audience can relate to. It's common practice, and it makes sense.
Personally, I've learned to separate the source from the adaptation. The adaptation is not the source. It is an interpretation of the source. The X-Men films' Dark Phoenix storyline was very different from the source, but I still enjoyed it very much. In fact I think it was pretty freaking cool. I'll always have the book and the original story, and the movie doesn't change the book. It couldn't.
Quote from: Figure Fan on March 17, 2008, 05:37:32 PM
[
Art historians evaluate art based on the principle that art is a reflection of the time it was created. The Joker of yesteryear doesn't have a place in our time, and thus a new version is created to reflect the previous version, but it terms that a contemporary audience can relate to. It's common practice, and it makes sense.
So the current audience prefers cheesy dirty nasty crass styeless bad guys to their classy well done heroes? I'll stick to yesteryear or come to think of any number of contemporary examples that give me my "worthy foe" Ras sure filled the bill.
Uh no, they prefer scary, psychotic believable villains to cheesy, gimicky, unbelievable ones.
there's a lot of black/white bias going on here, it seems. Instead of basing Joker's appearance on the TAS/comics, why don't you base it on how well you think he actually works within the atmosphere of the movie. Just an idea.
Quote from: steamteck on March 18, 2008, 04:58:45 PM
Quote from: Figure Fan on March 17, 2008, 05:37:32 PM
[
Art historians evaluate art based on the principle that art is a reflection of the time it was created. The Joker of yesteryear doesn't have a place in our time, and thus a new version is created to reflect the previous version, but it terms that a contemporary audience can relate to. It's common practice, and it makes sense.
So the current audience prefers cheesy dirty nasty crass styeless bad guys to their classy well done heroes? I'll stick to yesteryear or come to think of any number of contemporary examples that give me my "worthy foe" Ras sure filled the bill.
Where does comparing the heroes come into this? The comparison would logically be other interpretations of the Joker, or at least other villains.
I'm of the opinion that the Batman Begins sequel, once deciding to use the Joker, absolutely had to do a unique spin on the Joker's appearance. The Jack Nicholson version was a fairly traditional visual interpretation, and is too well known to simply do the same thing again.
omg!! they're making a movie where a character is different from how they're portrayed in the comics??? :O
in seriousness, in comics, story must fit character, in movies, character must fit story.
in this case, character fits story.
my 0.02, i'm far more worried about batman's anime suit than the joker's appearance, it kinda looks like a plug suit with interchangable accessories >_> none the less, i'm sure i'll still love the movie, despite wondering exactly what cup size his bat-bra is everytime I see his chest :huh:
Quote from: Previsionary on March 18, 2008, 06:51:09 PMwhy don't you base it on how well you think he actually works within the atmosphere of the movie.
How dare you bring context into this conversation, it was perfectly fine before!
Quote from: Previsionary on March 18, 2008, 06:51:09 PM
there's a lot of black/white bias going on here, it seems. Instead of basing Joker's appearance on the TAS/comics, why don't you base it on how well you think he actually works within the atmosphere of the movie. Just an idea.
If I felt that was what was going on I would have pretty much no hope for the movie. I'm sorry but I just like my villains with a level of style I completely don't see in the previews. If the joker is just a grease painted psycho he doesn't make the cut. I could be very pleasantly surprised but them the ads are misrepresenting the movie. The fact its the same team as "Begins" will probably be the only reason I go to see the film but I have fairly low expectations.
Eh, Joker seems fine to me. Psychopathic clown with grease paint ain't all that bad. It's grittier. Would you have them remake Caesar Romero's Joker? He had all the style you guys want. But, I doubt if anyone would go see that movie. Lighten up naysayers. Complain how bad he was AFter the movie comes out. You may be working yourselves up for no reason.
Fair enough, Talk to you after the movie.
Mooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooore viral.
Check it out here (http://www.thehahahatimes.com/).
Personally, I'm glad its more Joker stuff, I had feared with Ledger's death they'd have ditched the idea and turned the focus to the Harvey Dent character till the movie hit.
RTT
Anybody try making a sentence out of all the words circled in red yet?
Quote from: bredon7777 on March 30, 2008, 10:06:54 PM
Anybody try making a sentence out of all the words circled in red yet?
Actually... it's a little more complicated than that.
The first time it was the number of letters in each of the circled words that matched a letter in the alphabet.
This time its how many words leading up to the circled words in a paragraph that matches a letter in the alphabet.
At was revealed the first 3 were just mocking messages like, you really think I would do it the same way?
Some interesting info has popped up. 2 new sites have been found here (http://www.ccfabg.org/) and here (http://www.clowntravelagency.com/). Come tomorrow it looks like more will be revealed.
And those who sent pictures to the Harvey Dent site, are now reporting they're receiving Dent campiagn buttons --- half burned.
RTT
QuoteUpdate #5: Dark Knight Viral Campaign Heats Up for April Fools'
Source: Superhero Hype! April 1, 2008
The envelope at ClownTravelAgency.com has opened (just click on it) to reveal another scavenger hunt, this time in locations around the world. 'Alex' wrote in this morning about one of the packages in London:
I contacted the Tavistock Hotel, but I was too late, however they gave me some info on the package. Someone collected it and inside was a bowling ball, and a nifty smart mobile phone. On the ball was a mobile phone number etched on it. He rang the number apaprently and was told they now knew who he was and to await further instructions.
In addition to the comments below, you can discuss this hunt further on the message boards here!
UPDATE #1: IBelieveinHarveyDent.com has been updated with more latest news items. Remember, Harvey Dent is supposed to be at a Townhall Meeting today (April 1st) at 3pm (we don't know what time zone) at the Gotham Community Center #12, Gainley.
UPDATE #2: Fans have posted pictures of the package, including the bowling ball and phone, that they are picking up at the various locations in this linky (http://forums.superherohype.com/showthread.php?t=299396)
UPDATE #3: Dark Knight viral marketing on "CSI"?
UPDATE #4: Here's an interesting bit. The bowling alley at 6327 Spencer Hwy in Pasadena, TX actually closed down. 'Dave' writes...
I talked to the owner who told me yes, a California company had rented the locker, and yes it had a ball and a cell phone in a bag, but no it was not there. When he told them he was closing, they took the bag away 2 days before the clowntravel site went active... but they still posted the address even when the bag wasn't there! There were about 20 people there waiting.
We'll have to wait and see how 42 Entertainment (the company running the viral campaign) handles this.
More addresses in cities are popping up on the hour, so stay tuned to ClownTravelAgency.com.
UPDATE #5: They've now stamped the Pasadena one, completing it so that people won't keep going to that closed bowling alley.
Clown Travel Agency is done and gives a new website: http://acmesecuritysystems.com/delos
Ok...
So I did as told.
Got quite the surprise.
LOVE IT.
RTT
Quote from: RTTingle on April 01, 2008, 05:12:38 PM
Ok...
So I did as told.
Got quite the surprise.
LOVE IT.
RTT
Yeah, did not expect my phone to ring
immediately though, and
a) Mrs Bredon was sound asleep
and
b) We screen
So, general badness+not figuring out what was going on until machine hung up+being forbidden to try again tonight makes me sad :(.
Am planning first thing in the morning though. Hope its still up.
Quote from: bredon7777 on April 01, 2008, 08:42:49 PM
Quote from: RTTingle on April 01, 2008, 05:12:38 PM
Ok...
So I did as told.
Got quite the surprise.
LOVE IT.
RTT
Yeah, did not expect my phone to ring immediately though, and
a) Mrs Bredon was sound asleep
and
b) We screen
So, general badness+not figuring out what was going on until machine hung up+being forbidden to try again tonight makes me sad :(.
Am planning first thing in the morning though. Hope its still up.
Yep, caught me off guard too. Had to run to get my cellphone...
... then what I came back and saw on my screen.
Heh heh heh. Pure awesome.
RTT
Bwhahah! That was classic.
[spoiler]
Site redirection=Joker's idea of a doublecross?[/spoiler]
Some new spoilerific (http://www.freewebs.com/bestcreepypics2/newdarkknightimages.htm) photos...
NICE!
That third one is terrifying... :blink:
The Dark Knight Viral Update
Source: Superhero Hype! April 7, 2008
A few new items have been discovered over the weekend for the Dark Knight viral campaign.
First up, the Gotham Police's Major Crimes Unit has a new site at GDPMCU.com. Lt. James Gordon (Gary Oldman) is the head of the unit.
Also, a video of Rachel Dawes (Maggie Gyllenhaal) has popped up here. In it, she talks about her support for Harvey Dent (Aaron Eckhart).
http://assets.thegothamtimes.com/media/jlevine/public/0eYkc42oQyOQ.mov
I really hope her character is supposed to be that awkward at the press conference and it's not just Gyllenhaal herself. If that's an accurate portrayal of her performance, than color me unimpressed.
Hmmm...
... just got an email an hour or two ago saying there was a live radio feed press conference at IBelieveInHarveyDent.com at 3pm today.
... 2 minutes and counting. Wonder what it is?
RTT
And the press conference is...
... sounds like Radio Drama (http://media.ibelieveinharveydent.com/0413081500.mp3) --- the events unfold with no narration of whats going on and we're pretty much left to pick it up as a live news broadcast.
Broadcast started with some gun shots and what sounds like a hostage situation with an ex cop who is demanding witness protection and relocation for his family. Meanwhile we hear chatter that the snipers have a clear headshot and they keep wanting to take it. The cop appears to be scared since his partner was murdered, he appears to be framed and fears he's next --- all having to do with testifying against corrupt cops it seems.
A shot rings out.
"My finger slipped!", says a sniper.
Gunman starts to get really frustrated and starts with the "You think I'm kidding?" stuff and threatens his female hostage again.
From the crowd someone steps up --- and its Dent who goes to the hostage taker and trades himself for the woman he has hostage. Gunman isn't happy, since the cause of all this is Dent.
A moment later Dent comes out with the gunman and he surrenders himself.
And thats it.
Heh.... cute. :)
I was laughing out loud when the sniper said my finger slipped. Interesting stuff. Nothing stellar but fun none the less.
RTT
That was interesting. I enjoyed it, although those cops certainly had awfully clean mouths. :p
It's fun seeing Two-Face develop as Dent. The most exposure I've had to him was Long Halloween; everything else, he's already been a villain.
I haven't seen this mentioned yet, so i thought I'd toss it out there...
From Dark Horizons...
QuoteMeanwhile early word on "The Dark Knight" is that Chris Nolan's cut clocks in at nearly three hours and it's unlikely to be cut down much further despite the studio's desire for a more manageable 150 minutes. Nolan's "Batman Begins" came in at 140 minutes so a slightly longer runtime for the sequel doesn't seem surprising and the immaculately conceived Devin Faraci over at CHUD thinks that, and I tend to agree, it'll probably come in at about 165 mins.
Wow. I better be careful with my usual habit of getting the largest soda. This is actually good news and considering how much a movie is nowadays, I have no problems with it. More movie for my money. 3 hours though. Wow. I'm excited, because I take it as meaning we're going to get a very good and well developed story with two villians and it won't be shoe horned.
RTT
I love long movies. Should be fun! Although I guarantee you I'm going to leave thinking "Gosh, I wish it was longer so I could be drowning in awesomeness even MORE!"
New poster revealed.
Linky (http://www.whysoserious.com/itsallpartoftheplan/poster.htm)
4 days
its all part of the plan (http://www.whysoserious.com/itsallpartoftheplan/)
I really can`t wait for the movie!
That poster is beyond awesome!
Posters ausome, and three days till what? :unsure:
That poster is stunning. The team who created it deserves a huge pat on the back.
Very intreging! :xancool
Why did Batman explode a building?
Quote from: BWPS on April 26, 2008, 08:33:06 AM
Why did Batman explode a building?
He..didn't..
It should be obvious, especially because of the line at the top, that the Joker was responsible for this. He burns the bat symbol into a building as a joke.
each of the posters of the famous men can be clicked on.
when clicked on there are instructions and coordinates
Chicago's is in Olive Park (thanks Google Maps)
41°53'39.95"N 87°36'38.51"W
All prominent American politicians...Presidents, with the notable exception of Benjamin Franklin and Alexander Hamilton. Fits; the Joker's a super-anarchist in this portrayal; he'd find the idea of a "great American hero" like Jefferson or Lincoln absolutely laughable.
Benjamin Franklin
Dwight Eisenhower
Thomas Jefferson
Andrew Jackson
William Howard Taft?
James Madison
Abraham Lincoln
George Washington
JFK
Ulysses S. Grant
FDR
Alexander Hamilton
Did I get any of these wrong?
Once again, none of these are close enough to where I can get to them!
WAAAAAAAH! :( I would so love to be a part of the live action bits.
Quote from: Gremlin on April 26, 2008, 10:23:07 PM
All prominent American politicians...Presidents, with the notable exception of Benjamin Franklin and Alexander Hamilton. Fits; the Joker's a super-anarchist in this portrayal; he'd find the idea of a "great American hero" like Jefferson or Lincoln absolutely laughable.
Benjamin Franklin
Dwight Eisenhower
Thomas Jefferson
Andrew Jackson
William Howard Taft?
James Madison
Abraham Lincoln
George Washington
JFK
Ulysses S. Grant
FDR
Alexander Hamilton
Did I get any of these wrong?
Yep, one. That's not Taft, it's Grover Cleveland on the Dallas picture.
www.whysoserious.com/sittingducks
Trailer this Sunday
http://www.whysoserious.com/happytrails/
How many ducks do you have to hit?
What I read so far, you'll lose either way.
Someone mention on the SSH its some sort of binary code.
Try hitting all yellow ducks in one game, then blue ducks. :lol:
I cleared all the ducks, and lost.
Cleared all the yellow, and lost.
Cleared all the blue, and lost.
All I can figure is it must be a specific score of yellow and blue, or a pattern to the ducks.
Quote"From the chat:
Each row of ducks was translated into binary code. We got a bunch of 0's and 1's for blue and yellow ducks.
1st row: "To win shoot"
2nd row: "Only row two"
3rd row: ybbyyyybbybby (that gave us the order)"
By the way, the viral event that happen in different cities. One of the best swag was a reel for the trailer#2, they raffled it. So we might not have to wait until Sunday.
Bootleg trailer!!!!!!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZqzL7Fc1gqM
The person from London who won the reel posted some pics of the reel.
http://chrispresswell.wordpress.com/2008/04/
Update:
Somebody finally played the reel and recorded it.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=H3OqlNyE18I
Trailer #3 in HD (http://whysoserious.com/Happytrails/trailer.htm)
Trailer 3 was shown before Iron Man.
OMG! Two-face!
Quote from: Protomorph on May 04, 2008, 09:49:57 AM
Trailer 3 was shown before Iron Man.
Select prints of IM tho.
Take a look at the driver side of the van.
[spoiler](http://i222.photobucket.com/albums/dd87/sugarfiend06/scarecrow-pwned1.gif)[/spoiler]
Who is it? Scarecrow?
First picture of Two-Face:
http://www.cinemablend.com/new/First-Look-At-Two-Face-In-The-Dark-Knight-8714.html
I'm trying to keep an open mind about this revamped Joker, but geez... Could he be any less intimidating? He sounds like PeeWee Herman. :thumbdown:
Quote from: JKCarrier on May 05, 2008, 07:14:03 AM
I'm trying to keep an open mind about this revamped Joker, but geez... Could he be any less intimidating? He sounds like PeeWee Herman. :thumbdown:
Ha! My wife and I actually thought the voice was more intimidating since it fluctuates between "happy fun time" and "downright psychotic" (kind of like BTAS Joker). Maybe it's our aversion to clowns, but this Joker is downright freaky.
The official website has finally been updated. Very nice flash intro.
http://thedarkknight.warnerbros.com/
who wants to see the rumoured two face concept art, it hasn't been proven official but WB is asking sites to remove it, not for the weak of stomach
[spoiler](http://i27.photobucket.com/albums/c185/the_ultimate_evil/random/DentBurn.jpg)[/spoiler]
WICKED
So tremendously creepy. Nolan has been going for a dark almost horror/thriller with the movies, and I'm liking this image. Hope it's real.
That looks awesome. I hope it's real, too..
Quote from: the_ultimate_evil on May 06, 2008, 05:35:37 AM
who wants to see the rumoured two face concept art, it hasn't been proven official but WB is asking sites to remove it, not for the weak of stomach.
Only two reasons for Warners to try to take it down. Reason 1: It looks nothing like their version and they don't want us thinking this is it. Reason 2: This
is their version, more or less.
I'm leaning towards reason 2.
Awesome look BTW.
-MJB
It's more realistic-looking than the traditional two-face look, that's for sure, but I think it's a little -too- realistic-looking. If WB uses that look, I don't think a PG-13 rating would be appropriate.
Speaking realistically anybody who looked like that probably wouldn't live long, let alone be a functional villain.
Comcast Dark Knight
Linky (http://www.comcast.net/thedarkknightmovie/)
Check out Imax Featurette!!!
Youtube version of the IMAX Featurette
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bpBzxsqd4cU
From an article quoted on wikipedia:
QuoteFor Two-Face's make-up, Eckhart warned, "When you look at [him], you should get sick to your stomach. Being the guy under all that, well, that was a lot of fun for me. It's like you would feel if you met someone whose face had pretty much been ripped off or burned off with acid [...] There are fans on the Internet who have done artist's versions of what they think it will look like, and I can tell you this: They're thinking small; Chris is going way farther than people think."[30]
That sounds like the picture shown above, or at least something very close.
http://www.gothamelectionboard.com/
Register to vote in the Gotham election. The link was sent to me by the I Believe in Harvey Dent campaign.
An alternate trailer for The Dark Knight and the 8-minute viral Gotham Cable News program "Gotham Tonight with Mike Engel (played by Anthony Michael Hall)" have started airing on Comcast On Demand,
Alternate Dark Knight Trailer
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=65zKQYpjpiE
Gotham Tonight Clip. From the latest viral campaign
Ackk.. WB took down the clip, here's the description:
SPOILERS:
Very, VERY well made. AMH is very cool as Engel. Think Brian Williams mixed with Tom Brokaw with a dash of Matt Lauer.
It's about 7 mins long, and Engel begins with a report of a group of thugs disrupting a polling area, showing up with baseball bats and threatening Dent supporters. One of them is none other than Albert Rossi. They're all caught by Batman.
Here, we finally get to see Roger Garcetti, Dana Worthington, and Allan Cypes (Dent's media manager) in action as opposed to just reading about them and seeing photos. It's really something watching how they clash together.
The majority of the segment flows similar to Hardball or Larry King Live sans phonecalls. Of course, Dent wins by a large majority. The first topic touches on the legality of Batman's activities. Garcetti completely opposes Batman. Worthington, however, acknowledges that Batman is a necessity in "desperate times." Garcetti is very cool and defiant, even in the face of defeat, constantly berating both Dent and Batman. Garcetti also attempts to take credit for the recent decline in Gotham's crime rate, but Worthington credits Batman with the decline. Cypes considers Batman a nonissue, and when questioned as to why Dent refuses to appear in interviews, he replies that Dent is busy preparing to prosecute Sal Maroni.
Cypes (who is in the studio with Engel, while Garcetti and Worthington are on satellite camera), spills the same things we've seen in the emails, painting Dent as Gotham's savior, instead of Batman. He had a great line, where he said "Batman wasn't on the ballot, Harvey Dent was, and the people voted for Harvey Dent."
