detlef Posted July 28, 2008 Share Posted July 28, 2008 Gyllenhall was horrilbe and the only real let down in this movie. Can't act/not hot is a bad combo for that role. Now I haven't seen the movie yet but are you implying that she wasn't hot in this movie or just isn't hot. I'm not sure what is about her, but I dig mucho. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chiefjay Posted July 28, 2008 Share Posted July 28, 2008 Now I haven't seen the movie yet but are you implying that she wasn't hot in this movie or just isn't hot. I'm not sure what is about her, but I dig mucho. Secretary! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted July 28, 2008 Share Posted July 28, 2008 Secretary! Well, that was a pretty nice way to start it all off, wasn't it. Nothing like a girl-next-door type walking around the office on all fours with a dog collar on. That'll usually do it for me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keggerz Posted July 28, 2008 Share Posted July 28, 2008 (edited) Meh (will explain later) For me I associate Batman with the old series when I was a kid....yeah, i know its different but I still think there are things that shouldn't be screwed with... 1. Bruce Wayne in this movie was pompous/arrogant. Bruce Wayne in the old series was anything but. 2. Who else said, "He is supposed to be commissioner Gordon" of course it made sense after Gordon actually became Commissioner Gordon but still was distracting enough. I also didnt like Oldman as Gordon....I think someone like William H Macy would have been a better Gordon. 3. It was a good 30-60 minutes to long. The 2 Face portion seemed forced....Would have been much better to have simply let us see how Dent became 2 Face and leave it open for inclusion in another movie. 4. The first scene with the Bat Cycle seemed a bit lame to me simply because of what seemed to be a poor edit when he shot the dumpster and it didnt look like it was shot out of the way. 5. How many people new who "The Batman" was? 4? In the old series it was 2(Alfred and Robin). The Joker was superbly done by Ledger...for me I could have dealt with an ending when Batman had the Joker suspended upside down....could have had the Joker say something sadistically twisted that would seem to make you think that Batman might actually drop him.....go from a shot of batmans tensioned face to a shot of the joker doing that joker laugh and slowly zoom into the jokers eye(black makeup) into his pupil all while hearing the jokers laugh with the fade to black (along with the fade of the laugh). Edited July 28, 2008 by keggerz Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
godtomsatan Posted July 28, 2008 Author Share Posted July 28, 2008 I'm just glad that keggerz didn't make the movie. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Missoula Griz Posted July 28, 2008 Share Posted July 28, 2008 I think Keg makes some great points. I like his ending better then the way the movie did end. Also, I agree the two face thing got old real quick. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keggerz Posted July 28, 2008 Share Posted July 28, 2008 (Ok, so I read your post.) If you believe this to be true, then you clearly had no understanding of the movie and it's central theme -- which would explain why you didn't like it. Good vs evil isn't just a good batman and an evil joker, but about the duality in all of us. Two-face was the primary implement in exploring the concept. And your 1960s Batman doesn't fit in reality nor in this movie series. Batman/Wayne constantly fights with the various aspects of his personality, particularly the good vs evil part. Lucius Fox was another great example with that technology that was too powerful for any one man and how Wayne rewarded him by allowing him to destroy it with just the login id. Or how about the two ferries that were given the choice to blow the other one up? I'm sorry you didn't enjoy the movie, perhaps watch it again with a different point of view? i understood the movie and its theme....i just think that it still could have been accomplished by staying a bit more true to the originial bruce wayne character without the arrogance.....and I also understood the premise of 2 face but dont think that it needed to be explored as much as it was to make the same point.....and its a "super hero" movie so dont bring reality into the discussion Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keggerz Posted July 28, 2008 Share Posted July 28, 2008 I think Keg makes some great points. I like his ending better then the way the movie did end. Also, I agree the two face thing got old real quick. really, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keggerz Posted July 28, 2008 Share Posted July 28, 2008 can someone also clarify something for me....who did Batman say he was going after? Dent or the Girl? I thought he said the GIRL but then he was there with Dent...I assumed that to mean that the Joke gave the wrong addresses to show that Batman wasnt doing what was necessarily good for everyone else...i also thought that would then lead to "strife" with dent and being a large part in the development of 2 face...IF he did say he was going for the GIRL did I miss when they let Dent know that Batman didnt actually mean to save him? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KSUChiefsTarheelFan Posted July 28, 2008 Share Posted July 28, 2008 The fact that the movie has grossed over $300,000,000 in 10 days says enough. Keggerz is a lot like me...overly critical, and stuck on the "old school" outlook on certain things. The movie was fantastic, and I will go and see it at least one more time. This is 2008, and super hero movies have come a long way since the Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T-Scorp Posted July 28, 2008 Share Posted July 28, 2008 can someone also clarify something for me....who did Batman say he was going after? Dent or the Girl? I thought he said the GIRL but then he was there with Dent...I assumed that to mean that the Joke gave the wrong addresses to show that Batman wasnt doing what was necessarily good for everyone else...i also thought that would then lead to "strife" with dent and being a large part in the development of 2 face...IF he did say he was going for the GIRL did I miss when they let Dent know that Batman didnt actually mean to save him? Batman did go after the girl. The Joker switched the addresses as he knew Batman would go after the GIRL. If you remember the conversation in the interogation room, the Joker said he originally thought the Batman was Dent by how he jumped after Rachal when the Joker through her out the window. He then said does Dent know you are after his squeeze, or something like that. During the scene with TwoFace Batmans admits he was going after the GIRLl Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
montster Posted July 28, 2008 Share Posted July 28, 2008 1. Bruce Wayne in this movie was pompous/arrogant. Bruce Wayne in the old series was anything but. i just think that it still could have been accomplished by staying a bit more true to the originial bruce wayne character without the arrogance..... it's been a while since i saw "batman begins," but i thought in that movie bruce wayne purposefully became more arrogant and bombastic specifically so that people wouldn't associate him with batman. he's forced to pretend to protect his identity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T-Scorp Posted July 28, 2008 Share Posted July 28, 2008 For me I associate Batman with the old series when I was a kid....yeah, i know its different but I still think there are things that shouldn't be screwed with... 1. Bruce Wayne in this movie was pompous/arrogant. Bruce Wayne in the old series was anything but. 2. Who else said, "He is supposed to be commissioner Gordon" of course it made sense after Gordon actually became Commissioner Gordon but still was distracting enough. I also didnt like Oldman as Gordon....I think someone like William H Macy would have been a better Gordon. 3. It was a good 30-60 minutes to long. The 2 Face portion seemed forced....Would have been much better to have simply let us see how Dent became 2 Face and leave it open for inclusion in another movie. 4. The first scene with the Bat Cycle seemed a bit lame to me simply because of what seemed to be a poor edit when he shot the dumpster and it didnt look like it was shot out of the way. 5. How many people new who "The Batman" was? 4? In the old series it was 2(Alfred and Robin). The Joker was superbly done by Ledger...for me I could have dealt with an ending when Batman had the Joker suspended upside down....could have had the Joker say something sadistically twisted that would seem to make you think that Batman might actually drop him.....go from a shot of batmans tensioned face to a shot of the joker doing that joker laugh and slowly zoom into the jokers eye(black makeup) into his pupil all while hearing the jokers laugh with the fade to black (along with the fade of the laugh). 1) This is the Dark Knight, not Batman (if you read the comics there is a difference between the two) I didn't see Bruce as much as pompous and arrogant as he was acting like the playboy he is supposed to be. Many of his pompous acts had a dual purpose. 2) I had no problem with Gordon moving up, it is a way to develope his character and his relationship to Batman which was never explained in the series before. 3) The two face portion could have been a bridge between 2 and 3 or could have been done prior to the Joker scene but if you truley followed the storyline it needed to be done. Again I think that they did it at the end made the movie seem to drag a little longer. Sort of like the ending of LOR Return of the King which had about 3 endings but all were needed. 