Garcetti and Cypes are constantly stepping over each other's comments, which gets Garcetti on edge as Cypes describes Dent's "not stooping" to Garcetti's level when the former DA launched his smear campaign. Garcetti still defends the corrupt cops that Dent prosecuted, and accuses Dent of alienating the police from protecting the citizens of Gotham. Cypes ultimately reveals Garcetti's involvement with several organizations connected to Maroni, and that Dent plans to prosecute Garcetti on charges of corruption and accepting bribes. Garcetti then looses his cool, and he has an awesome quote at the end of his schtick: "You think your White Knight doesn't have chinks in his armor, you think again!" Engel asks if that was a threat, to which Garcetti replies "You figure it out!" He then demands his camera be turned off.
Engel then signs off, giving a preview of next week's edition where they're going to take a look at Bruce Wayne.
Overall, this was an incredibly well-made featurette, and at first glance you might think that this is an actual news show. Can't wait for the next one.
Man, I really hope the DVD has a documentary on the viral campaign. How insnaely difficult must it have been to plan it all out?
Two Face Scene:
http://www.whysoserious.com/myhero/
Gotham Tonight can be view now:
http://gothamcablenews.com/gotham_tonight.aspx
About Harvey Face, this is a quote from 1 website:
If this is just a pre-rendering. We can't wait to see what the final product looks like.The big question still remains: Is it real? Highly likely. Especially since WB has been taking them down. Now if WB were doing that, it's gotta be real right? right?....
From this site:
http://thefour11.org/2008/05/05/harvey-dent-a-man-who-sees-both-sides/
Gotham Tonight: Video on the life and career of Bruce Wayne (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=na3vwC2_rjM) < youtube
Gotham Tonight: Video on the life and career of Bruce Wayne (http://gothamcablenews.com/gotham_tonight.aspx) < Gotham Cable News
First review is out here (http://www.aintitcool.com/node/37214)
WARNING: Some curses are on the page so be wary. Also, avoid if you don't want to see any spoilers.
Just to note: I don't know how "real" this review is and other reviews in the swear-infested forums seem to reveal/debunk/whatever more details, so take that as you will.
They are comparing this movie to GodFather 2??!!! Well from reading this review, I have to agree. I will be seeing this movie on opening day!
Rolling Stone Review (http://www.rollingstone.com/reviews/movie/16155928/review/21477208/the_dark_knight)
I don't know how heavy the spoilers are in the review. Haven't read it yet, don't think I will.
Quote from: Midnite on June 26, 2008, 12:09:20 PM
Rolling Stone Review (http://www.rollingstone.com/reviews/movie/16155928/review/21477208/the_dark_knight)
I don't know how heavy the spoilers are in the review. Haven't read it yet, don't think I will.
Ok, so I read the first few paragraphs.
I can't take the waiting anymore!
This movie sounds soooooooooooooooooooooooooooo good.
The hi-res alternate trailer by Comcast is out.
Linky (http://wbads-07.vo.llnwd.net/e1/wbol/uk/movies/thedarkknight/the_dark_knight_u0xb20_know_your_limits_qt_high.mov)
Gotham Tonight #3
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t1hc5iFPpSQ
Gotham Tonight #4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=upfjT0TdlBY
12 Clips for TDK
Must resist...
Linky (http://www.iesb.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=5143&Itemid=99)
Prologue (http://youtube.com/watch?v=bZfz13iVv0g)
Cam job off Blu Ray DVD.
Domino's exclusive trailer (https://www.dominosvault.com/main.swf)
youtube version (http://youtube.com/watch?v=C_-NEBvaJHM)
Joker: "Does it depress you? How alone you really are..."
I'm hoping that design for Two-Face isn't real, because it looks too much like Darkman.
However, I've read a spoiler for the movie that gives away how the character is handled, and I am none too thrilled.
Quote from: GhostMachine on July 02, 2008, 01:07:00 PM
I'm hoping that design for Two-Face isn't real, because it looks too much like Darkman.
However, I've read a spoiler for the movie that gives away how the character is handled, and I am none too thrilled.
Dude, you can't just put something like that OUT there and leave us hanging like that!
Spill already!
The Dark Knight Wizard World Footage (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9rw3-0BOyXo)
This was the footage shown last year.
Quote from: bredon7777 on July 02, 2008, 09:18:36 PM
Quote from: GhostMachine on July 02, 2008, 01:07:00 PM
I'm hoping that design for Two-Face isn't real, because it looks too much like Darkman.
However, I've read a spoiler for the movie that gives away how the character is handled, and I am none too thrilled.
Dude, you can't just put something like that OUT there and leave us hanging like that!
Spill already!
Okay, but don't say I didn't warn you - and this is NOT a rumor, but something that's been confirmed - Moriarity from Ain't It Cool News mentioned it on some forum and I've read a few other confirmations that back it up. Don't click if you don't want to know a MAJOR spoiler that may ruin your enjoyment of the movie. Seriously.
[spoiler]He isn't in the movie as Two-Face for long and he actually gets killed off on-screen with his funeral being shown instead of being much of a secondary villain or set up as the baddie for the next movie.[/spoiler]
And this is just a rumor, but the villain for the third film may be [spoiler]The Ridder[/spoiler]
Whoa, The Dark Knight is going to break Spider-man 3's opening day record and maybe the opening weekend too.
QuoteThe Dark Knight to Pack Theaters Just Before the Dawn
Source: Fandango July 9, 2008
Need we say more?
With more than a week to go before the highly-anticipated release of "The Dark Knight," Fandango, the nation's leading moviegoer destination, reports that many of its pre-opening Thursday midnight shows on July 17 are already sold out in cities across the country, from New York to Boise, Idaho. Theaters continue to add 3:00 a.m. and 6:00 a.m. pre-opening showtimes to meet the ticketing demand.
"'The Dark Knight' may be responsible for a lot of bleary eyes at work next Friday morning," says Rick Butler, Chief Operating Officer for Fandango. "We're seeing a record number of late-night showtimes selling out in advance, while theaters are adding new performances every day."
More than 1,500 late-night showtimes of the movie have been scheduled for the film's pre-opening on Thursday night (Friday morning), July 17-18, at Fandango.com/TheDarkKnight. An online survey of more than 3,000 "The Dark Knight" fans on Fandango.com over the holiday weekend offered the following information on the late-night surge:
* 37% of respondents plan to see the film at least once during one of the late night performances on Thursday night.
* 38% say that they intend to take off a few hours or the entire day from work on Friday as a result of seeing the movie the night before.
* 60% of these moviegoers are male.
* 71% are under the age of 35.
* 39% plan to see the film in IMAX(R).
* 92% expect that the Academy will recognize Heath Ledger's performance as The Joker with a posthumous Oscar(R) nomination next year.
For Fandango, "The Dark Knight" is poised to be the year's top advance ticket-seller in wide release, outpacing "Iron Man," "Indiana Jones 4" and "Sex and the City" at the same point in those films' sales cycles.
Quote from: GhostMachine on July 03, 2008, 08:10:10 PM
Quote from: bredon7777 on July 02, 2008, 09:18:36 PM
Quote from: GhostMachine on July 02, 2008, 01:07:00 PM
I'm hoping that design for Two-Face isn't real, because it looks too much like Darkman.
However, I've read a spoiler for the movie that gives away how the character is handled, and I am none too thrilled.
Dude, you can't just put something like that OUT there and leave us hanging like that!
Spill already!
Okay, but don't say I didn't warn you - and this is NOT a rumor, but something that's been confirmed - Moriarity from Ain't It Cool News mentioned it on some forum and I've read a few other confirmations that back it up. Don't click if you don't want to know a MAJOR spoiler that may ruin your enjoyment of the movie. Seriously.
[spoiler]He isn't in the movie as Two-Face for long and he actually gets killed off on-screen with his funeral being shown instead of being much of a secondary villain or set up as the baddie for the next movie.[/spoiler]
And this is just a rumor, but the villain for the third film may be [spoiler]The Ridder[/spoiler]
if thats true that sucks
The rumor about the villain in the third film was started because of a joke by Gary Oldman during the interview.
[spoiler] As for the other thing, I am pretty sure its not the case. Aaron Eckhardt signed on for two films. What may get seen is Harvey's funeral as he is now Two Face.[/spoiler]
Quote from: the_ultimate_evil on July 09, 2008, 02:49:33 PM
Quote from: GhostMachine on July 03, 2008, 08:10:10 PM
Quote from: bredon7777 on July 02, 2008, 09:18:36 PM
Quote from: GhostMachine on July 02, 2008, 01:07:00 PM
I'm hoping that design for Two-Face isn't real, because it looks too much like Darkman.
However, I've read a spoiler for the movie that gives away how the character is handled, and I am none too thrilled.
Dude, you can't just put something like that OUT there and leave us hanging like that!
Spill already!
Okay, but don't say I didn't warn you - and this is NOT a rumor, but something that's been confirmed - Moriarity from Ain't It Cool News mentioned it on some forum and I've read a few other confirmations that back it up. Don't click if you don't want to know a MAJOR spoiler that may ruin your enjoyment of the movie. Seriously.
[spoiler]He isn't in the movie as Two-Face for long and he actually gets killed off on-screen with his funeral being shown instead of being much of a secondary villain or set up as the baddie for the next movie.[/spoiler]
And this is just a rumor, but the villain for the third film may be [spoiler]The Ridder[/spoiler]
if thats true that sucks
Only if by "sucks" you mean "is totally awesome"!. :P
http://www.deadlinehollywooddaily.com/dark-knight-sold-out-sold-out-sold-out/
They've already sold out at 700 theatures, days ahead of time. They say 90% of all tickets for the weekend have already been sold. It's two or three times the biggest blockbusters in history. In fact, they're predicting 130 mil for just the opening weekend, which is normally a good profit for a movie's entire run.
Less than 24 hours until I'm in the theatre, nerding out. YEAH! :lol:
Our whole family wants to see this flick. That includes Ms_MJB and I and our 3 kids. That is a boat load of money.
To say the least I don't know when we will get out to see this movie.
-MJB
Quote from: MJB on July 17, 2008, 12:36:46 AM
Our whole family wants to see this flick. That includes Ms_MJB and I and our 3 kids. That is a boat load of money.
To say the least I don't know when we will get out to see this movie.
-MJB
Yeah, I remember when matinee prices were affordable. Nowadays, they're just slightly less painful. Barely. :angry:
tommorrw is my bday and i am taking my friends to see it! I'm so excited!
If you're taking your friends to go see a movie on your bday. WHAT KINDA FRIENDS DO YOU HAVE! :lol: :P
Yeah, well money aroun here is short so i needed something in expenseive to do for my bday and all of the tickets were free. we got them off of my coke rewards.com, each ticket was good on special events, never expired and included a free beverage! Oh wait i take that back, we had to pay for two tickets, but i think a $20 bday party is pretty cheep. Yeah, when we were checking show times the theatre didn't even have it listed, so when we actually went to buy our tickets, the nice lady at the desk had put the show on litterally 20 minutes before we got there! We were the first people to buy tickets at that theatre! I foun that cool!
i'm going to see the dark knight at 11:59 tonight!
:cool:
I just got back and before I crash in the vain attempt to get up for work in the morning, let me leave my 2 cents (as someone who avoided all spoilers and discussions as much as possible)... They nailed it. My one complaint is that they packed a lot of movie in and it could due with a little trimming... But all in all I was totally blown away. I respect them for keeping it really grounded so it feels like you're watching a big epic crime film like Heat, only it happens to have comic book characters in it. There were some takes on characters that I can see annoying some people, but in the context of the the themes and tone of the film i thought it worked great.
And yes, Heath Ledger's performance was amazing...
Now I must sleep....
Words are inadequate. This film was...phenomenal seems too light a term. I was blown away. Go see it eight times!
Quote from: Gremlin on July 18, 2008, 02:12:25 PM
Words are inadequate. This film was...phenomenal seems too light a term. I was blown away. Go see it eight times!
Exactly, I saw it and words can not tell you how great this movie is........ Log off, turn off the computer and go see this movie.....right now!........GO!
It was good. I must say that they really had a star-studded cast. Aside from all the names we were expecting, even roles that could have been done by people no one had heard of were cast with people I at least recognized.
[spoiler]My only real complaint is the same one I had with the first movie: The romantic subplot is a waste of screen time. I really like Maggie Gyllenhaal, but there never should have been a Rachel Dawes character in the first movie and the role was marginal in this one as well. On top of dragging down the pacing of an already long movie, it's kind of sad that the writers fall back on the predictable template that there must be a love interest in every movie. And, a Bruce Wayne-Rachel Dawes-Harvey Dent love triangle? Yawn. If they have to work that hard to cram the love story into the plot, they should take that as a sign that it's dead weight.[/spoiler]
Anyway, I enjoyed it. And, it was almost worth the price of admission just to see the Watchmen trailer, which I hadn't had time to look at online yet.
Quoteeven roles that could have been done by people no one had heard of were cast with people I at least recognized.
William Fichtner!!
[spoiler]
QuoteAnd, a Bruce Wayne-Rachel Dawes-Harvey Dent love triangle? Yawn. If they have to work that hard to cram the love story into the plot, they should take that as a sign that it's dead weight.
I didn't see that really as a dead weight romatic subplot being crammed in, I saw it as an opportunity to use an existing dead weight plot point set up in the first film as the driving force for the emotional breaking point of Dent and Wayne. I would rather they use that existing one and destroy it for future films rather than have to concoct some other plot point to get both characters to that point, and having to deal with the romance in future films. I mean killing the loved one is a tried and true method....
[/spoiler]
[spoiler]
Quote from: GogglesPizanno on July 18, 2008, 04:36:32 PM
QuoteAnd, a Bruce Wayne-Rachel Dawes-Harvey Dent love triangle? Yawn. If they have to work that hard to cram the love story into the plot, they should take that as a sign that it's dead weight.
I didn't see that really as a dead weight romatic subplot being crammed in, I saw it as an opportunity to use an existing dead weight plot point set up in the first film as the driving force for the emotional breaking point of Dent and Wayne. I would rather they use that existing one and destroy it for future films rather than have to concoct some other plot point to get both characters to that point, and having to deal with the romance in future films. I mean killing the loved one is a tried and true method....
Well, I
am glad that she's dead. :lol: Well, even that isn't quite true, because I didn't dislike the character, but it was dead weight.
You make a good point that they at least used it to motivate part of the plot. Part of my problem is that the Bruce-Rachel romance in the first movie was so contrived and unconvincing that I didn't believe (or care about) their dynamic in this one. It would have been better if they had used the a-loved-one-dies device as the lynch pin to Harvey's breakdown and left Bruce out of it. Unfortunately, they couldn't do that with the Rachel character because we already know her from the first movie. Really, they should have had Maggie Gyllenhaal play a new character that Dent falls in love with and just forgotten about the whole Rachel blunder from the first movie.
[/spoiler]
The best Batman movie.
Ever.
A chilling, thrilling film in which the Joker is no joke, fully as brilliant as Spider-Man 2 and Iron Man.
Sigh. It's a great era in which to be a super hero fan.
Ok, saw this today.
Heath Ledger was something extraordinary as The Joker. I don't think there's anything else that can be said about him that hasn't already been said.
[spoiler]I have some mixed emotions about the last portion of the movie, though. I mean, Rachel's death left me cold, and not really believing it to be honest. If Gordon was able to fake his death, I thought for sure she managed to survive somehow. Did Bruce even mourn her death? I know Dent did. Which brings me to Two-Face. I thought his burns would have been more intentional, rather than a freak accident after escaping captivity. I liked how they managed to get his name in there without it being corny, but I felt that his transition was a little forced. Once they got him to that point, he was great, but I wasn't quite there yet in his emotional journey. He needed more time, or another movie. Plus he died too? Geez..[/spoiler]
I left the theater depressed, but not because the movie wasn't good, but because it didn't heal many, if any, of the wounds it inflicted upon me.
I would give it a solid B+/A-. Still, I'm allowing it to sink in and I may need to see it one more time to grasp the entire thing.
Well........I was actually disappointed, profoundly so because of how excited I had been about it. The film itself, plot-wise and acting-wise was solid, but there were several things that left me cold. I will write more later, but the primary failings of the movie were more technical.
Quote from: BentonGrey on July 18, 2008, 07:23:19 PM
Well........I was actually disappointed, profoundly so because of how excited I had been about it. The film itself, plot-wise and acting-wise was solid, but there were several things that left me cold. I will write more later, but the primary failings of the movie were more technical.
I think I feel the way you feel, Benton.
Quote from: Figure Fan on July 18, 2008, 08:05:54 PM
Quote from: BentonGrey on July 18, 2008, 07:23:19 PM
Well........I was actually disappointed, profoundly so because of how excited I had been about it. The film itself, plot-wise and acting-wise was solid, but there were several things that left me cold. I will write more later, but the primary failings of the movie were more technical.
I think I feel the way you feel, Benton.
Utterly Opposite oppinion(in my case)! I will simply say phenomenal(for lack of better words), and leave be fore i get into a debate ^_^
Best movie of the year. In a word, 'unpredictable'!
Honestly, as much as I liked the first movie, I didn't come into this one with high expectations at all. Can't explain why. Maybe after a fantastic Iron Man and with it a Hulk movie that gave me a good set-up and expectation for Marvel's line. Maybe that's why I wasn't that jazzed about it.
I think it might have helped. Either way, I thought the movie was fantastic. I think Rotten Tomatoes had it right. Not only is it becoming fashionable to be a comic-geek these days with large appearent appeal to these films, but it held up superbly as a thrilling crime drama on the scale of a Heat, Usual Suspects or The Departed(yes, I honestly believe this). This movie achieved what the Long Halloween did with comics. It wasn't just a POW!, BANG!, CRASH! comic-book, but more of a thrilling mystery/crime novel.
[spoiler]I do like the fact that it seems the creators spared no expense with the co-star appearences(Fincher, Cillian Murphy, Tommy "Zeus" "Deebo" Lister, Michael Jai White, Anthony Michael Hall). I like how it gave characters motivations by killing Rachael(she needed to go honestly), the Joker doing what the Joker does and driving the worse in people. The Joker was a twisted bastard, really effective, sinister, disturbing and was pretty funny("You wanna hear the story about how I got these scars?"). He wasn't goofy. He wasn't a prankster. He was more in the image you'd think someone would be like if something like this happened. And for those talking about Two-Face dying at the end... I don't know about that. I thought I remember hearing Eckard talk about the character being introduced and not simply being killed off. Stylistically, it'd make more sense for Nolan to have killed off the Joker than Two-Face. I was actually looking for the Joker to die and Two-Face to go on to the third film. But why would he toss the Joker off a ledge and save him but then he knocks Harvey Dent, someone he trust, off a ledge... then he falls off that same ledge(after being shot) and we're expected to believe he's dead? Especially after going through like nearly five hours of reasons why he'll do all in his power not to kill people? But he kills Harvey Dent? Harvey did say "It's better to die a hero than to live as a villain." Batman wanted to make a point of making Gotham have a good image of Harvey Dent, not a killer. So blaming Batman for murder, saying Dent is dead all make sense that they would do that to protect the image of Harvey Dent. But man I like the way they did him. Two-Face was near perfect. They had his scaring right and realistic.
My biggest complaint with the movie was the fact that it was long as hell. It was 2 and a half hours and seemed like three and a half hours. They put a lot in the movie. Though they did, I was still captivated. But I'll look at that all over again too. This was a good movie.[/spoiler]
I saw the movie and generally enjoyed it. A more detailed review follows:
[spoiler]
I loved that they made the brief use of the Scarecrow at the start of the film, snagging the same actor as before. It was a very nice touch, and a nice departure from the Burton/Schumacher era of killing off each villain at the end of the movie.
Lovely tension between Jim Gordon, Harvey Dent, and Batman. They all want to do good, and yet the rampant corruption means that they've had to make tough choices that keep them from working together in perfect unity.
Aaron Eckhardt as Two-Face was absolutely brilliant. Just as he was brilliant as Harvey Dent. Two-Face was a character of rage, barely constrained by the coin. This is exactly what I hoped to find in the character.
On a technical matter regarding the sound, I had issues with the scene in which Lucius Fox was providing radioed explanations to Batman during the sonar-vision scene near the end. The white noise of the sonar made it too hard to hear to Morgan Freeman was saying. Could have been cleaner.
Christian Bale continues to impress me as he walks the subtle lines between portraying Bruce Wayne the playboy, Bruce Wayne letting some actual emotion crack out from the facade (and not knowing how to cope with it, which is really nuanced), and the fearsome Batman.
Heath Ledger's Joker... remains the most controversial aspect for me. The only criticism that I feel I can legitimately direct towards the actor, as opposed to the director or writer, is that I did not particularly care for the Joker's tongue-flicking. Any personal discomfort that I may have with the character of the Joker in this film isprobably more a function of the writing and directing. For the character that Heath Ledger was told to play, he gave an incredible, manic, adrenaline-filled performance. I can respect that. I can greatly respect that.
To the extent that I have any lingering dissatisfactions with the Joker, they are likely due to my having viewed the Animated Series version (as voiced by Mark Hammill) as the premiere standard. (And I'll admit that I'm a little annoyed that professional movie reviewers discuss how Heath Ledger distinguished himself from the previous Jokers as played by Nicholson or Romero, but the Animated Series version doesn't even register on the radar.)
The Dark Knight's portrayal of the Joker is an entirely valid storytelling view to take on this character. It's just not my favorite. That honor continues to remain with the Animated Series version, where the Joker was psychotic, murderous, unpredictably scary, while at the same time being stylish and funny.
At any rate - I could probably go on, and on... and on... about my musings on the Joker. But I'll leave that for another time.
I will give Heath Ledger kudos for doing a wicked-scary Joker laugh.
[/spoiler]
oh em ji that was an phenomenal movie ever.
:spoiler:[spoiler]You know you reminded me of my father, I HATED HIM!!!! the nurse scene was so funny, i admit some parts in the movie that made me jumped, like the deadbody bumped into the window.[/spoiler]
I have avoided this thread like the plague till I finally saw this movie. All I can say is Best. Batman. Movie. Ever. and God bless Heath Ledger you will be missed
[spoiler]Grumpy: I'm bettin' The Joker told you to kill me soon as we loaded the cash.
The Joker: No, no. I kill the bus driver.
Grumpy: Bus driver? What bus driver?
[a school bus drives through the wall and kills Grumpy][/spoiler]
Another quote I liked
[spoiler]"Some men aren't looking for anything logical, like money. They can't be bought, bullied, reasoned or negotiated with. Some men just want to watch the world burn." - Alfred Pennyworth, The Dark Knight[/spoiler]
Some of you guys felt hurt about the movie......, think of it this way: This was "The Empire Strike Back" of of the Batman series, which is another reason why I loved it even more. Even when the hero wins, he still lose.
I believe the Best Line Award goes to Morgan Freeman's Lucius Fox, who gave Mr. Reese the best corrective perspective he's ever likely to receive verbally:
[spoiler]Fox: "Now, let me understand this. You think that our billionaire owner secretly dresses up in a bat suit, goes around pummelling crooks at night with his bare hands, and you want to blackmail him? Good luck."[/spoiler]
:thumbup:
I'm not afraid to admit that I was blown away by this film, which exceeded all my jaded expectations of film franchises.
[spoiler]My only criticism, to which my wife first gave voice, was that part of me wishes that the film had included more face-to-face (or, more accurately, mask-to-mask) time between The Joker and Batman. Of course, since the polis and its citizenry were the major vehicles of the Joker-Dent-Batman discourse throughout the film, I felt the film might have justified their limited, direct interactions by their public medium, the city of Gotham. Otherwise, I can say that I am tempted (tempted) to line up for another viewing in the near future.[/spoiler]
Stellar work! :)
ow_tiobe_sb
Phantom Bunburyist and Fop o' th' Morning
I'm going to be seeing it again, that's for sure. I missed a lot, I bet.
Saw it twice today..once in digital...and once in Imax! Man o man! :blink: I was completely stunned....in a very good way. How the hell are they gonna top this? Who's your villain in the third film? :blink:
That may have been the greatest movie I've ever seen. Just simply fantastic.
easily the best movie I've seen this year, and I can't think of anything else coming out that even remotely interests me, so I'm going to say that this is the best film of 2008. Iron Man and Hulk were also awesome, but this was just fantastic. While Iron Man and Hulk were really fun summer films, I don't think you could say they had any kind of philosophical depth that Dark Knight had. I will definitely see this again in the theater and eagerly wait for the dvd.
[spoiler]
The only criticism I had with the movie was the use of Christian Bale's "dark and brooding" voice for Batman. It's a minor complaint I had with the first one as well, but I felt it was more overused in this one. I understand he needs to alter his voice, but there were times where it sounded like he had a cold or needed to clear his throat. It was also sometimes hard to take seriously, much like the "where are the drugs goin?" scene from the first one.
There were also a couple minor technical complaints. There were some scenes where I found it difficult to see what exactly was going on. And also, as already mentioned, the sound during some of the radar scenes were difficult to make out.
I can't say anymore that hasn't already been said about Heath Ledger as the Joker. He stole the show, easily. It's such a shame he isn't around anymore. Two-Face was also awesome, but I wish he didn't "die" at the end. In terms of the story progression it makes sense, and Batman let him fall because he had to save Gordon's son. It's going to be hard to swallow if they bring him back in the next film.
and speaking of that, I'm finding it very hard to believe they'll ever top this one. What villain would they use next? Riddler? Penguin? Catwoman? HARLEY QUINN?! :P I really don't see how Penguin could fit into Nolan's vision of Gotham, but you never know.[/spoiler]
freaking awesome movie. 10/10
QuoteThe only criticism I had with the movie was the use of Christian Bale's "dark and brooding" voice for Batman. It's a minor complaint I had with the first one as well, but I felt it was more overused in this one. I understand he needs to alter his voice, but there were times where it sounded like he had a cold or needed to clear his throat. It was also sometimes hard to take seriously, much like the "where are the drugs goin?" scene from the first one.
Actually I know where you're coming from with this, but that scene from the first movie is actually one of my favorite parts of the whole film. Just because Batman is so intimidating in it.
"SWEAR TO MEEEEE!"
Anyway, I was superimpressed with the movie. Lots of great stuff in it. Would love to see it again and would definitely get it on DVD.
Yeah, as I've already said three times this year, this is the best movie ever. But I honestly don't think I can every truthfully say those words again. Everything about it was perfect. I liked how it was the best corrupt cop evil mob crime drama movie while still being the best high tech superhero action movie ever.
[spoiler]Things like Batman jumping through a skyscraper window, beating everyone up and jumping out into a plane and having cell phone sonar for the entire city were so awesome and yet they made it so believable. I loved how the movie was completely devoid of camp a I loved the Joker, I laughed out loud several times, the second time he told the story about his scars differently I laughed so hard and said to myself "THIS GUY IS $%#ING CRAZY!" and parts when he made that pencil disappear and robbed the bank, hilarious. But freaking Aaron Eckhart was the best actor in the whole movie. Throughout the whole movie, I KNEW he was going to become Two-Face, but I STILL believed in him, he was so awesome. And then when he became Two-Face (who looked so awesome I couldn't believe it) and took his revenge and the whole ending blew me away. I'm so glad they didn't decide to do the obvious set-up for 2Face in the next movie.
An "appearance" by a young potential-but-not-necessarily-going-to-be Batgirl, making an obvious attempt not to show her face was pretty interesting.
[/spoiler]
In a way, I don't want any more sequels, it was just too amazing and anything else might seem bad in comparison. Unless they do a huge pendulum swing and the next movie features Simon the Pieman (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UWTfSgxq9ko) and a giant bottle of milk.
It was a better version of Batman and a better version of The Departed... which proves that Jack Nicholson sucks.
BWPS, I am in the same boat as you. I don't think they can top this movie with any of Batman's remaining villains, nor story-wise.
Quote...a better version of The Departed
As much as I love this movie, I can't agree with that.
Count me as the few who not only didn't mind the length of the film but thought it was necessary to build the deep characterization that The Dark Knight had.
SPOILERS BELOW ....
In fact, in the beginning of the movie, I was let down because the action while great was pretty predictable arch villian antics with the big bank robbery and clown masks, and knowing from the moment you realized that one clown wasn't saying anything who he was going to be.
But then the film took the time to keep going deeper and deeper into all the players, and the twists and turns made it a fun rollercoaster ride. I loved that Alfred, while he didn't have a lot of screen time, was the only one who recognized who the Joker really was. Also, what they did with the integrity of Fox and the sonar system. Nothing was a throw-away in this film.
Also interesting for me was that the Joker was so portrayed as so unstable that even after the ferry scene was over, I did not trust his instructions and felt that the real joke might be that whoever pushed the button blew themselves up rather than the other. This lady or the tiger style question had me thinking about the answer long after the situation was resolved. I also loved the humanity of this scene where passengers were put through the test, and neither lived up to my own expectations, though my wife thought their reactions were predictable.
Interestingly, she didn't like the movie. Thought it was too violent and too xenophobic. While she loved Heath Ledger and thought he was magnificent in the Joker role, she prefered the humor of Nicholson's Joker. She thought that this Batman and story was too dark. (interesting, that Burton made his Gotham dark but the story light ... and here Gotham looked like any modern city but the story was anything but light.)
As for those who think that there couldn't be a villian to top this, I offer up one possibility: BANE.
Quote from: AncientSpirit on July 21, 2008, 09:58:23 AM
I loved that Alfred, while he didn't have a lot of screen time, was the only one who recognized who the Joker really was.
Correction: He knew what
type of person the Joker was. He didn't actually know
who he was. When Alfred is talking to Bruce in the scene that ends with the line "Some men just want to watch the world burn.", he is providing a comparison to someone else he knew, so as to explain to Bruce what type of person the Joker was.
You're exactly right. Poor choice of words on my part.
Quote from: AncientSpirit on July 21, 2008, 01:41:48 PM
You're exactly right. Poor choice of words on my part.
Because of your poor choice of words, someone won't be thrown out of a window, right? ^_^
Great part.
To be honest, I just don't know who'd be good enough for a third movie. The Riddler seems like he'd be redundant and a bit of a letdown compared to the intensity of this Joker. Bane..ehh..sounds like Spider-Man 3 all over again.
I think they should stop here, though they won't.
I think they could do a sequel and still use villains from the established Batman rogue's gallery. They do need to avoid is making the baddies too camp. I think they did a good job of that with the Joker and I think they could pull it off with others as well. Of course, there is a temptation to throw bones toward the 60s TV show, but the writers just need some discipline in keeping things serious, and maybe someone in the room who punches them in the gut when they go down the wrong road. The mistake is in thinking that, unless there is a big body count, a villain isn't interesting or serious. But, Batman is the world's greatest detective, not just the world's greatest undertaker.
There could be a Riddler who has the psychological compulsive disorder expressed in testing the Batman by giving him mysteries to solve, the solution of which is motivated by their connection to crimes. The crimes might be primarily monetary or kidnapping or whatever, and perhaps lives may be at risk because they aren't really such a consideration to the Riddler, though they obviously are to Batman. Meanwhile, the Riddler doesn't have to be a gaudy costumed presence who stands in front of a TV camera to taunt Batman. Maybe he is a shadowy, more noir figure, who works behind the scenes to manipulate and test Batman and his crimes are each a piece of a larger puzzle that Batman doesn't realize until the lead-in to the last act, where something larger is at stake. I would like a Batman movie where Batman has to solve some real mystery and we viewers come along for the ride. That doesn't mean there won't be baddies to punch, of course.
Meanwhile, since the writers are obsessed with the idea of a love story in every movie, why not Selina Kyle? She starts out as a society seductress who uses her charms to case Gotham's wealthy for crimes by Catwoman. They don't all have to be heists; she may also be interested in inside stock information, dirt to blackmail politicians, etc. Maybe the story of her sister works its way into the motivation (depending on how well that could be paced). This line of work brings her across Bruce's path as she works her angle with him. She realizes that there is something more to him than billionaire playboy and he realizes she has secrets of her own and maybe her own tragic past. That commonality leads them closer to one another, even as they dance around the risks of getting too involved and revealing secrets to someone who might be an enemy. I think she could be interesting and I very seriously want whatever love interest Bruce has to go a whole movie without playing the clichéd damsel-in-distress role.
Also, I think a theme to carry over from Dark Knight is that the police are after the Batman. Maybe even some feds are involved, perhaps a task force sent in to bring him to heal because he is subversive and the presence of an independent masked vigilante causes people to question authority. These may be people commissioner Gordon has to help, at least nominally, though he lends assistance to Batman by stymieing them at every step or tipping off the caped crusader.
Anyway, that's all top-of-the-head spitballing, but I think there is room for another movie in the series. They just need to avoid camp and avoid the need for a body count by having challenges that are interesting to solve in ways not all involving explosions.
Quote from: AncientSpirit on July 21, 2008, 09:58:23 AM
As for those who think that there couldn't be a villian to top this, I offer up one possibility: BANE.
And to that possibility, I offer up the following sentence: Not just NO, but HELL NO!
Bane was a lousy idea, poorly executed in the comics, and the moronic ("BOOOOOOOOMMMMBBB!") portrayal of him in the abomination that was
Batman and Robin destroyed any chance of him being taken seriously as a cinematic villain, well, pretty much ever. If you feel you have to go the anti-Batman route, in all honesty, Prometheus would be a FAR superior choice.
But I don't think we're anywhere near desperate enough to have to resort to a cliche like 'The anti-Batman' or to draft a joke like Bane for a cinematic redo (and I certainly don't think his last portrayal has lain in an undignified grave for anywhere near long enough to risk the inevitable comparisons). As stumpy has pointed out, they could certainly do at least ONE sequel (ideas under the spoiler tag, just in case), and quite possibly more with the current rogues gallery before we have to draft a D-lister like Bane who would'nt even exist were it not for the event mentality that nearly destroyed comics during the speculative boom in the 80's.
[spoiler]
The proposed combination of Catwoman/Riddler that I'm hearing for the next movie I think could be done rather well. Think Pierce Brosnan's character from
The Thomas Crown Affair, only with a TON more ego- A rich man, shady, but too smart to have been caught -convinced he's smarter than everyone else, bored with everything- He sees the Joker throw Gotham into Chaos and outsmart the police department- but not the Batman and thinks..'Hey! If that loony almost took over Gotham, imagine what someone SMART could do. "..and we're off and running. Play Catwoman straight out of Miller's
Year one a petty theif who thinks- "Hey, a costume works for someone catching criminals, why wouldn't it work for the criminals..."
Would it top Ledger's performance? No, most likely not. But, if done well, could it be, as a whole, as good as or better than TDK? Absolutely.
At that's just one movie..the Joker is still alive(even though his portrayer sadly isnt), and a strong circumstantial case could be made for Two-Face being alive as well. They could return. You could even make convincing Nolan-esque cases for some of the B and C listers like Mr. Freeze, and The Mad Hatter...
[/spoiler]
No, there's a long list of Batman villains that need cinematic do's and redo's before we get to the likes of Bane (though to be fair, he does rank above the Bookworm, Calculator Man, and Calendar Man)
:D
[spoiler]Hah! :thumbup: That's amazing because Thomas Crown was exactly who I had in mind when I wrote that. A clever guy with an obsession and a need to be challenged, but a little more villainous in that he's careless about putting lives at risk. He can't help but think that, since Batman is a genius at solving crimes, there has to be a sharp mystery criminal to keep him in his place.[/spoiler]
Nolan's films seem to follow a "established baddie / baddie in disguise / cameo baddie" pattern. Like Ras Al Ghul / Scarecrow / Mr Zsasz, followed by Joker / Two-Face / Scarecrow.
So I'd probably go for Riddler / Black Mask / and maybe Cornelius Stirk or Firefly.
I think Catwoman, Mr Freeze and Poison Ivy may still be a little toxic from their respective flops, and Deadshot and Killer Croc were already used in Gotham Knights.
I agree with there being no need for an anti-Batman character like Bane or The Wrath ... evil-mirror versions of the hero have been played out in spider-man 3, Iron Man and The Incredible Hulk recently.
Story-wise ... all I can really think of is something involving Batman becoming more and more brutal with criminals due to having his closest friends stripped from him, being hunted by the police and hated by the public, until he regains his humanity by adopting Tim Grayson as his ward at the end. Tim doesn't become Robin in the film, however. And yeah, I know Nolan is against including Robin.
I like that Riddler/Catwoman idea. I think Riddler is a strong enough villain and deserves to be redone. No offense to Jim Carrey, as I do like him as an actor usually, but, well, we all know Batman Forever sucked hard. Riddler should be an incredibly smart, in control villain, not the Joker-light that we saw in Forever. And Catwoman offers a good foil to Batman, and since the Halle Berry disaster, she deserves a makeover as well.
However, bringing back Two-Face, as much as I liked him, could easily seem like beating a dead horse. If the only reason to bring him back is to please fans and not the story or character progression, then he should be left alone.
but what about the Penguin? Do you think he could fit into Nolan's Gotham? I remember there being some internet rumors of a possible Penguin in future films, and the desired actor to play him was Philip Seymore Hoffman (Capote, Mission Impossible 3). I don't know though. Penguin could slip into campy territory easily.
but really, the next villain should be EGG HEAD.
I believe Nolan talked about the possibility of Penguin as the anti-Bruce--a wealthy heir who turns his intellect and fortune into controlling crime rather than stopping it.
I still think Bane could be done well. I could imagine a movie where Venom is a street drug which gives the police trouble as it increases both aggression and strength and is highly addictive in its street form. Bane turns out to be the person behind it, and he uses a purer form of it on himself. Rather than an anti-Batman, play him as an intelligent thug.
I'd love to see another great Batman movie, but I can't think of any new way to go with the characters from comics. Joker and two-face were the best villains to have non-campy. (Anytime I hear the word camp I think of the old Batman show and cartoon)
I really don't think The Riddler would be very interesting as he is now. Stealing stuff and then leaving clues for Batman to find is ok for a cartoon but would make a terrible movie, especially after the impressive villains we've seen so far. He'd need a huge revamp to be taken seriously, because he doesn't make a whole lot of sense as-is.
Clayface, Killer Croc, and others are cool villains, but how do you make a whole movie out of them? TDK was so DEEP (I think is a good word), and while a sequel doesn't necessarily need to be as in depth or complicated, it shouldn't turn into a big fight movie. Mr Freeze has a cool story and his motivations are interesting, but how does that relate to Batman?
The penguin in Batman Returns was different but not entirely a terrible idea. Of course the execution was bad and weird. Mad Hatter is another cool villain who I don't see working well in a sequel.
A return of Joker with Harley Quinn would be most interesting to me. Harley Quinn is probably my favorite comic character of all time. As much as it would be bad to try to replace Heath Ledger, Joker did wear a lot of makeup and someone else could play him without the series ending up hurting from so much cast-swapping like the older movies. Joker is the best villain, but I know how they like to go with other stuff.
The best idea would be to ignore the continuity of the first two movies and introduce a combination of lesser known villains like Crazy-Quilt, Simon the Pieman (who DID take out ALL of Batman's A-list enemies AND nearly kill the dynamic duo), The Fearsome Foot-Fighters, Kite Man, and Mr. Polka-Dot. There wouldn't need to be a main plot, he could just go through a 30 minute fight with each villain. Wow, I love reading about old Batman villains.
I'd like to see more of Batman using things like he did with the sonar and dealing with the issue of that. Like in Kingdom Come when he spied on all of Gotham, only he'd be developing the tech and deciding if he should use it.
BWPS, go rent The Thomas Crown Affair and Sleuth (The original, not the horrid remake); the combination of Pierce Brosnan's character and Laurence Oliver's character's ego I think would make a perfect fit for the Riddler. And The Riddler doesn't steal stuff and THEN leaves clues- he leaves clues as a direct challenge to The Batman; a "See? I'm smarter than you! I'm smart enough that you cant stop me!' sort of thing.
Harley Quinn runs into the same problem that Killer Croc, Poison Ivy, and Clayface all have- they have powers. And in the "realistic" world that Nolan is going for, I see powers as a no-no. You can get away with GADGETS, (which is why I think you can pull off a version of Mr. Freeze and The Mad Hatter) but not powers.
Cat-
Penguin as the "anti-Batman"? Not sure I buy it, but Nolan has earned a LOT of my trust. I'd be curious, but I still think The RIddler is a far superior choice for the next movie, though that might just be personal bias.
In general though, I'd argue that there would HAVE to be another movie, (even without the box office record smashing). It's just too bleak to leave it where it is now. I don't remember who said it, but whoever compared it to 'Empire' was dead on.
QuoteCat-
Penguin as the "anti-Batman"? Not sure I buy it, but Nolan has earned a LOT of my trust. I'd be curious, but I still think The RIddler is a far superior choice for the next movie, though that might just be personal bias.
Re-read my post. I said nothing about anti-Batman, I said anti-Bruce. That choice of words was very much on purpose.
Maybe Holiday would be a good villain for the next movie? Seems like a pretty interesting premise, to have the main baddie killing people on holidays. The Long Halloween incorporates the two crime families introduced thus far, as well.
Maybe Hush?
*shrugs*
Riddler/Catwoman sounds very good to me... The Thomas Crown affair was a great movie and i can see riddler with that kind of personality.
Catwoman deserves a reboot... after the hale berry disaster.
Penguin, would work perfectly as the new capo, playing it clever enough to maybe even avoid being captured in the end
Hugo Strange could make some interesting mindgames.
Poison Ivy, she could be a very good villain with nolan directing, the thing about her powers could be left just for interpretations (just inmunity to her own products), but someoone making poisons, mind controling drugs... not only sounds very good to me, but could go into very very dark directions.. with themes like the comple violation of someone's mind
Bane? no way... really... he could be done really good, but he is not that interesting and certainly not at the begining of batman careers, if you need someone to challenge him as an anti batman, why not Catman?... but better not go that way.
Killer Croc and some other villains could appear just as cameos, to show that Batman have to work on other things as well, like the scene with scarecrow.
Now, 2 face could be a cameo of a shadowing figure playing with a coin, just to let us know he is alive, maybe in some clinic recovering, or whatever.
Watching how this production team has handled 'A' list villians like Joker and Two-Face as well as a 'B' listers like Ra's al Ghul and Scarecrow... I'm going to trust that whom ever they use as the villain(s) in the third movie will be nothing like what any of us expect.
Face it... they pretty much broke one of the principle rule about not re-inventing the core characters... and it worked. The spirit of these villains is there... but their origins, portrayals and other key characteristics have been altered....... in a good way.
I believe that if they stay true to formula.... we will most certainly see the Riddler and Catwoman... with the possibility of seeing a cameo of the Joker and Harley Quinn (or Two-face). I'ld even expect to see a early situation involving a crime boss like Tony Zucco.
Oh yeah... loved the movie. It is one of the best comic inspired movies yet... as well as one of my fav movies period.
Quote from: bredon7777 on July 21, 2008, 09:56:39 PM
BWPS, go rent The Thomas Crown Affair and Sleuth (The original, not the horrid remake); the combination of Pierce Brosnan's character and Laurence Oliver's character's ego I think would make a perfect fit for the Riddler. And The Riddler doesn't steal stuff and THEN leaves clues- he leaves clues as a direct challenge to The Batman; a "See? I'm smarter than you! I'm smart enough that you cant stop me!' sort of thing.
I've seen the TCA, and I understand his motives though I guess I didn't word them properly. It's a fine enemy for Rene Russo, but after Joker, I don't see that being too interesting for Batman to go up against, but that's just me.
QuoteWatching how this production team has handled 'A' list villians like Joker and Two-Face as well as a 'B' listers like Ra's al Ghul and Scarecrow... I'm going to trust that whom ever they use as the villain(s) in the third movie will be nothing like what any of us expect.
Face it... they pretty much broke one of the principle rule about not re-inventing the core characters... and it worked. The spirit of these villains is there... but their origins, portrayals and other key characteristics have been altered....... in a good way.
This is true. I guess I shouldn't act like Nolan wouldn't be able to translate existing characters into a good third movie when he's proven that he can.
I kinda like the idea of deadshot being in the next movie, maybe not as a major villian, but as a side villian like scarecrow was. I like the way he was done in Gotham Knights, I think they can do him justice in the next movie.
The Riddler is one of those villains that I totally love, but have to admit he's almost never been used right. Dark Knight Dark City from Batman 452-454 is a great Riddler story. It's got the Riddler leaving a ton of clues for, and doing these seemingly random things, to trick Batman into doing everything the Riddler needs. Riddler just isn't often used right, is all.
I think Black Mask would be an awesome villain for this world, the direction his character is now. Horrific, gruesome, actually enjoys torture and murder. He's just less fun and games than the Joker. Plus he looks sweet.
Anarky might even make a good villain. Okay, so I totally hate the character, but I think Nolan could pull something like that off.
Penguin works for a mob boss type. Deadshot for a hitman. Not good enough on their own, but if you use them in the background they're fine. It shows that things are getting weirder. Oh, actuallly... How about the Great White Shark? You know, from Arkham Asylum: Living Hell? Imagine, the third Batman story simply takes place in this world they've created, featuring Batman as not more than a cameo. Probably would be an unpopular idea, but would result in a better story that doesn't take anything away from this last movie by showing the same characters in lesser situations.
Hey, who else is super happy that they killed off the "love interest"? If they do a third, I say don't try to fill that role. Surely I reiterate. Anyhow, enough.
I personally wold like to see them use the riddler if nothing else to help push up the "detective" angle of the Batman character. One of the big gripes of the first film was that Bruce Wayne wasn't much of a detective. Other characters figured stuff out around him, but he did very little himself.
In the Dark Knight, we saw him start getting more into this kind of thing. After two movies with big car chases and what not, I think it would a step back for the character to try and do a slugfest against some super villain. I would love to see the third film go more into the psychological battle of wills and intellect -- especially after getting basically outsmarted by the joker at almost every turn, I can see the character trying to remedy that. And story wise it makes sense as at the end of Dark knight, he obviously is gonna have to be keeping a slightly more low profile.
Like everyone else, I'm quite curious to see which direction they're likely to go in the next movie, and what characters they plan to use. My musings are in spoilers, since they make a few references to things that happened in The Dark Knight:
[spoiler]
I wouldn't be surprised at all to see Two Face make another appearance in the next film. They've already established that Gotham's law enforcement is willing to keep tightly guarded secrets, and pretend that people are dead when they're not. I could easily see Batman and Gordon coming to a private agreement of, "Yes - let's throw Harvey Dent a funeral, keep the truth under wraps, and for God's sake get this man some therapy."
Of course, it's a really dark shade of irony that while the Joker wasn't killed off, the actor playing him is actually dead. I'd be much more surprised to see the Joker showing up at all in the next film, simply because of the ginormous shoes that Heath Ledger has left to fill. (And I don't mean ginormous clown shoes, either.)
Ordinarily, I'd expect Catwoman to be a presence in the next film. Precisely because Rachel Dawes was apparently killed off. Yes, the apparent death of the love interest was a bold move that really worked well in this film. But it also left a gaping hole with respect to female characters. And I would be very, very surprised if they wrote a movie with no major female characters in it.
But... I also realize that Nolan did a great job in the first film with two Batman villains that had not previously been treated to serious film time. So, drawing solely upon the Animated Series for reference, I could envision another scenario. The return of Ra's Al Ghul, and the introduction of his daughter, Talia.
You see, I don't think we've seen the last of the League of Shadows. There are a few clues that I'm using in building this hypothesis. First, the established fact that the League of Shadows views Gotham as a city of corruption and wants to destroy it. Second, the fact that the Joker was a whirlwind of anarchy and destructive force in the Dark Knight movie - trying to push the city of Gotham towards self-destruction. And finally... viewers may recall the scene where the Joker is in prison, and the cops are noting that they have nothing on identifying who the Joker is. Dental records, fingerprints, clothing... all of that stuff turned up an absolute blank. Which makes me wonder if the League of Shadows had a hand in creating the Joker in the first place, and then turning him loose on Gotham City.
It makes for a fun hypothesis, at any rate.
[/spoiler]
The last part of your post is pretty interesting, actually. I could see the League returning to take another stab at destroying the city.
http://www.theconnoisseurs.com/thedarkknight.html
The Dark Knight
The sheer volume of comic book movies this year has been staggering, but overall the consensus was that this movie would be at the top of the heap. With a long running viral internet campaign, a bunch of advanced screenings, and dozens of clever promotions, I think the Dark Knight was crowned this summer's blockbuster hit months in advance of actually opening. Add to that the tabloid appeal of Heath Ledger's tragic death after an amazing performance in what is arguably this movies lead role and you've got the year's most talked about film. So yeah, I saw this behemoth of a movie coming from a mile away and it still managed to surprise me within the first 10 minutes with a bank robbery otherwise reserved as the climax of a heist film. Also I'm a huge fan of actor Aaron Eckhart and I was not expecting that his Harvey Dent character was going to get as much on screen time and dialog as he did, and every such scene was great.
The only bit that was easy to predict was that Christian Bale would reprise his dual roles as millionaire Bruce Wayne and as Batman, the city's celebrated vigilante. At the beginning of the movie that is not too bad a gig, crime is down and he finds himself mostly fighting copycats and low rent villains. Then the Joker makes an appearance, destabilizing the balance of power amongst crime families and making it a really bad town to be a cop in. This incarnation of the Joker is extremely menacing, more of a horror icon than a gimmicky bank robber. And once the Joker points his ill will in the Batman's direction things become violently unpredictable, with important characters turning up dead every few minutes. In fact the movie seems to sink into a deeper and more hopeless place with each scene, as we are shown time and time again that high tech gadgetry is ineffective against the unpredictability of low tech terrorism. At times this is a welcome analogy but sometimes the metaphor becomes too obvious, in particular when Batman decides to implement a plan that allows him to spy on the entire population of Gotham.
I mostly took all that in stride given the fact that almost every movie this year has some dubious political commentary on patriotism and the war against terror (see my Iron Man review). More interesting is what this movie has to say about what it takes to be a hero and how such people are rewarded.
For example, the district attorney Harvey Dent becomes an extremely successful crime fighter only to have his spirit crushed and his face mutilated, creating the classic bat-villain Two Face in the process.
Other characters such as Commissioner Gordon (Gary Oldman) and Rachel Dawes (Maggie Gyllenhaal) find their own lives placed in peril due to their need for justice. As for Batman let's just say that he threatens to retire in just about every other scene.
But in the end summer films are not just about the characters, it's about the memorable set pieces. And in this movie there is no shortage of car chases, explosions, high tech gadgetry, and cathartic arse kicking. Batman is just a little bit darker than usual, although I would happily have him give up his new bone crunching ways and growly voice in exchange for some personality. Perhaps the next sequel will introduce a brightly colored sidekick to dampen his off-putting angst. I'm not asking for Batman's adventures in candy land but after saying so many times that it's darkest before the dawn, I would love to see what the dawn looks like.
I liked it. I didn't think it was the second coming of Christ, but it was definitely the best Batman movie to date.
As much as I loved the Joker in the movie, which was great, I was really impressed with the acting of the Harvey Dent role. I believed in Harvey. Heh.
I want Catwoman in the next movie. Nolan's take of Catwoman would be phenomenal.
[spoiler]
Quote from: UnkoMan on July 22, 2008, 08:14:51 AMHey, who else is super happy that they killed off the "love interest"? If they do a third, I say don't try to fill that role. Surely I reiterate. Anyhow, enough.
I was glad to be done with Dawes and I hope any future female principal in the franchise doesn't end up cast in some sort of template damsel-in-distress plot with a knife to her throat or hanging from something about to fall to her death. It's just that the ruse is so uncreative and predictable. (http://home.graffiti.net/stumpyanker:graffiti.net/emoticons/yawn.gif)
I don't mind a love interest if it's compelling. There is potential for an interesting interaction between Bruce and Selina, so maybe that would be fine. The problem is that Rachel Dawes was a waste of screen time in the first movie and only a little better in this one as a backdrop for Dent's anguish. (And, as I've said, I like Maggie Gyllenhaal and think her performance was fine.)
Frankly, I think some people in Hollywood hew to the notion that they can't get women in the theater seats without a love story, so they tack one on. I don't mind it when it takes a necessary character and gives her depth (like Pepper Potts in
Iron Man) without becoming a central part of the movie. But Rachel Dawes was an unnecessary and uninteresting character in
Batman Begins and the romance added nothing to her. They took a boring character and crafted a boring romantic subplot around her. At least in
DK they wrote her interaction with Dent as something that worked in the story, even if the Rachel-Bruce dynamic was still a snooze.
I guess my point is, if they are going to do it, do it right and make it serve some purpose in the film. Don't do it just as an afterthought to tighten the film's demographics or whatever the reason was here.[/spoiler]
Apparently, those who got cell phones in the marketing campaign got a message from the Joker over the weekend...!?!?
The Riddler would be a great villain for the next movie if only for the amazing viral marketing they could do with it. You think the Joker's crap was trippy? How phenomenal would the Riddler's be?
Quote from: stumpy on July 22, 2008, 06:48:35 PM
Don't do it just as an afterthought to tighten the film's demographics or whatever the reason was here.[/spoiler]
Oh, if only Hollywood could do this for everything.
Screw the demograpic, make the film how it should be.
The most logical villains to put in the next film are:
The Riddler - as actually been set up in the viral marketing campaign via the Gotham Times
Penguin - The Iceberg Lounge was mentioned in the Gotham Times as well but I don't see him being a "major villain" in the third. At best, he would be in a similar role to that of Falcone in The Dark Knight.
Catwoman - agreed that she deserves a reboot.
Professor Hugo Strange - He is brought in as part of the "catch Batman task force" and has ulterior motives.
Mad Hatter - kidnapper with a thing for the old Lewis Carroll story. I could attach a few other crimes on the list of things but this is a family forum.
The Black Mask - eh, maybe but to me is a long shot.
That Hugo Strange angle could be a brilliant one, exploring the duality of bruce/batman, his motives etc. in even deeper ways than the first movie.
Quote from: Mr. Hamrick on July 23, 2008, 06:06:30 AM
The most logical villains to put in the next film are:
The Riddler - as actually been set up in the viral marketing campaign via the Gotham Times
Can you elaborate? I thought I'd followed the marketing fairly closely, and didn't really see anything I'd view as setting up the Riddler. . .
Quote from: bredon7777 on July 23, 2008, 06:30:42 AM
Quote from: Mr. Hamrick on July 23, 2008, 06:06:30 AM
The most logical villains to put in the next film are:
The Riddler - as actually been set up in the viral marketing campaign via the Gotham Times
Can you elaborate? I thought I'd followed the marketing fairly closely, and didn't really see anything I'd view as setting up the Riddler. . .
E. Nashton wrote in a letter to the editor. Edward Nashton is the Riddler's real name, before he changed it to Edward Nigma.
Quote from: bredon7777 on July 22, 2008, 09:07:55 PM
Apparently, those who got cell phones in the marketing campaign got a message from the Joker over the weekend...!?!?
Can someone elaborate on THIS?
Quote from: Figure Fan on July 23, 2008, 11:03:43 AM
Quote from: bredon7777 on July 22, 2008, 09:07:55 PM
Apparently, those who got cell phones in the marketing campaign got a message from the Joker over the weekend...!?!?
Can someone elaborate on THIS?
I googled and found nothing.
Hey I realized that batgirl CAN make an appaerence in the next movie. i was thinking that, they show the comish's daughter but never really call her barbara. So i decided to look into it, i found this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Gordon_(comics)#Post-Crisis_2
His wife is called sarah in the movie and that is still close to the source material, because sarah is the second wife of Jim, and little barbara gordon is his adopted daughter! They could easily pull this off in the movies! I really hope it happens!
Christian Bale has adamantly refused to step foot on the set if they introduced Robin... I cant imagine his opinion of Batgirl being much different.
Quote from: Figure Fan on July 23, 2008, 11:03:43 AM
Quote from: bredon7777 on July 22, 2008, 09:07:55 PM
Apparently, those who got cell phones in the marketing campaign got a message from the Joker over the weekend...!?!?
Can someone elaborate on THIS?
That viral call happened 1-2 weeks before the free advance screening. For those who had the Joker cell phones.
I read in the news Christian Bale was accused of assaulting his mother and sister in London. Apparently his sis and mom put on a little to much lipstick and well it was a case of misidentity.
one thing I didn't really understand in the movie is the part where Two-Face shoots the driver.
I mean, did he not realize he was riding in the SAME car?
i say they should stop making batman movie, this one tops it all.
Quote from: TheMarvell on July 23, 2008, 06:33:15 PM
one thing I didn't really understand in the movie is the part where Two-Face shoots the driver.
I mean, did he not realize he was riding in the SAME car?
Oh yeah! The car flipped if I remember right. I was a little confused by that, because I'm pretty sure Dent was still in the car. Maybe he escaped?..
saw it again today... when he prepare to shot the driver you can see and hear how he unlock the door... so we can asume he jumped
Yeah, I am nearly sure the wife's name is Barbara and I remember thinking what a dumb decision that was. He easily could have had an adult daughter we never saw, but it would be a little odd if both she and the wife were both named Barbara.
Not that I especially want to see a Batgirl character in the next movie, but there was no reason to play that sort of game with the names.
I appologize, as watched the movie for the second time last night, just a few hours after i posted that, i realized that the wife in this movie is Barbara. And the way that Jim put Tony (their son) in danger at the end, would give her a reason to divorce him, setting up an oportunity for a batgirl. Here is an example: You know the part of the movie when dent, gordon and batman are standing by the batsignal. Then batman disappears and gordon says "Yeah, he does that." I would love for them to do that with batman and batgirl. So, same scene, except instead of dent its batgirl, and when commisioner gordon goes to talk to batgirl, she is gone! then batman looks at him and says "Yeah, she does that." because batgirl was the person who would show up at thwe crime scene, help batman, and shazam, shes gone.
Quote from: Figure Fan on July 23, 2008, 07:48:19 PM
Quote from: TheMarvell on July 23, 2008, 06:33:15 PM
one thing I didn't really understand in the movie is the part where Two-Face shoots the driver.
I mean, did he not realize he was riding in the SAME car?
Oh yeah! The car flipped if I remember right. I was a little confused by that, because I'm pretty sure Dent was still in the car. Maybe he escaped?..
Quote from: The_Baroness on July 23, 2008, 08:14:15 PM
saw it again today... when he prepare to shot the driver you can see and hear how he unlock the door... so we can asume he jumped
Actually he was putting on his seatbelt before he shot the driver.
Quote from: Midnite on July 24, 2008, 01:40:22 PM
Quote from: Figure Fan on July 23, 2008, 07:48:19 PM
Quote from: TheMarvell on July 23, 2008, 06:33:15 PM
one thing I didn't really understand in the movie is the part where Two-Face shoots the driver.
I mean, did he not realize he was riding in the SAME car?
Oh yeah! The car flipped if I remember right. I was a little confused by that, because I'm pretty sure Dent was still in the car. Maybe he escaped?..
Quote from: The_Baroness on July 23, 2008, 08:14:15 PM
saw it again today... when he prepare to shot the driver you can see and hear how he unlock the door... so we can asume he jumped
Actually he was putting on his seatbelt before he shot the driver.
Yikes. Plot hole?
:spoiler:
Quote from: Figure Fan on July 24, 2008, 07:07:45 PM
Quote from: Midnite on July 24, 2008, 01:40:22 PM
Quote from: Figure Fan on July 23, 2008, 07:48:19 PM
Quote from: TheMarvell on July 23, 2008, 06:33:15 PM
one thing I didn't really understand in the movie is the part where Two-Face shoots the driver.
I mean, did he not realize he was riding in the SAME car?
Oh yeah! The car flipped if I remember right. I was a little confused by that, because I'm pretty sure Dent was still in the car. Maybe he escaped?..
Quote from: The_Baroness on July 23, 2008, 08:14:15 PM
saw it again today... when he prepare to shot the driver you can see and hear how he unlock the door... so we can asume he jumped
Actually he was putting on his seatbelt before he shot the driver.
Yikes. Plot hole?
What you talking about seltbelts save lifes you know. :angry:
jk
Ya it is kind of a plothole but it's not really a huge one because it can be explained just not very well.
Anyways great movie, I might even see it again.
Quote from: Midnite on July 23, 2008, 05:32:33 PM
Quote from: Figure Fan on July 23, 2008, 11:03:43 AM
Quote from: bredon7777 on July 22, 2008, 09:07:55 PM
Apparently, those who got cell phones in the marketing campaign got a message from the Joker over the weekend...!?!?
Can someone elaborate on THIS?
That viral call happened 1-2 weeks before the free advance screening. For those who had the Joker cell phones.
Not the call I was referring to. Found this on a ARG message board:
Quote from: unfiction
*****
Congratulations Clowns!
Your Movie "The Dork Knight"...
Has Set A New Midnight Record,
A New Opening Day Record,
The Record for Opening In The Most North American Theaters Ever,
and Has Now Broken the Opening Weekend Record!
Doesn't This News Just Make You SMILE!
More to Come....
*****
Supposedly, this message was sent on 7/20 to those with Joker cell phones. I have been unable to confirm or deny this.
Quote from: ips on July 24, 2008, 08:53:18 PM
the intent was that he would be saved from what he was doing by putting on his seatbelt. it was dark humour basically.
sort of a missed opportunity, as I never saw him buckle his seatbelt in the two times I've seen the movie so far. To me it just seemed like Two-Face was just becoming more crazy by shooting the driver of the very car he was riding in. I also didn't think it made much sense, as what exactly was Two-Face's issue with the driver? Everyone else he flips the coin for, he was out for vengeance against.
a minor plot hole that I can let slide, but it did make me wonder "huh...why?" after the second time I saw it
Quote from: TheMarvell on July 24, 2008, 10:17:11 PM
sort of a missed opportunity, as I never saw him buckle his seatbelt in the two times I've seen the movie so far. To me it just seemed like Two-Face was just becoming more crazy by shooting the driver of the very car he was riding in. I also didn't think it made much sense, as what exactly was Two-Face's issue with the driver? Everyone else he flips the coin for, he was out for vengeance against.
The point would be that by buckling up, Two-Face already knew going in that there were even odds that the coin would come up 'good heads.' So he planned in advance for the possibility that he would need to shoot the driver to get a second chance at his real target - the mob boss, who had
not buckled up, and would almost certainly die from a nasty crash. Two-Face is not above skewing the odds in his favor, or acting like a dirty lawyer who honors the letter of his agreements, if not the intent.
Bad guys NEVER buckle up. Fact.
Quote from: TheMarvell on July 24, 2008, 10:17:11 PM
Quote from: ips on July 24, 2008, 08:53:18 PM
the intent was that he would be saved from what he was doing by putting on his seatbelt. it was dark humour basically.
sort of a missed opportunity, as I never saw him buckle his seatbelt in the two times I've seen the movie so far. To me it just seemed like Two-Face was just becoming more crazy by shooting the driver of the very car he was riding in. I also didn't think it made much sense, as what exactly was Two-Face's issue with the driver? Everyone else he flips the coin for, he was out for vengeance against.
a minor plot hole that I can let slide, but it did make me wonder "huh...why?" after the second time I saw it
He actually did flip the coin for the driver as well. And when he was saying something along the lines of "he's not so lucky" thats when he started to buckle up.
[spoiler]The one that gets me is Harvey is attributed to 5 deaths as per Gordon and 2 of those cops. I wonder who they all were? I'll assume that Maroni and his driver make up 2 of the non-cops and I know wertz was one of the cops, so who were the other 2? Maybe we can asssume Harvey offed the Bartender so that would make 3 civillians and the only ones I can think of for cops are either one of the 2 cops at the hospitol that the joker killed or he killed Ramirez anyway[/spoiler]
Quote from: Ares_God_of_War on July 25, 2008, 12:01:24 AM
[spoiler]The one that gets me is Harvey is attributed to 5 deaths as per Gordon and 2 of those cops. I wonder who they all were? I'll assume that Maroni and his driver make up 2 of the non-cops and I know wertz was one of the cops, so who were the other 2? Maybe we can asssume Harvey offed the Bartender so that would make 3 civillians and the only ones I can think of for cops are either one of the 2 cops at the hospitol that the joker killed or he killed Ramirez anyway[/spoiler]
Since Ares placed that element of the movie in spoilers I shall offer my musings in spoilers as well:
[spoiler]Regarding the question of attributing five deaths to Two-Face, two of which are cops, this may simply be a mystery that will have to wait until the DVD is released with deleted scenes or until the director speaks up. I've done a little searching on the Internet and found further discussion of this connundrum, but no conclusive answer. A reasonable theory was that like many movies, about a half hour of material got removed on the cutting room floor, which might have included the two unaccounted-for deaths that are attributed to Two-Face.
Another comment was made (which I haven't yet been able to independently verify) that in the 'car scene' where Two-Face shoots the driver, one can get a brief glimpse of another one of Maroni's men being yanked from view just before Harvey enters the car. It's possible that Two-Face might have offed that guy, if that's the case.[/spoiler]
Quote from: TheMarvell on July 24, 2008, 10:17:11 PM
Quote from: ips on July 24, 2008, 08:53:18 PM
the intent was that he would be saved from what he was doing by putting on his seatbelt. it was dark humour basically.
sort of a missed opportunity, as I never saw him buckle his seatbelt in the two times I've seen the movie so far. To me it just seemed like Two-Face was just becoming more crazy by shooting the driver of the very car he was riding in. I also didn't think it made much sense, as what exactly was Two-Face's issue with the driver? Everyone else he flips the coin for, he was out for vengeance against.
a minor plot hole that I can let slide, but it did make me wonder "huh...why?" after the second time I saw it
While I certainly wouldn't call that scene 'dark humor', Two-Face definitely buckled his seat belt right before shooting the driver. The reason why he did that was to kill the mob guy..but since Two-Face flipped his coin to let the mob boss live, he flipped it again to kill the driver, knowing that the car accident would kill the mob guy as well. It was his way of not defying this coin but still killing the mob guy.
Watch it again, they deliberately show Two-Face buckling his seat belt. No plot holes there. I thought it was pretty straightforward when I watched it.
I remember talking to someone about the Dark Knight and he said "It was good but it didn't feel like a Batman movie". I thought about this after seeing the movie yesterday and I have to agree. This wasn't a Batman movie, it was a Gotham movie. Screen time was spread liberally among Dent, Gordon, Joker, and Batman to the point where you can consider each of them a lead. Though Batman does get the majority of the screen the movie required people like Dent and Gordon to push it forward. Some might say this is good story telling and they would be right, but it's a departure from your average Batman story. Where Batman only deals with others on his own terms, he gets what he wants from them or puts them where they want them and then goes back to what he wants to do. In this movie, he is as much a pawn as he is a player.
[spoiler]When Jim Gordon faked his death I doubt anyone knew, especially Batman. Joker lying about the location of Rachael/Harvey to further his plan on destroying Dent. The hostages being dressed as clowns could be seen two ways, one as a clever way to make the police kill innocents and as a way to force Batman to fight the police in a desperate attempt to protect the hostages. We saw very little of the master planner Batman that has become the status quo in the comics. He was very much at the mercy of all the "schemers" as Joker called them.[/spoiler]
Anyways, my prediction for the next movie is a continued focus on the Gotham Police, more specifically Gordon trying to root out the corruption.
[spoiler]When he talked to Dent in the hospital he was on the edge, paranoid, and deeply disturbed by the corruption in his own department. He didn't know who it was and I think this paranoia will continue in the third movie and probably become a problem. As for the Batman I think he will also go through a stag of paranoia now that he is a fugitive. He doesn't know who trust, maybe he will find out Alfred hid the letter, something between him a Lucius will happen, etc etc etc. What would further add to this paranoia is if he comes into contact with say Catwoman and she plays him. Add another villain like Black Mask or Penguin to connect the two storylines and you have the third movie.[/spoiler]
By the way this movie gave my favorite portrayal of the Joker ever. He was a genius, he was disturbing, frightening, and everything the character should be. Combined with the constantly changing "origin story" further adding to the "can you really trust what the Joker says" and the mystery of the character, which was great. Plus Ledger's performance was something special.
[spoiler]Also I find it interesting that Joker actually won. Sure they covered up Dent's death but he destroyed the white knight and now Gotham might be in the hands of a lesser DA. Despite him saying Batman was the one who changed everything, I think the reality is Joker changed everything. It will be this crime spree that causes all the other "freaks" to slowly come to Gotham. He opened the door, which I think was nicely illustrated by him being responsible for the creation of Two Face.[/spoiler]
Alright, I've been meaning to do this since I saw the movie, but simply haven't had the time. This movie disappointed me, not because it was necessarily a bad movie, but because the flaws that it did have, and they were plentiful, glared at me like the sun on a Mississippi summer day. They were many of the same problems the first movie suffered from, made inexcusable by the fact of their continued presence in this second installment. I'll put the rest of this in spoilers, just in the off chance that anyone here hasn't seen it yet.
[spoiler]When I saw Batman Begins I was completely captivated. I loved almost every facet of the story, the film elements themselves, and the acting, but I noticed weird little flaws that I KNEW they would fix in the next one. The Rachael Dawes character is one I think we all would agree upon, and her handling in the second movie at least provided a semi-useful reason for her existence, although I would have vastly preferred that she had simply been written out off screen and Dent's wife Grace been the catalyst instead. Anyway, at least the problem was solved with the character's demise in the second one. However, the other main flaw of the first movie is alive and well in the sequel, and that is the film style of the action scenes. They follow the pattern of quick, impossible to follow cuts, and uncomfortably close shots that completely obscure the action going on in front of the lens. In the first movie this style served a real purpose as Batman was beginning his journey, highlighting the speed and violence, the pure brutality of the fight scenes, but by Bruce's final confrontation with Ra's, he had truly become Batman and the same style was a dead weight. Because of its continued use the finale is hard to follow and not the fight it should have been.
I was appalled to see the same strategy employed in DK, to the point where I was almost completely lost during most of the big action sequences. The car chase was especially chaotic (and not in a good way), dragging on and on with uninterpretable shots of cars and trucks, and batman on his bike that provided no sense of where they were in relation to one another. Similar to the first movie, the finale with the Joker was filmed so dark and close in that I couldn't tell what was going on. Was he beating the dogs? Batman? The floor? Who was hitting who? Was Batman fighting back, or just wandering around in a daze?
Related to these terrible cinematographic choices is the abysmal state of the movie's editing. I have NEVER seen a major Hollywood release that had such terrible editing. The first third of the movie was filled with jump cuts, scenes that didn't lead into each other, and terrible transitions. That was inexcusable, although I imagine it was a result of their desperate scramble to achieve the PG-13 rating the film NEVER should have had.
As far as the story itself...well, it was a wonderful idea, with moments of incredible beauty, poignancy, and pure pathos, but it was fraught with it's own set of problems. To start off, this movie should have been split in two, and I think most of us know that. It couldn't accomplish anything it set out to do because it was trying to be all things to all people. It tried to be a cop drama, but failed because we never got to know any of the cops other than Gordon (who we mostly knew from the first film. When Dent comes to kill the two that betrayed him, there is fairly little weight to the scenes as far as they are concerned, because we know NOTHING about them, except for one line of dialog concerning the woman's possibly checkered past. It tried to be a superhero flick, but failed because Batman, despite constantly reacting to the Joker, seemed to me to have too little to do in his own movie. He takes his trip to China, rides around in the Batpod, and beats on some gangsters, but I still felt like he was MIA. It couldn't really tell us the story of Two-Face's rise and fall either, because of the breakneck pace forced upon it. Instead of what we got, they should have made two movies at once in the vein of Back to the Future or LOTR. DK should have ended with Dent in the hospital bed, turning to Gordon and demanding that he say his name. Give Batman a small victory right before that point, and then end right there. The second movie should have given us Two-Faces story, and not forced the descent of a good man into a venue far too thin for its scope.
As far as individual choices they made in the story, most of them I enjoyed and agreed with, but I don't like the way they handled Dent's scarring. It removes the burden of guilt that Batman carries for it. Also, I hated the fact that Dent and Wayne were not friends to begin with (another reason I curse the existence of the Rachael character in the first film), as this also really causes the film to lose the weight and pathos their relationship possesses in the comics and the animated series.
Now, don't let this tirade throw you, I didn't hate the film, I was just disappointed in its weaknesses, and I'm frustrated by the fact that no one seems to take notice, or seems to simply excuse them. The fact that this flawed piece of cinema history is being hailed as the best movie of the summer really makes me think about the way our society is helpless against hype.
On the positive side, the movie had moments where it's potential shined through, as I said above. The acting was superb in almost every way, and say whatever you wish about the Rachael character, at least they hired a competent actress to play the part this time. Bale did a really good job (other than his Batman voice, which seems to have become a parody of itself, and at times makes it impossible to take him seriously in the role), and might have been really touching if he had been given more time to delve into the character on screen. Heath Ledger's last performance as the Joker was simply astounding. He truly brought the character to life as the avatar of chaos that he is, with manic energy and pure madness that just spilled off the screen. Now, I still don't think they needed to make the visual choices for his character that they did to accomplish this, the scars work for me now. I still think he should have had the bleached skin. As a matter of fact, I wish that they had taken a page out of that first Joker story, and had everyone think that it was makeup until they actually captured him, and then when they open his shirt to check him for weapons, they (and the audience) would realize that he is more than he seems. I think that would have added to his moorless portrayal. I loved the bit about the different origins, though. The fellow who played Dent did an incredible job with little time, just about pulling off Two-Face's turn. That scene where he finds the coin, and turns it over to reveal the burnt side and KNOWS that she is dead...that is cinematic gold. I loved the theme of the people of Gotham CHOOSING to be better, and the heavy overtones of redemption.
All in all, I really wanted to love this movie, perhaps more than any movie I've ever seen, and even though I went in with high expectations, I don't believe they were unreasonable. Even so, I find myself mourning the film, or films, that could and should, have been.. [/spoiler]
Benton-
[spoiler]
I don't disagree with a lot of what you said (though the jump cuts didn't bother me at all), but how on earth does what they did in TDK REMOVE the burden of guilt that Batman carries for two-faces scarring? In the original origin, he's in a trial and Batman isn't even present when he gets scarred- if anything, I'd say the way they handled it here puts far more guilt on Batman.
[/spoiler]
General question:
[spoiler]
Did the Joker lie to Batman about what address Rachel was at, sending him deliberatley to save Dent because Rachel's death would hurt him more? Or did he just give the addresses knowing Batman would jump to the wrong conclusion. Mrs. bredon and I wqere discussing this and we could not remember...
[/spoiler]
Quote from: bredon7777 on July 25, 2008, 08:56:40 PM
General question:
[spoiler]Did the Joker lie to Batman about what address Rachel was at, sending him deliberatley to save Dent because Rachel's death would hurt him more? Or did he just give the addresses knowing Batman would jump to the wrong conclusion. Mrs. bredon and I were discussing this and we could not remember...
[/spoiler]
[spoiler]Joker did lie about the address just so he could prove his point and hurt Dent (his point of turning a good guy into someone like himself). It also didn't hurt the fact that the Joker had deduced that Bats had the hots for Rachel. A win-win situation in his eyes.[/spoiler]
-MJB
Quote from: bredon7777 on July 25, 2008, 08:56:40 PM
Benton-
[spoiler]
I don't disagree with a lot of what you said (though the jump cuts didn't bother me at all), but how on earth does what they did in TDK REMOVE the burden of guilt that Batman carries for two-faces scarring? In the original origin, he's in a trial and Batman isn't even present when he gets scarred- if anything, I'd say the way they handled it here puts far more guilt on Batman.
[/spoiler]
I'm not referring to the original origin, but the superior one presented in TAS. However, I believe the point holds valid, because in both instances Batman was too slow to save his friend, a fact which torments him. In the movie it is a freak accident, which strengthens the random chance connection, but that is a facet of the story never explored.
I, for one, think that that the movie was just fine. I liked that they had a lot put in it. It kept me fixed to the screen. As for Bruce and Dent's relationship, Bruce/Batman did respect Harvey, and knew that he was one of the greatest hopes for the city. When that hope is gone, Batman of course feels sad about it, so there is guilt there. Personally, I felt the TAS's origin, while good, was a bit of a cop-out, by having Harvey's psychological transformation into Two-Face be due simply to a split personality that was corrupt all along. In TDK, the persona of Harvey Dent changes, and I like that better. As for Batman's lack of presence; I don't like it when someone judges a movie off of something that's come before it, and says that it's not too good, just because it has the same name as something else. I judged this movie as a movie for the most part. Batman may have not shown up a lot, but the movie is still great regardless. The movie's basically a crime drama with Batman's name slapped onto it, but I don't dislike it for that.
Quote from: kkhohoho on July 25, 2008, 11:02:58 PMPersonally, I felt the TAS's origin, while good, was a bit of a cop-out, by having Harvey's psychological transformation into Two-Face be due simply to a split personality that was corrupt all along. In TDK, the persona of Harvey Dent changes, and I like that better.
Actually, I was a little annoyed that they didn't play into the disassociative identity of Two-Face, since I've always thought that was one of the more compelling aspects of his character. He's obsessed with duality, and two minds in one body perfectly reflects that. I do wish they'd gone more into the "twin opposing natures cancel each other out and make nothing have any meaning," instead of just jumping into the "nothing has any meaning," but that's alright.
I beleive that if you removed all the flaws from this movie... you would have the greatest movie...... EVER.
[spoiler]That said... no movie is 100% flawless and we can nit-pick at all of them. Whatever flaws this movie had were minor... and none of them took away from making this a top flight film. IMO this was a great crime drama with a superhero/villain twist. The writer and director did a great job at combining multiple story lines into one congruent film. A feat not too often tried... and even more seldom successful. Did it really matter that you knew very little about the cops Harvey ofted...? Go watch movies like the Godfather and see how much screen time a lot of the underlings get who do the dirty work before they get axed. This movie wasn't about those guys... but they served thier purpose.
Most of the primary characters, on the other hand, were well acted while having depth and/or purpose. As much as a few people dislike the 'love' interest in a movie, Rachael served a purpose. She was a stabilizing catalyst for Bruce and a destabilizing catalyst for Harvey. Sure they could have went another way.... but then the movie may not has been as good on the whole.
I notice some of you keep comparing the characters to previous or established versions. As I eluded to in a previous post... these characters are not the same characters we knew. They resemble what we knew in name and function only The portrayals on the other hand are all unique to these movies with only hints of past interpretations.
The pacing was good. Knocking the editing...? come on. Don't be surprised if this movie gets nominated for some honors based on its technical aspects like the editing. As far as the fight and action scenes go... sure they are dark... sure they are hectic and oft time chaotic............... its the DARK KNIGHT. Its done on purpose in order to keep an air of mystery and awe keeping everything in the shadows where Batman operates best.. while at the same time getting your adrenaline pumping. I bet you were glued trying to keep up and see what was going on... ie purposeful intent. Otherwise it would have had a run of the mill car chase scene and the fight scenes would have looked like a bad Jet Li movie......... or even worst it could have been nice and clear and you would have seen a big 'BAMM!' flash up on the screen. :)[/spoiler]
While the movie wasn't flawless... it still managed to be one of if not the best comic book inspired movies ever.
Well, I almost agree with you there HQ, I think if the flaws were addressed DK would be two of the greatest movies of all time.
[spoiler]Benton the idea that they should have split the movie into two is ridiculous. Joker's whole plan from the moment he entered the Mob bosses gathering was to destroy Harvey Dent. To split the movie into two would be jarring and would ultimately ruin the story presented in DK. The conclusion to the film would feel half empty as if it were missing something, ie Harvey Dent. All this effort Joker puts into tearing down Dent and then what? Gets his face burned and then he is gone from the movie? How would you untangle Dent from the main plot without destroying the story?[/spoiler]
I think you've misunderstood me Ajax, I don't mean that the two contiguous story arcs should be divorce from one another, but that instead that the film should have had more in common with Empire Strikes Back and Return of the Jedi. So, most of the movie would have been the same, except expanded to make it more complete where it was anemic (the cop drama parts, along with Batman and the mob), Dent is still scarred, the Joker still wages his war of chaos, but we stop where Harvey demands that Gordon call him by his nickname, and we know that he has broken. Then, the next movie would have had the actual resolution, and a longer story arc with Dent himself. The Joker's story could even have resolved in DK, allowing Dent to take center stage as he becomes a true dichotomy.
I just saw it for a second time tonight with my cousin and his young son. I liked it much more the second time. It went from "I liked it but I would pretty easily recommend Iron Man to someone before DK" to "I liked it a lot and it would be a tough call between IM and DK, depending on the sort of movie the viewer likes". Just a few thoughts after the second viewing:
[spoiler]
I.
Benton, I kind of wish Dent was available for the next Batman movie. But, this movie wouldn't have been nearly as effective if things hadn't come to the resolution they did here. For one thing, the scene where Dent makes Gordon go through the same anguish he did - by promising a loved one that everything would be all right, knowing that he couldn't be sure it would be - would have been tough to recreate in context in the next movie.
Second, the whole power of the ending of this movie is that we (and Bruce, aided by Alfred) come to see that Batman is the incorruptible hero that Bruce wanted Dent to be. Realizing that, Batman can take the heat of being publicly perceived as a villain so that the public can have its inspirational white knight. At the end of this movie, Bruce makes the sacrifice to make Batman the Dark Knight, and we know why and what it means. I don't think that works if Dent lives.
As an aside, I still don't overall buy into the romance between Bruce and Rachel. But, I do appreciate how it plays into constructing the parallel between Wayne and Dent. The Joker (knowingly or not) attempted to corrupt both of them with Dawes death. Even though we had hints before that Dent would cross the line that Batman wouldn't (in Dent's scene with Scarecrow), it was that final push that really crushed Dent and that Batman overcame, even though they both deeply loved Rachel and were anguished by her loss after they both tried to save her. (And, yes, I know Dent had the added scarring to deal with, but that's not my point here.) Anyway I think the movie would have been much weaker without that parallel. Plus, the third movie would have had to flash back too many Rachel scenes and I really am glad that character is done.
II.
The Bruce parts of the movie are too slow for little kids, and many grownups, if my read of the theater was accurate. That's too bad, because that was one of the strong points of Iron Man - it was engaging when he was in costume and it was engaging when he was Stark. In DK, Bruce Wayne came off as a little dry. I'm not sure that's the wrong way to play him, but it does take away from those scenes.
III.
This time I saw the movie in a larger theater with better sound and the abrupt scene cuts, which were still there, were much easier to ignore. Maybe it's just that, knowing they were coming, they were less distracting. Maybe it was the better theater. Either way, they didn't annoy me as much this time through.
IV.
Dent definitely buckled up before shooting Maroni's driver.
V.
Gordon's wife was named Barbara. His daughter, though unnamed, was very young. Maybe eight, tops. She is not Batgirl material.
VI.
I know it's a movie, but I must say that the Joker's speech to Dent where he asks, "Do I seem like a man with a plan?" rang true to me. I mean, when you think it through, the Joker had to have done a lot of very intricate planning and preemptive execution to have everything go off the way it did, and most of it dependent on things that would have been difficult if not impossible to foresee. By the end of the movie, it was straining credibility, a bit.[/spoiler]
Quote from: stumpy on July 26, 2008, 10:56:38 PM
[spoiler]VI.
I know it's a movie, but I must say that the Joker's speech to Dent where he asks, "Do I seem like a man with a plan?" rang true to me. I mean, when you think it through, the Joker had to have done a lot of very intricate planning and preemptive execution to have everything go off the way it did, and most of it dependent on things that would have been difficult if not impossible to foresee. By the end of the movie, it was straining credibility, a bit.[/spoiler]
[spoiler]I saw things a different way. The Joker HAD a plan. It was quite elaborate and complicated but he did have a plan. His goal was to ruin Harvey Dent. Just like in the Killing Joke, the Joker wanted to prove that anyone can become a monster like him.
While TDK Joker was quite mad he was also a friggin' genius when it came to these plans. Look how he planned to get arrested. He performed surgery on a man to fill him with explosives and a cell phone so he could escape. He was a loony guy but at the same time he had everything planned to a tee. IMHO of course.[/spoiler]
-MJB
Must agree with MJB there.
It wasn't a huge deal, but if you think through all the events that had to have worked out a certain way, they really do strain credulity.
[spoiler]I'm not going to go through them one by one, but basically everything from the arrest at the point when Dent reveals that he is Batman had to be planned in advance, including planting hundred of explosive devices and setting up dozens of hostages; orchestrating a chase scene that nearly got Dent killed several times; having his handful of corrupt cops in the right place at the right time to pick up Dent and Dawes; the plot to pit the public against Bruce's accountant via the hospital bombs; getting his "phone call' guy in the right place, but not having him collapse so soon that he's hauled off to the infirmary before the Joker can call him; etc.; etc.; etc. Keep in mind that, during all of this, he doesn't want Dent (or Batman, really) killed until Dent is shown as having been tarnished and both are nearly killed more than once before that happens.
I mean, there's planning and then there's near precognition... :lol:[/spoiler]
as a side note, the guy that Harvey intimidates shortly after the attempted hit on the mayor is not Scarecrow, just a guy that looks remarkably like the same actor. Batman says what his name is when he stops Dent, and it's not Jonathan Crane.
Finally got out to see this yesterday. Ledger is amazing, obviously, and pretty much steals the whole movie. Unfortunately, next to him, Bale looks like a complete non-entity. I was interested in Dent, Gordon, even Alfred, but I couldn't care less about that stiff in the rubber suit. Neither his waffling about whether to turn himself in, nor the lame "love triangle" with Gyllenhaal had any dramatic impact whatsoever (And yes, that growly "tough guy" voice he puts on is hilariously dumb. I expected him to start pitching Frosted Flakes halfway through the movie).
I have to agree with Benton about the editing -- I thought the extended car chase worked okay, but most of the scenes of hand-to-hand combat are just gibberish. When they made the joke early on about Batman finally being able to turn his head, I had high hopes, but no... it's the same old quick cuts and deep shadows to hide his lack of mobility. Bleh.
Still, it's a great movie. Smart, suspenseful and action-packed. It's going to be tough for any sequel to live up to.
In case anyone is curious as to the progress of The Dark Knight's domestic blockbuster record, as well as other films, I found this list:
http://www.boxofficeguru.com/blockbusters.htm
I guess it's projected to enter into the top 5, if not higher. :blink:
Quote from: TheMarvell on July 27, 2008, 10:00:38 AMas a side note, the guy that Harvey intimidates shortly after the attempted hit on the mayor is not Scarecrow, just a guy that looks remarkably like the same actor. Batman says what his name is when he stops Dent, and it's not Jonathan Crane.
Thanks. I was wondering why the name didn't sound familiar, but Batman's description of the guy as an Arkham inmate and so on threw me.
Quote from: stumpy on July 27, 2008, 01:57:18 AM
It wasn't a huge deal, but if you think through all the events that had to have worked out a certain way, they really do strain credulity.
[spoiler]I'm not going to go through them one by one, but basically everything from the arrest at the point when Dent reveals that he is Batman had to be planned in advance, including planting hundred of explosive devices and setting up dozens of hostages; orchestrating a chase scene that nearly got Dent killed several times; having his handful of corrupt cops in the right place at the right time to pick up Dent and Dawes; the plot to pit the public against Bruce's accountant via the hospital bombs; getting his "phone call' guy in the right place, but not having him collapse so soon that he's hauled off to the infirmary before the Joker can call him; etc.; etc.; etc. Keep in mind that, during all of this, he doesn't want Dent (or Batman, really) killed until Dent is shown as having been tarnished and both are nearly killed more than once before that happens.
I mean, there's planning and then there's near precognition... :lol:[/spoiler]
[spoiler]I think there was a plan and the whole Harvey Dent revealing himself as Batman was part of it. Since he said it himself, he thought Harvey was Batman (After he saw Bats jump out the window to save Rachael without hesitation). Batman showing up and saving Harvey was the kink in that plan. Not saying he planned every detail but there was definitely a plan there. How detailed nobody will ever know.[/spoiler]
By the way can I ask why people hate Rachael so much? I admit in the first movie I didn't care for her, but in the second I was just indifferent. Yet I see alot of Rachael hate, so I was wondering why? :P
Quote from: Ajax on July 27, 2008, 01:52:44 PM
By the way can I ask why people hate Rachael so much? I admit in the first movie I didn't care for her, but in the second I was just indifferent. Yet I see alot of Rachael hate, so I was wondering why? :P
All Rachel's been good for so far up to this point has been A) being a love interest which wasn't actually a good thing, and B) being the catalyst for Harvey's psychological descent into Two-Face. Actually, she was only good for B.
Quote from: Ajax on July 27, 2008, 01:52:44 PM
By the way can I ask why people hate Rachael so much? I admit in the first movie I didn't care for her, but in the second I was just indifferent. Yet I see alot of Rachael hate, so I was wondering why? :P
I liked Rachel fine. . .once she was played by a competent actress.
[spoiler]
Quote from: Ajax on July 27, 2008, 01:52:44 PMI think there was a plan and the whole Harvey Dent revealing himself as Batman was part of it. Since he said it himself, he thought Harvey was Batman (After he saw Bats jump out the window to save Rachael without hesitation). Batman showing up and saving Harvey was the kink in that plan. Not saying he planned every detail but there was definitely a plan there. How detailed nobody will ever know.
He said he
almost believed Dent was Batman. And, the Joker thought Dent and Batman weren't the same before Batman saved Dent in the warehouse. He had to have gotten some sort of clue either when Batman joined the chase as Harvey was being transported or at least when Batman showed up in his interrogation room for their little chat.[/spoiler]
Quote from: Ajax on July 27, 2008, 01:52:44 PMBy the way can I ask why people hate Rachael so much? I admit in the first movie I didn't care for her, but in the second I was just indifferent. Yet I see alot of Rachael hate, so I was wondering why? :P
I don't hate her. I just think in the first movie she was dead weight. In this movie she was a little better (and played much better by Gyllenhaal) in terms her role in the plot, but I still didn't buy the Bruce-Rachel romantic angle.
Quote from: stumpy on July 27, 2008, 05:28:51 PM
[
I don't hate her. I just think in the first movie she was dead weight. In this movie she was a little better (and played much better by Gyllenhaal) in terms her role in the plot, but I still didn't buy the Bruce-Rachel romantic angle.
Funny, I found her very integral to forming the man Bruce was to become and an excellent piece to the puzzle that was the why of Batman.
Quote from: steamteck on July 27, 2008, 06:14:44 PM
Quote from: stumpy on July 27, 2008, 05:28:51 PM
[
I don't hate her. I just think in the first movie she was dead weight. In this movie she was a little better (and played much better by Gyllenhaal) in terms her role in the plot, but I still didn't buy the Bruce-Rachel romantic angle.
Funny, I found her very integral to forming the man Bruce was to become and an excellent piece to the puzzle that was the why of Batman.
Bah, what did she do? She acted as a springboard for his moral dilemma, and was disappointed in him when he wanted to take the law into his own hand and when he was playing the playboy part. Harvey Dent could have done the same thing and been a lot more useful while he was at it. We could have developed the Dent/Wayne friendship, touched upon Harvey's anger issues (I can just imagine the discovery of the gun scene between Wayne and Harvey, the D.A. torn because he can understand Bruce's desire to take the law into his own hands, but also infuriated by his friend's lack of faith in the system he is fighting for).
if they didn't have Rachel, then the movie would be completely void of any female character, which I could see a lot of people not liking.
Besides, I think she humanizes Bruce in a way that couldn't be done if she was never in the story. She's not the greatest or most interesting character, that's for sure, but I think in this new series she served her purpose and did add to the story, specifically in Dark Knight more than Batman Begins for reasons already stated.
I also completely disagree in the idea that this movie should have been two movies. The backbone of the story in TDK is Two-Face, while Joker is merely the cipher. Think about it: Joker is the same character he was at the beginning of the movie that he was at the ending, but Two-Face was not. Without closure on his end, we'd be left with a cliffhanger of sorts. Also, I'm sick of several movies deciding to go with the "let's film parts 2 and 3 at the same time and leave part 2 off with a cliffhanger ending so we can go further in part 3." I hate that, because it really makes part 2 seem like ONLY a set-up for part 3 and not it's own chapter. There are, of course, exceptions, but that's been a huge trend in hollywood.
Lastly, I really don't think people hailing this movie shows anything about "how our society has become susceptible to hype" or anything like that. This is one of the few movies I believe not only lived up to its hype, but exceeded it. In the end it's just a movie. Just because the vast majority of people love it and you might not doesn't mean there's some sort of problem...
Quote from: BentonGrey on July 27, 2008, 08:05:41 PM
Quote from: steamteck on July 27, 2008, 06:14:44 PM
Quote from: stumpy on July 27, 2008, 05:28:51 PM
[
I don't hate her. I just think in the first movie she was dead weight. In this movie she was a little better (and played much better by Gyllenhaal) in terms her role in the plot, but I still didn't buy the Bruce-Rachel romantic angle.
Funny, I found her very integral to forming the man Bruce was to become and an excellent piece to the puzzle that was the why of Batman.
Bah, what did she do? She acted as a springboard for his moral dilemma, and was disappointed in him when he wanted to take the law into his own hand and when he was playing the playboy part. Harvey Dent could have done the same thing and been a lot more useful while he was at it. We could have developed the Dent/Wayne friendship, touched upon Harvey's anger issues (I can just imagine the discovery of the gun scene between Wayne and Harvey, the D.A. torn because he can understand Bruce's desire to take the law into his own hands, but also infuriated by his friend's lack of faith in the system he is fighting for).
Personally I would have only found that effective if they had established Harvey as his friend from childhood like Rachel was. Something about the male/female dynamic still makes me think Rachel was a better choice although Harvey's fall would have had even more impact your way.
I only wish that the character of Rachel Dawes had been called Julie Madison, playboy Bruce Wayne's first girlfriend in the comics. It would have pleased fanboys like me without sacrificing a thing, since Julie Madison never actually had a personality and vanished quickly enough anyway.
OK, I said I'd shut up about the Joker etc. until I saw the the movie and I finally got the wife to agree. She loved the first one and hated the previews so didn't want to mar her vision so to speak.
I found it very well done and not as dark as I feared. I enjoyed many of its moments very good acting and pretty solid plot
I'll be the odd man out and say I liked Katie Holmes better and I dislike Katie Holmes! I swear I could see the new girl consciously acting. Didn't work for me.
I'm glad there was lots more than just the Joker going on because while I liked him at points I didn't love him and most of the big plot holes centered around making his schemes work. Let's just say If anyone believes no one checked those ferries for bombs for example , I've got some bridges to sell them.
I didn't like batman's big sacrifice of becoming hunted because if Two face is the next villain, its kind of pointless but I guess we'll see.
In general people's sacrifices didn't seem to be appreciated or even upheld enough. I'll give a B+. Not iron Man but pretty good.
Quote from: steamteck on July 29, 2008, 07:47:59 PM
I didn't like batman's big sacrifice of becoming hunted because if Two face is the next villain, its kind of pointless but I guess we'll see.
Isn't Harvey kind of dead?
Quote from: Podmark on July 29, 2008, 07:56:21 PM
Quote from: steamteck on July 29, 2008, 07:47:59 PM
I didn't like batman's big sacrifice of becoming hunted because if Two face is the next villain, its kind of pointless but I guess we'll see.
Isn't Harvey kind of dead?
Yeah, I think he's dead. I don't see him being of much use in the next movie, anyways. If anything, they could manage to explain his being alive and use him as a cameo villain much like Scarecrow in TDK. *shrugs*
Quote from: Podmark on July 29, 2008, 07:56:21 PM
Quote from: steamteck on July 29, 2008, 07:47:59 PM
I didn't like batman's big sacrifice of becoming hunted because if Two face is the next villain, its kind of pointless but I guess we'll see.
Isn't Harvey kind of dead?
I understood Aaron Eckart was already committed to be in the next film. Am I wrong?
Quote from: steamteck on July 29, 2008, 08:31:36 PM
Quote from: Podmark on July 29, 2008, 07:56:21 PM
Quote from: steamteck on July 29, 2008, 07:47:59 PM
I didn't like batman's big sacrifice of becoming hunted because if Two face is the next villain, its kind of pointless but I guess we'll see.
Isn't Harvey kind of dead?
I understood Aaron Eckart was already committed to be in the next film. Am I wrong?
I don't know, but if he is, he could always play a different character, or still play Harvey Dent, but only in flashbacks.
Quote from: kkhohoho on July 29, 2008, 10:13:15 PM
Quote from: steamteck on July 29, 2008, 08:31:36 PM
Quote from: Podmark on July 29, 2008, 07:56:21 PM
Quote from: steamteck on July 29, 2008, 07:47:59 PM
I didn't like batman's big sacrifice of becoming hunted because if Two face is the next villain, its kind of pointless but I guess we'll see.
Isn't Harvey kind of dead?
I understood Aaron Eckart was already committed to be in the next film. Am I wrong?
I don't know, but if he is, he could always play a different character, or still play Harvey Dent, but only in flashbacks.
A different character? That'd be ridiculous and confusing.
And I don't see how he can be alive. Bats and Gordon should both be able to tell when someone is breathing, and I'd imagine they wouldn't just leave his body there. But I'm no good at making movies so I really need to shut up about stuff.
Quote from: BWPS on July 29, 2008, 10:27:40 PM
A different character? That'd be ridiculous and confusing.
And I don't see how he can be alive. Bats and Gordon should both be able to tell when someone is breathing, and I'd imagine they wouldn't just leave his body there. But I'm no good at making movies so I really need to shut up about stuff.
I hope so. I can find a couple of web reviews that claim he's signed for a 2nd one but hopefully untrue rumors. I still didn't like Batman being hunted and If there is a next movie it really needs to be resolved in that movie
[spoiler]And, if Dent's still alive, and still crazy, then it undercuts the whole rationale as to why Batman chose to take the heat for those Dent killed. Batman allowed the public to think he did those things in order that Dent could be remembered as an inspirational hero. That doesn't really work if Dent is still alive and executing his particular brand of justice.[/spoiler]
[spoiler]The only way I could see Dent still being alive (which now that I think of it they never said he was actually dead) is if they locked him away somewhere and either told everyone he was dead, or was away recovering from the events of the film/went crazy because of the understandable trauma. That still has Batman taking the rap and Harvey's rep as a hero is still maintained, still tragically cut short.
There's no way he's out there running around killing people, it just wouldn't make any sense with the ending. [/spoiler]
[spoiler]As Podmark has theorized, I can definitely see Gordon getting Harvey into private therapy while maintaining a cover story that Harvey is "dead." The movie already established that Jim Gordon can keep his cards extremely close to his chest and fake a death for the public good.
Admittedly, the last scenes of the movie tend to strongly suggest that Harvey is dead. (Batman turns Harvey's head from being dark-side up to light-side up, which just is not the sort of thing that you do to an unconscious person who took a nasty fall, lest you risk doing even more damage to them.)
But... I don't remember Batman or Gordon saying that Harvey was dead. Two-Face and Batman took the same fall, and Batman survived. So the movie has left just enough wiggle room for Two-Face to return as a villain.
And frankly, I kinda hope that Two-Face isn't dead. I got really tired with the Burton/Schumacher era of always killing off the Batman villains at the end of the movie.[/spoiler]
[spoiler]Couple of things, they show Comishioner Gordon making a speach with Harvey's picture hanging behind him which insinuates a funeral, i think he's dead and about the whole No one liking batman being hunted: hate to say it but commissioner gordon originally didn't... let me emphisize that better, ahem... DIDN'T trust batman at all, so the fact that he is hunting him is only keeping closer to source material, and i just realized that there was an active warrant out to arrest the vigilante known as batman, so this really isn't changing anything important!
Oh, by the way that is just my oppinion ^_^
[/spoiler]
I've got a few updated insights about Dent after seeing the movie no less than five times...
[spoiler]
I've been able to re-watch certain scenes at will. How...? This is the net .. thats all I'm going to say on that matter.
I listened to the wording Bats and Gordon used at the end. And they never said that Dent was dead. Gordan's words were,
"The Joker won. Harvey's prosecution... everything he fought for... undone. Whatever chance you gave us of fixing our city... dies with Harvey's reputation.
... The joker took the best of us and tore him down."
That does not sound like they were talking about a dead man. I beleive he would have said something more like "It died with Harvey" or "With Harvey's death... it's over." He clearly only shows concern about his 'reputation' and the consequences of what would happen once the word got out of Harvey's turn to the dark side. Never saying anything about him being dead. Also neither Gordan nor Batman seems to show any concern or remorse for a 'dead' friend. This movie played up the emotional turmoils, esp about life and death, a bit too much to have just let Harvey die and we see no effect on Gordan or Bats. Add to that, the movie made a point to stress that Batman would not kill no matter what (which of course the Joker exploited) ... and I don't beleive he did. A last point is Harvey's own words,
"You either die a hero... or live long enough to become the villain."
The latter is actually what I beleive happened. He became the villain... but Gordan and Bats wanted people to beleive he died a hero. IMO Dent is dead. They want the city to beleive he actually died. However, 'Two--Face' will live on to tell another story... and in the mean time will find himself locked away in secretly in Arkham.
I expect the next movie to move forward quite a bit in time. A new Wayne Manor and Batcave should be finished as well as the re-establishment of Arkham Asylum... where Joker, Scarecrow, Two-face and others will be residents. If they decide to utilize Two-Face in the next movie I'm sure the writers will work something out. I don't see the next movie being about Batman vs. the police for the hole 2 and 1/2 hrs. Sure they will have that aspect as part of the story line... but could easily still bring Two-Face in and cause even more confusion to a corrupt city with all of its cover-ups and secrets.
My money is still says 100% chance Catwoman/Selena Kyle will be in the next one... and a 80% chance the Riddler. Villains who can test Bats detective skills to the max is needed... and they would be perfect.[/spoiler]
Side note ... Clint Eastwood in Heartbreak Ridge. thats where I heard the grumbling voice Bale uses. LOL
I finally got around to seeing this movie and it's good but I just don't like[spoiler] Bale's bat voice. Maybe Batman TAS has spoiled me...Bale's voice just doesn't carry well and just sounds like he has a frog in his throat. [/spoiler] Ledger's joker is awesome.
I do have one gripe with the movie that I won't discuss on this forum. It took a lot of the entertainment value out of it for me.
Quote from: House Quake on July 31, 2008, 04:29:48 AM
[spoiler]My money is still says 100% chance Catwoman/Selena Kyle will be in the next one... and a 80% chance the Riddler. Villains who can test Bats detective skills to the max is needed... and they would be perfect.[/spoiler]
[spoiler]With Comish Gordon himself (Gary Oldman) stating, supposedly out of context, that the Joker could be replaced with the Riddler, I remain skeptical.
My personal, no spoilers here, opinion is that we won't see Catwoman anytime soon. I could be wrong, and often am.[/spoiler]
-MJB
with Rachel gone, the series will need another strong female lead, and what better candidate than Catwoman? With Batman on the run, she could possibly play up the angle of the "anti-batman" in that she pretends to be what Batman was to the public, but eventually shows her true colors.
Meanwhile, I'd have the Riddler, or maybe Penguin (maybe as a cameo?) be the main villain.
Quote from: TheMarvell on August 02, 2008, 12:33:06 AM
with Rachel gone, the series will need another strong female lead, and what better candidate than Catwoman? With Batman on the run, she could possibly play up the angle of the "anti-batman" in that she pretends to be what Batman was to the public, but eventually shows her true colors.
Meanwhile, I'd have the Riddler, or maybe Penguin (maybe as a cameo?) be the main villain.
What about Talia al Ghul? I don't have anything against Catwoman being in the next movie, but with
Ra's al Ghul already the villain in the first movie she wouldn't be that hard to establish into the series.
Quote from: lgmss on August 02, 2008, 08:42:21 AM
Quote from: TheMarvell on August 02, 2008, 12:33:06 AM
with Rachel gone, the series will need another strong female lead, and what better candidate than Catwoman? With Batman on the run, she could possibly play up the angle of the "anti-batman" in that she pretends to be what Batman was to the public, but eventually shows her true colors.
Meanwhile, I'd have the Riddler, or maybe Penguin (maybe as a cameo?) be the main villain.
What about Talia al Ghul? I don't have anything against Catwoman being in the next movie, but with
Ra's al Ghul already the villain in the first movie she wouldn't be that hard to establish into the series.
Only problem with Talia is that she isn't well known to the general public. And yes, neither were Ra's or Scarecrow, but I'd argue that they had to establish that this was a
different type of Batman movie. Now that they've moved on to the folks EVERYBODY knows, I think it would be a mistake to bring in a relative unknown except as a minor or cameo villian
Talia could work, I'm just not familiar with the character.
Heres some new-old news on possible next villains, Penguin and Riddler:
http://movies.ign.com/articles/895/895689p1.html
Does anyone know if WB plans on having this be a trilogy only? or are they going on as long as they can, like Sony is doing with Spider-Man?
If past history is any indication, they'll drive the franchise into the ground as long as it makes money.
I seem to remember hearing that director Chris Nolan wasn't positive he wanted to make a 3rd one.
I'm sure one will get made with or without him but I hope that rumor is false.
-MJB
Finally got to see it and I must say its the best superhero film ever imo! The Joker was just too amazing.
Quote from: bredon7777 on August 03, 2008, 03:14:26 PM
If past history is any indication, they'll drive the franchise into the ground as long as it makes money.
Sad but true. Id prefer theyd just end it on a good note.
Quote from: gengoro on August 03, 2008, 05:22:47 PM
Finally got to see it and I must say its the best superhero film ever imo! The Joker was just too amazing.
Quote from: bredon7777 on August 03, 2008, 03:14:26 PM
If past history is any indication, they'll drive the franchise into the ground as long as it makes money.
Sad but true. Id prefer theyd just end it on a good note.
In that case, better hope they make a third.
Quote from: BentonGrey on August 03, 2008, 06:26:35 PM
Quote from: gengoro on August 03, 2008, 05:22:47 PM
Finally got to see it and I must say its the best superhero film ever imo! The Joker was just too amazing.
Quote from: bredon7777 on August 03, 2008, 03:14:26 PM
If past history is any indication, they'll drive the franchise into the ground as long as it makes money.
Sad but true. Id prefer theyd just end it on a good note.
In that case, better hope they make a third.
:rolleyes:
DK is on track to being the highest grossing movie ever...after Titanic. I'm sure WB is going to make another.
Finally saw it today...
WOW!
I mean really WOW!
The sequence with the barges really stands out in my mind but the whole thing... wow. Every perfomance really solid, great narative, great cinematography, great music... just... wow.
Sorry, HAD to gush. I heard it was good, but I still wan't prepared for this.
Last I heard it will probably catch Titanic within a week or so.
Quote from: Glitch Girl on August 03, 2008, 07:41:35 PMLast I heard it will probably catch Titanic within a week or so.
It's sinking that fast? :P
J/k I liked it, too. I heard it's grossed something like $395 million in the first three weeks. Not bad, since that's just the U.S. and it cost $185 million.
Since Titanic did sink then there won't be a sequel...lol. Besides there is too much story left to tell (for DK).
I saw it tonight as well. Really good. Loved the magic trick. I agree on the "batvoice". Was Stallone doing the voiceover? I kept expecting him to say "Batman needs a glass of water".
Quote from: JKCarrier on July 27, 2008, 10:11:08 AM
Finally got out to see this yesterday. Ledger is amazing, obviously, and pretty much steals the whole movie. Unfortunately, next to him, Bale looks like a complete non-entity. I was interested in Dent, Gordon, even Alfred, but I couldn't care less about that stiff in the rubber suit. Neither his waffling about whether to turn himself in, nor the lame "love triangle" with Gyllenhaal had any dramatic impact whatsoever (And yes, that growly "tough guy" voice he puts on is hilariously dumb. I expected him to start pitching Frosted Flakes halfway through the movie).
Funny I found Bale much more engaging than Ledger. I thought almost everyone did a great job. I feel everyone seems to be gushing over ledger's performance ( maybe because he died) but while it was good , I didn't find it great. He carried the role but to me he didn't steal the show. I could have done with less Joker and more of the other characters myself. I found Gyllenhaal the weakest link in the movie. They must have worked very hard to find someone that Katie Holmes of all people was so vastly superior to in almost every way. The Bat voice didn't bother me or my wife at all. Its amazing to me what gets a pass in these things and what doesn't and I'll leave it at that.
Quote from: steamteck on August 04, 2008, 06:58:41 AM
Quote from: JKCarrier on July 27, 2008, 10:11:08 AM
Finally got out to see this yesterday. Ledger is amazing, obviously, and pretty much steals the whole movie. Unfortunately, next to him, Bale looks like a complete non-entity. I was interested in Dent, Gordon, even Alfred, but I couldn't care less about that stiff in the rubber suit. Neither his waffling about whether to turn himself in, nor the lame "love triangle" with Gyllenhaal had any dramatic impact whatsoever (And yes, that growly "tough guy" voice he puts on is hilariously dumb. I expected him to start pitching Frosted Flakes halfway through the movie).
I found Gyllenhaal the weakest link in the movie. They must have worked very hard to find someone that Katie Holmes of all people was so vastly superior to in almost every way.
HuhbuhWuh? Seriously?
I could give you that she was the weakest of the major characters because everyone else was so stellar, but in the movie I watched, she was miles above Homes' wooden Rachel from Batman Begins.
I tend to agree - never been particularly a Gyllenhaal fan. Don't hate her, just don't think she's anything particularly special. I do think that she didn't do well in this movie. Add to that the character being pretty much a non-player aside from being and you have a very forgettable role.
Quote from: Uncle Yuan on August 04, 2008, 08:20:49 AM
I tend to agree - never been particularly a Gyllenhaal fan. Don't hate her, just don't think she's anything particularly special. I do think that she didn't do well in this movie. Add to that the character being pretty much a non-player aside from being and you have a very forgettable role.
I didn't think she did particularly better (or worse) than Holmes. I never minded KH in Begins, though.
Quote from: bredon7777 on August 04, 2008, 07:31:09 AM
Quote from: steamteck on August 04, 2008, 06:58:41 AM
Quote from: JKCarrier on July 27, 2008, 10:11:08 AM
Finally got out to see this yesterday. Ledger is amazing, obviously, and pretty much steals the whole movie. Unfortunately, next to him, Bale looks like a complete non-entity. I was interested in Dent, Gordon, even Alfred, but I couldn't care less about that stiff in the rubber suit. Neither his waffling about whether to turn himself in, nor the lame "love triangle" with Gyllenhaal had any dramatic impact whatsoever (And yes, that growly "tough guy" voice he puts on is hilariously dumb. I expected him to start pitching Frosted Flakes halfway through the movie).
I found Gyllenhaal the weakest link in the movie. They must have worked very hard to find someone that Katie Holmes of all people was so vastly superior to in almost every way.
HuhbuhWuh? Seriously?
I could give you that she was the weakest of the major characters because everyone else was so stellar, but in the movie I watched, she was miles above Homes' wooden Rachel from Batman Begins.
Seriously? I guess I saw the wrong version of the movie. Gyllenhaal I could actually see acting if you know what I mean. She seemed just one step away from the parodies of actors reading the cue cards. Katie Holmes didn't seem wooden to me just not brilliant
I thought she looked extremely tired. The whole time she looked like she hadn't slept in 3-4 days.
I thought Dent was the strongest character in the movie. I have to say he was better than....Billy D. at the role.
here's a small little article about Bale's use of the low/growly voice as Batman that some people may find interesting: *growls* (http://movies.yahoo.com/mv/news/ap/20080803/121779624000.html)
And after a looong wait to finally work out some free time for a movie theater.. I finally saw TDK.
Needless to say.. I was impressed and quite relieved to see that it really lived up to the hype surrounding the film. :thumbup:
Ledger really lived up to the role of Joker and the appearance of Two-Face was used quite well to show the good/evil side of our personalities... and that Batman had to take the rap for Dent's actions to preserve his "white knight" image. Which really makes me wonder now that Wayne has to take his crime fighting completely underground (to avoid anyone making a connection with Batman and Wayne) that we finally get to see a modern "Batcave" and using more detective/costume techniques to hide among the criminal underworld and strike at them from within before they take the battle to the streets.
And I agree that Catwoman and The Riddler would be the best villians for the next movie... Catwoman enters as a thief who catches Batman's eye while Selina catches the interest of Wayne as the animal rights activist and playboy stalker she is known for being. Riddler takes to the streets wanting to make a name for himself like Joker did but proving that order and well planned crime waves would work far better then the chaos method. Wayne is forced to walk a tightrope between his morals as he falls for Catwoman and learns that turning a blind eye to her crimes and trying to prove yourself as a hero isn't easy when Gotham still believes you are a murderer and a vigilante of the worse kind. Maybe we get to see The Riddler try to spring Joker and Scarecrow from Arkham but realizes they are best left where they are... but we finally get to see a therapist named Dr. Quinzel show up and take an interest in one of the inmates.
Or something to that effect...
- CrimsonQuill
Finally saw the film (I feel like I'm the last person here to have seen it). I thought it was okay, but I don't think I'm as fond of it as the majority of people who saw it (judging by the general sentiment on these boards and in the film-going community in general).
I have only one real gripe about the film (and it's one that carried over from
Batman Begins), but I'll let professional critic Brendon Conelly say it for me:
QuoteThis film does not take place in any kind of universe where dressing up as a Bat and putting on a hilariously silly voice makes even a drop of sense (unless as an adolescent power fantasy, which for many viewers I suppose it is). Indeed, much of the film does not belong in the world Nolan seems desperate to ground it in, particularly the biological details of Two Face's disfigurement. All of this could have seemed at home in a universe that played by these rules -- another lesson to be learnt from the Burton films.
Basically, Conelly's point is that the "world" that Nolan has created for his Batman films is so grounded in reality that a grown man dressing in a bat-themed suit to fight evildoers becomes a bit too absurd, and I have to agree with his observation. The psychological reality of Wayne's motivation to become a costumed do-gooder rings false in light of the palpably grounded and realistic tone of the film's setting. Besides that one major problem, though, I thought it was a fun summer blockbuster-type movie.
Quote from: Previsionary on August 04, 2008, 05:03:32 PM
here's a small little article about Bale's use of the low/growly voice as Batman that some people may find interesting: *growls* (http://movies.yahoo.com/mv/news/ap/20080803/121779624000.html)
It's like they start off by saying "this voice sounds really goofy", then justify it by saying "oh, it's because the movie is darker" and then give Kevin Conroy as an example, even though his voice sounded awesome and not goofy.
QuoteThe animated series are notable because they drew on the DC Comics of Batman as envisioned by Frank Miller, whose work heavily informs "Batman Begins" and "The Dark Knight." (Bale and Nolan were unavailable to comment for this story.)
WHY DO PEOPLE KISS MILLER'S BUTT SO MUCH?!!?!? Drew upon Frank Miller? The writing of TAS was so much better than anything Frank Miller has ever done, and not just because it was a cartoon vs a comic book. Maybe he wrote Batman in a dark way for the first time in a while, but the character he wrote wasn't even a good Batman, he was Doucheman.
QuoteThis film does not take place in any kind of universe where dressing up as a Bat and putting on a hilariously silly voice makes even a drop of sense (unless as an adolescent power fantasy, which for many viewers I suppose it is). Indeed, much of the film does not belong in the world Nolan seems desperate to ground it in, particularly the biological details of Two Face's disfigurement. All of this could have seemed at home in a universe that played by these rules -- another lesson to be learnt from the Burton films.
Ah, that's stupid to me. It's a Batman movie, you have to suspend your disbelief enough to accept that a Batman movie is going to have Batman in it. Because they made it realistic and incorporated a lot of other more realistic characters, then Batman and Two-Face don't fit? Also, nothing in the Burton films has anything on this.
Quote from: BWPS on August 05, 2008, 09:35:57 AM
WHY DO PEOPLE KISS MILLER'S BUTT SO MUCH?!!?!? Drew upon Frank Miller? The writing of TAS was so much better than anything Frank Miller has ever done, and not just because it was a cartoon vs a comic book. Maybe he wrote Batman in a dark way for the first time in a while, but the character he wrote wasn't even a good Batman, he was Doucheman.
Amen. Miller is important because he reminded people of the dark place Batman came from, but I'd say that Timm and co. actually envisioned a worthwhile Batman for the first time in ages.
Quote from: BentonGrey on August 05, 2008, 09:42:18 AM
Quote from: BWPS on August 05, 2008, 09:35:57 AM
WHY DO PEOPLE KISS MILLER'S BUTT SO MUCH?!!?!? Drew upon Frank Miller? The writing of TAS was so much better than anything Frank Miller has ever done, and not just because it was a cartoon vs a comic book. Maybe he wrote Batman in a dark way for the first time in a while, but the character he wrote wasn't even a good Batman, he was Doucheman.
Amen. Miller is important because he reminded people of the dark place Batman came from, but I'd say that Timm and co. actually envisioned a worthwhile Batman for the first time in ages.
I also agree with this.
That review that was quoted about this movie's characters not fitting into it's envisioned universe is laughable. Like BWPS said, this movie is about BATMAN. Thus, you have to accept that he's in the movie, otherwise..get out?
Quote from: BentonGrey on August 05, 2008, 09:42:18 AM
Quote from: BWPS on August 05, 2008, 09:35:57 AM
WHY DO PEOPLE KISS MILLER'S BUTT SO MUCH?!!?!? Drew upon Frank Miller? The writing of TAS was so much better than anything Frank Miller has ever done, and not just because it was a cartoon vs a comic book. Maybe he wrote Batman in a dark way for the first time in a while, but the character he wrote wasn't even a good Batman, he was Doucheman.
Amen. Miller is important because he reminded people of the dark place Batman came from, but I'd say that Timm and co. actually envisioned a worthwhile Batman for the first time in ages.
I'll add another amen and a complete agreement with BentonGrey here.
Quote from: BWPS on August 05, 2008, 09:35:57 AM
Ah, that's stupid to me. It's a Batman movie, you have to suspend your disbelief enough to accept that a Batman movie is going to have Batman in it. Because they made it realistic and incorporated a lot of other more realistic characters, then Batman and Two-Face don't fit? Also, nothing in the Burton films has anything on this.
Quote from: Figure Fan on August 05, 2008, 10:52:51 AM
That review that was quoted about this movie's characters not fitting into it's envisioned universe is laughable. Like BWPS said, this movie is about BATMAN. Thus, you have to accept that he's in the movie, otherwise..get out?
I don't think the contention that the film was "too realistic" for its own good is all that far-fetched. Even artist David Mazzucchelli (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Mazzucchelli), who drew
Batman: Year One (the story which formed most of the basis for Nolan's
Batman Begins universe) and whose Batman work was a direct influence on the films' visual style, was wary of injecting too much realism into a superhero depiction. He questioned the aesthetic and storytelling value of grounding any superhero story in too much reality in the afterword he wrote for the TPB:
Quote from: David MazzucchelliDid we go too far? Once a depiction veers toward realism, each new detail releases a torrent of questions that exposes the absurdity at the heart of the genre. The more "realistic" heroes become, the less believable they are. It's a delicate balance...
The balance Mazzucchelli refers to is one between "realism" and the inclusion of fantastical elements (such as costumed superheroes, "comic book physics", etc.). The author and artists inject realism to make it easier for readers/viewers to suspend their disbelief and invest in the story being told. Past a certain point though, a story and setting can become so grounded in reality that the inclusion of any fantastical element shatters the illusion of reality, thus disinvesting the viewer/reader of the suspension of disbelief and exposing the absurdity inherent in the fantasy of a vigilante fighting crime while wearing an animal themed-costume. I think the Nolan films, while definitely fun and engaging romps, had difficulty maintaining that balance.
Like BWPS though, I generally find the Nolan Batman films to be more entertaining than the Burton Batman films. Burton's take on Batman and the Gotham setting may have had a more coherent underlying thematic and visual structure, but they lacked the visceral oomph that I want from a superhero movie. And a lot of times when it comes to films, entertainment value trumps most any other concerns.
Thank you ZD for reminding people that this batman is based on miller's year one and not dkr "the doucheman"
i saw TDK again tonight, in a crappy hot theater with a bunch of hillbillys hootin' and hollerin'
and the veneer of the film was chipping away.
the change in costume could have addressed the realism debate a bit better... but his new outfit still had molded eyebrows that were furrowed.
it really came through in the interrogation scene. jokers makeup was completely smeared, and nearly gone, he had a fat lower lip from bats' first head pound (in addition to the upper lip puffiness throughout the film)
however batman looked like an alien, his pupils gleamed under the heavy makeup and sculpted cowl. the thin neck just accentuated the "alien-ness" of it all.
it got me thinking about the gotham knight cartoon, and i really liked the bat design when he had a collar, and the cowl looked more like a motorcycle helmet.
there was no furrowed brow on that, but the lines coming down from the eyes to the tip of the nose gave the mask enough character.
nearly everything else about his costume was quite believable... just that mask. <_<
oh crud, see that thing off in the distance... i think it was my point. gone now.
I'm sure this is fake, but it's cool nonetheless.
http://i105.photobucket.com/albums/m210/d_julien/Acey.jpg
Quote from: bredon7777 on August 27, 2008, 06:46:21 AM
I'm sure this is fake, but it's cool nonetheless.
http://i105.photobucket.com/albums/m210/d_julien/Acey.jpg
That is so obscenely awesome I can't even begin to describe it.
How about this one? :thumbup:
http://i117.photobucket.com/albums/o48/Mindreaper21/riddler.jpg (http://i117.photobucket.com/albums/o48/Mindreaper21/riddler.jpg)
If you think those are cool check out this dudes stuff
Posters: http://joshmc.wordpress.com/
His devian art for other comic book movie related images: http://joshwmc.deviantart.com/
Quote from: style on August 27, 2008, 01:12:05 PM
How about this one? :thumbup:
http://i117.photobucket.com/albums/o48/Mindreaper21/riddler.jpg (http://i117.photobucket.com/albums/o48/Mindreaper21/riddler.jpg)
Not bad, not bad at all. A little too flashy for Nolan, I think though.
Those look real enough to fool the average person into thinking it's the real deal :P. According to wiki, Nolan doesn't want to use villains from the previous movie franchise (Joker being exempt because he is Joker and is a must in any Batman movie series), so I doubt we will see Riddler or Catwoman. I agree with Nolan, mostly because I want to see other villains used. So I say Talia should be in the next movie! Black Mask too.
I have a feeling that if there is another film, that we will see villains we didn't expect..at all.
Just my opinion.
Quote from: Ajax on August 27, 2008, 07:31:25 PM
Those look real enough to fool the average person into thinking it's the real deal :P. According to wiki, Nolan doesn't want to use villains from the previous movie franchise (Joker being exempt because he is Joker and is a must in any Batman movie series), so I doubt we will see Riddler or Catwoman. I agree with Nolan, mostly because I want to see other villains used. So I say Talia should be in the next movie! Black Mask too.
Words cannot express how deeply I hope you are wrong. I'm dying to see Nolan's take on the Riddler, and I think Warner Brothers will, while giving him choice of backups, at least force him to do the top 5 villians (Joker, Two-Face, Riddler, Penguin, and Catwoman)
I think Black Mask could be a cool choice, assuming you could create a reasonable explanation for the skull or somekind of replacement. I liked how he was used in the Batman and comics a few years ago.
Quote from: bredon7777 on August 27, 2008, 08:07:56 PM
Quote from: Ajax on August 27, 2008, 07:31:25 PM
Those look real enough to fool the average person into thinking it's the real deal :P. According to wiki, Nolan doesn't want to use villains from the previous movie franchise (Joker being exempt because he is Joker and is a must in any Batman movie series), so I doubt we will see Riddler or Catwoman. I agree with Nolan, mostly because I want to see other villains used. So I say Talia should be in the next movie! Black Mask too.
Words cannot express how deeply I hope you are wrong. I'm dying to see Nolan's take on the Riddler, and I think Warner Brothers will, while giving him choice of backups, at least force him to do the top 5 villians (Joker, Two-Face, Riddler, Penguin, and Catwoman)
Cause forcing a director to use villains he didn't intend on using worked out so well for Spider-Man 3. :rolleyes:
I tend to agree with bredon7777's sentiment on this. It's not that I want to force the director in a direction he opposes; it's that I don't want the director casting aside villains just because they've been used before.
He should be up for the challenge of coming up with an interesting screen personality and plot role for the Riddler or Catwoman or many of the recognizable members of the Batman rogue's gallery. I think we've come up with some good ideas just in this thread and there are doubtless others.
There is the issue of realism in this franchise that will probably exclude some villains (though I don't think that should be 100% written in stone, either), but most of them could be made to work. Moreover, I have confidence that the team that made DK could present a much more interesting Riddler, et cetera than was shown in the last franchise.
Quote from: Ajax on August 27, 2008, 09:21:04 PM
Quote from: bredon7777 on August 27, 2008, 08:07:56 PM
Quote from: Ajax on August 27, 2008, 07:31:25 PM
Those look real enough to fool the average person into thinking it's the real deal :P. According to wiki, Nolan doesn't want to use villains from the previous movie franchise (Joker being exempt because he is Joker and is a must in any Batman movie series), so I doubt we will see Riddler or Catwoman. I agree with Nolan, mostly because I want to see other villains used. So I say Talia should be in the next movie! Black Mask too.
Words cannot express how deeply I hope you are wrong. I'm dying to see Nolan's take on the Riddler, and I think Warner Brothers will, while giving him choice of backups, at least force him to do the top 5 villians (Joker, Two-Face, Riddler, Penguin, and Catwoman)
Cause forcing a director to use villains he didn't intend on using worked out so well for Spider-Man 3. :rolleyes:
It totally did...he's [Venom] getting his own movie. It worked out great! *forced enthusiasm*
Now I return you to your previously interrupted Bat action. Same Bat time, same bat thread.
Quote from: stumpy on August 27, 2008, 09:32:56 PM
I tend to agree with bredon7777's sentiment on this. It's not that I want to force the director in a direction he opposes; it's that I don't want the director casting aside villains just because they've been used before.
He should be up for the challenge of coming up with an interesting screen personality and plot role for the Riddler or Catwoman or many of the recognizable members of the Batman rogue's gallery. I think we've come up with some good ideas just in this thread and there are doubtless others.
There is the issue of realism in this franchise that will probably exclude some villains (though I don't think that should be 100% written in stone, either), but most of them could be made to work. Moreover, I have confidence that the team that made DK could present a much more interesting Riddler, et cetera than was shown in the last franchise.
I agree, but as much as I would enjoy seeing a well done riddler or catwoman, I would love to see other villains we haven't seen in the movies before. Talia would be a great addition and would help bring all three movies together. A character like Black Mask would fit perfectly with the idea of a "new type of criminal" that Joker spoke of. Harley Quinn can be considered the spiritual succesor of Joker (you don't even need to show Joker, just have a 'she was his psychologist in arkham and he destroyed her mind' type line). There are others i'm forgetting.
Quote from: Podmark on August 27, 2008, 08:35:31 PM
I think Black Mask could be a cool choice, assuming you could create a reasonable explanation for the skull or somekind of replacement. I liked how he was used in the Batman and comics a few years ago.
It's just a mask.
Originally Black Mask had a human face carved from his mother's coffin. Then he was caught in a fire and the mask got burned onto his face, disfiguring him. And eventually it became a skull because that looks cooler. But, they already did the disfigured by burns thing with Two-Face now.
They could just have a guy with a black, emotionless face mask. It can look very very creepy.
QuoteLos Angeles (E! Online) – Aaron Eckhart has had a good summer. He can take credit for some of The Dark Knight's awesomeness, with his Harvey Dent/Two-Face baddie getting almost as freaky as Heath Ledger's Joker. But $500 million later, we have to ask him: Two-Face could survive that deadly fall at the construction site, right?
Full article (http://news.yahoo.com/story//eonline/20080904/en_top_eo/27196)
Has any bat-film villain ever made it to a sequel? Marvel was able to use Magneto for 3 movies and still keep it reasonably interesting.
I changed the Topic heading to avoid spoiling things for anyone.
Scarecrow did even if it was a small part.
In general, people never know when enough is enough. Harvey Dent, who became Two-Face, played a significant role in this film. He doesn't have to be dropped into the next one.
I don't get all of the riff-raff..
DARK KNIGHT EXCLUSIVE: Michael Caine Says Johnny Depp Is The Riddler, Philip Seymour Hoffman Is The Penguin (http://splashpage.mtv.com/2008/09/08/dark-knight-exclusive-michael-caine-says-johnny-depp-is-the-riddler-philip-seymour-hoffman-is-the-penguin/)
Thoughts?
Far from being concrete but I'll bite. I think both are good choices for the characters and if DK is an example of what a 3rd movie can be like then sign me up.
-MJB
I really don't like Johnny Depp.
Quote from: Midnite on September 08, 2008, 08:19:18 PM
DARK KNIGHT EXCLUSIVE: Michael Caine Says Johnny Depp Is The Riddler, Philip Seymour Hoffman Is The Penguin (http://splashpage.mtv.com/2008/09/08/dark-knight-exclusive-michael-caine-says-johnny-depp-is-the-riddler-philip-seymour-hoffman-is-the-penguin/)
Thoughts?
If true... I'll give my girlfriend credit for making the Johnny Depp call. We are both huge Johnny Depp fans and months ago we discussed who would be a good villain for #3 and who should they get. I suggested Riddler and Catwoman.. she said Depp and Angelina Jolie. I agreed with both as good choices. The penguin cast would seam to be a good one as well... though I actually had suggested Jack Black for the role if they went with Penguin. I'm still holding out for Catwoman but I'm not sure if there are any 'legal' issues with doing her citing the Halle Berry crapfest.
But I must say... from a purely financial view point... bringing in an actor with the ability and appeal of Depp would certainly be the right formula to nearly equal or even surpass the success of The Dark Knight.
I could possibly see depp as the riddler. it's a stretch, but, I mean i couldn't see heath as the joker and BAM "Why So Serious?"
As far as the other guy goes, i have only seen him in taladega nights.
One thing I really want to see the next film do is pick the right actor for the job. I mean who thought Ledger would be a the best choice for the Joker? But he was prefect. So I hope they don't pick a big name that doesn't bring the level of performance that the Dark Knight actors brought.
That said Depp would probably be a great choice as the Riddler. And I don't even like Depp.
See, I'm a big fan of Depp. He can pull off ecentric characters. Riddler is that and more. He will do fine if cast.
I'm all for Depp as the Riddler. I love the guys work. I thought Jim Carey did a good Riddler, but I have no doubt Depp can top. Too bad Tim Burton won't be the director.
Aint it cool news ran quotes from Nolan saying "NOBODY has been cast yet, and <they> are just barely beginning to discuss what villians will appear in the third movie." Not that I have any problems with the above mentioned casting, though being such a Dr. Who fanboy I was hoping for David Tennant as the Riddler.
On the issue of returning villians, Aaron Eckhart has already said that Heath was supposed to return, but obviously cannot; though I don't see how they get out of at least a Joker cameo, especially if they introduce Arkham Asylum in #3. As Batman walks down the hall, just a lonely shot of a figure in the Joker makeup and outfit standing at the glass..then that laugh following Batman down the hall.
This isnt confirmation of anything but appearently both David Tennant and Brian Austin Green have expressed a desire to play the Riddler. Out of the two I would go with Tennant. Again this doesnt mean the villians are picted I just thought that was an interesting tidbit
Well, I think that its much too early to be casting villains for a script that have not even seen as much as a treatment. Nolan has not confirmed he is on board for a third one (though I think its safe to say he will) and there is no indication from The Dark Knight what villains will be seen.
I believe we will see Arkham Asylum rebuilt. There will be some sort of Joker cameo. I would not be surprised, even though he is suppose to be dead, to see some sort of indication that while Harvey is dead that Two Face lives on.
Wayne Manor will be rebuilt and those renovations to the south wing will be completed. Furthermore, the "Bat Cave" will feature a computer much like the one we saw in the basement of Wayne Tech though maybe one less based on Sonar and capable of other functions.
There will be more of a detective element. I think that we will see more of a Batman working a crime scene "after Gordon's men" have had their fill of it. Gordon knows the truth about Batman. He will somehow bend the rules to allow Batman to operate under the radar.
I think the fact that these names are coming up now for Riddler, Penguin, and Catwoman means that these are the people who Nolan will most likely NOT go with. Remember, neither Ledger nor Eckhart were the front runners for their roles in The Dark Knight. Ledger was a particular and pleasant surprise. I look for Nolan to pull a similar swerve with the third movie.
If he does a third movie.
I remember years ago that there was a push towards "interactive movies" it seems it never really took off big time. If there is any bit of interactiveness left in the movie industry then why not let the fans pick the actors? Most of the press says fans want the Riddler and Depp as the Riddler. What would Nolan or the casting committee have against that? Give us what we want!
the only problem with that is it woud have to be multiple choice instead of fans choosing a name. If you give the fans a choice between 3 people then you can work out contracts etc. But if you let the fans completely choose then that actor would basically have the studio by the short hairs as far as money is conserned. Also what if its an actor who has no interest in the role whatsoever? Then the fans get dissapointed if he doesnt show up and might hurt profits
And what about the unknowns out there who are trying to break into the industry? How do they get in if people are casting the movies when nobody knows who they are?
In addition, you will get actors getting jobs on popularity and not based on being right for the part happening even worse than it already does.
Quote from: thalaw2 on September 12, 2008, 07:33:26 PM
I remember years ago that there was a push towards "interactive movies" it seems it never really took off big time. If there is any bit of interactiveness left in the movie industry then why not let the fans pick the actors? Most of the press says fans want the Riddler and Depp as the Riddler. What would Nolan or the casting committee have against that? Give us what we want!
I gotta say I think that's a terrible idea. In some cases it will work, in others it will be terrible. Not that studio's always pick the right people but with the Nolan Batman movies I don't think there's been any serious missteps (maybe Katie Holmes but I'd argue the character shouldn't have existed). In many cases we'd end up missing out on breakout performances like Ledger as Joker.
I have to echo that sentiment against democratic casting. I hate to say it, but many of the people who would vote in that sort of poll are idiots - people who may be fans of one or another celebrity but have little feel for who can play a role or even know what the background (in comics or other sources) for a character is. Too much would be based simply on who is popular at the time (and who has the most obsessive fans). If they had done this a few years ago, we might have had Vin Diesel as Two-Face, Britney Spears as Catwoman, and Max Headroom as Alfred. :blink:
Max Headroom sounds like a smart man..
Quote from: stumpy on September 13, 2008, 01:54:08 PM
I have to echo that sentiment against democratic casting. I hate to say it, but many of the people who would vote in that sort of poll are idiots - people who may be fans of one or another celebrity but have little feel for who can play a role or even know what the background (in comics or other sources) for a character is. Too much would be based simply on who is popular at the time (and who has the most obsessive fans). If they had done this a few years ago, we might have had Vin Diesel as Two-Face, Britney Spears as Catwoman, and Max Headroom as Alfred. :blink:
Britney Spears as Catwoman? oh hale naw! :angry:
Quote from: Figure Fan on September 13, 2008, 02:48:48 PMMax Headroom sounds like a smart man..
I actually forgot what his gig was. Was he an MTV VJ or some sort of comedian? Maybe he was the guy who came up with the idea of putting the seats further apart in airplanes...? Or was that Max Legroom? :P
Quote from: Raijin on September 13, 2008, 07:37:05 PMBritney Spears as Catwoman? oh hale naw! :angry:
That's why the idea is so bad - a couple years ago, BS was popular enough to get some votes. And, remember that rumor about Cher being Catwoman? If this were the late eighties, she might have had a shot. If only she could turn back time... :lol:
Quote from: stumpy on September 13, 2008, 01:54:08 PM
and Max Headroom as Alfred. :blink:
Matt Frewer is a hell of an actor and would've done just fine as Alfred, thank you very much.
But don't take that to mean I'm in favor of democratic casting. I'm not.
What I'm in favor of is democratic plot - shooting new footage for a movie so the plot branches (on DVD)- Final Destination 3 and the Blue-Ray Return to the House on Haunted Hill do this to great effect.
wait guys
remember when joker had that black dude, you know with a knife in his mouth.
did he cut his cheek?
cuz i dont think that can kill him
I think Joker pulled the knife upwards going into the guys brain.
Quote from: lgmss on September 22, 2008, 03:52:39 PM
I think Joker pulled the knife upwards going into the guys brain.
:blink:
I figured he slit his throat, actually.
I just thought he went far enough to break the jaw, which could lead to the throat. I guess.
I wasn't clear on that either, based on how he was saying it, I thought he was recreating the cheek cut, but then again, I'm pretty sure he did kill him fairly instantly, so it may have been the throat.