4) Totally agree with the bad edit job on the dumpster, no way he just drove through it as it still had the sides intact, still with everything else tht was done it is a very minor fault. 5) 4 and one is now dead. I like the Morgan Freeman character and it makes sese that he would know, the other puzzles me but did lead to a couple of great lines. I watched the TV series and the previous movies; they were "cute" and may have been more true to original comics but Batman Begins and Dark Knight are more to where I feel Kane wanted to take the Batman series. The inter conflict, the human hero without superpowers, the grayness between good and evil. Batman/Bruce Wayne takes on the mantle of protector not by choice but from a sense of resposibility. It is interesting that you have a problem with how Batman is portrayed but liked the Joker. Ledger's Joker is a master manipulator who was allowed to have no rules which is why he was so evil. Everyone else had rules, the mob, the cops, the criminals, the ordinary citizens, and the Batman. This is what makes him attractive to the viewer, no rules to live or die by. You can't have the super cool super great Bruce Wayne and expect to have Ledger's Joker. IMHO Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keggerz Posted July 28, 2008 Share Posted July 28, 2008 1) This is the Dark Knight, not Batman (if you read the comics there is a difference between the two) I didn't see Bruce as much as pompous and arrogant as he was acting like the playboy he is supposed to be. Many of his pompous acts had a dual purpose. 2) I had no problem with Gordon moving up, it is a way to develope his character and his relationship to Batman which was never explained in the series before. 3) The two face portion could have been a bridge between 2 and 3 or could have been done prior to the Joker scene but if you truley followed the storyline it needed to be done. Again I think that they did it at the end made the movie seem to drag a little longer. Sort of like the ending of LOR Return of the King which had about 3 endings but all were needed. 4) Totally agree with the bad edit job on the dumpster, no way he just drove through it as it still had the sides intact, still with everything else tht was done it is a very minor fault. 5) 4 and one is now dead. I like the Morgan Freeman character and it makes sese that he would know, the other puzzles me but did lead to a couple of great lines. I watched the TV series and the previous movies; they were "cute" and may have been more true to original comics but Batman Begins and Dark Knight are more to where I feel Kane wanted to take the Batman series. The inter conflict, the human hero without superpowers, the grayness between good and evil. Batman/Bruce Wayne takes on the mantle of protector not by choice but from a sense of resposibility. It is interesting that you have a problem with how Batman is portrayed but liked the Joker. Ledger's Joker is a master manipulator who was allowed to have no rules which is why he was so evil. Everyone else had rules, the mob, the cops, the criminals, the ordinary citizens, and the Batman. This is what makes him attractive to the viewer, no rules to live or die by. You can't have the super cool super great Bruce Wayne and expect to have Ledger's Joker. IMHO fwiw, i thought it was great to show he was human with the dog bite he sustained....well at least that was what I thought they were trying to get across....that he is indeed HUMAN. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
godtomsatan Posted July 28, 2008 Author Share Posted July 28, 2008 i understood the movie and its theme....i just think that it still could have been accomplished by staying a bit more true to the originial bruce wayne character without the arrogance.....and I also understood the premise of 2 face but dont think that it needed to be explored as much as it was to make the same point.....and its a "super hero" movie so dont bring reality into the discussion I don't think you caught on with this movie whatsoever. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
westvirginia Posted July 28, 2008 Share Posted July 28, 2008 I don't think you caught on with this movie whatsoever. That was kinda my thought. Someone who sees a criminal kill his parents at a young and tender age isn't likely to grow up to be Adam West's version of Batman. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chargerz Posted July 29, 2008 Share Posted July 29, 2008 Just caught the movie today and it was well worth it. Heath Ledger was as terrific as I imagined he would be. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Vatican Hitsquad Posted July 29, 2008 Share Posted July 29, 2008 For me I associate Batman with the old series when I was a kid....yeah, i know its different but I still think there are things that shouldn't be screwed with... 1. Bruce Wayne in this movie was pompous/arrogant. Bruce Wayne in the old series was anything but. 2. Who else said, "He is supposed to be commissioner Gordon" of course it made sense after Gordon actually became Commissioner Gordon but still was distracting enough. I also didnt like Oldman as Gordon....I think someone like William H Macy would have been a better Gordon. 3. It was a good 30-60 minutes to long. The 2 Face portion seemed forced....Would have been much better to have simply let us see how Dent became 2 Face and leave it open for inclusion in another movie. 4. The first scene with the Bat Cycle seemed a bit lame to me simply because of what seemed to be a poor edit when he shot the dumpster and it didnt look like it was shot out of the way. 5. How many people new who "The Batman" was? 4? In the old series it was 2(Alfred and Robin). Epic Fail for comparing this movie, or any other version of Batman for that matter... to a kids TV show. Not only was that TV show NOT the original Batman, but it's been 4 decades since he was even depicted in that fashion anyway. I cannot believe anybody would walk into that movie with the TV show in their head as a starting point. Hell, even Burton's film's were dark versions of the character (with a Burton twist). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KSUChiefsTarheelFan Posted July 29, 2008 Share Posted July 29, 2008 Hell, even Burton's film's were dark versions of the character (with a Burton twist). +1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pope Flick Posted July 29, 2008 Share Posted July 29, 2008 Epic Fail for comparing this movie, or any other version of Batman for that matter... to a kids TV show. Not only was that TV show NOT the original Batman, but it's been 4 decades since he was even depicted in that fashion anyway. I cannot believe anybody would walk into that movie with the TV show in their head as a starting point. Hell, even Burton's film's were dark versions of the character (with a Burton twist). Then you haven't been paying attention or you would have realized that once they got past the 2 Burton films and Schumacher came in for the Carrey/Lee Jones and Swarzenegger/Thruman films (3+4) that they had in fact tapped back into the TV show with fightin cartoon sound effects, wind surfing and rollerblades popping out of their bat boots in the middle of a fight. The Burton films flirted with 'darkness' but Schumacher went right back to the TV show well in the middle of the 1990's. So I don't blame people for having that on their minds. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Vatican Hitsquad Posted July 29, 2008 Share Posted July 29, 2008 Then you haven't been paying attention or you would have realized that once they got past the 2 Burton films and Schumacher came in for the Carrey/Lee Jones and Swarzenegger/Thruman films (3+4) that they had in fact tapped back into the TV show with fightin cartoon sound effects, wind surfing and rollerblades popping out of their bat boots in the middle of a fight. The Burton films flirted with 'darkness' but Schumacher went right back to the TV show well in the middle of the 1990's. So I don't blame people for having that on their minds. Believe me... I've paid attention to those films (I'm an enormous comic nerd). And as bad as Batman & Robin is (Batman Forever is pretty good), it's not even close to the campiness of the TV show( Bat Shark Repelent, Battusi...). Not even close. And the last film is considered a collosal failure, financially and creatively, and was thrown into the sewer across the board. But even if i accept that B&R is a return to the TV show, I can't accept that people would expect to see more of that when going to see the Dark Knight. No way. The Batman cartoon of the 90's, which ran for years, was darker than that TV show. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Love Posted July 30, 2008 Share Posted July 30, 2008 To take this thread on another tangent, I want to explore the Joker and Ledger's performance a bit. Ledger was obviously good in the role, but I don't think it was his acting that made it so good. The character was written and designed so well, I think that any number of actors could have played the role to the same effect. Am I wrong? Is it the Joker character or Leger's portrayal thereof that is great? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
westvirginia Posted July 30, 2008 Share Posted July 30, 2008 To take this thread on another tangent, I want to explore the Joker and Ledger's performance a bit. Ledger was obviously good in the role, but I don't think it was his acting that made it so good. The character was written and designed so well, I think that any number of actors could have played the role to the same effect. Am I wrong? Is it the Joker character or Leger's portrayal thereof that is great? See, I think there's a lot of things that are just tough to coach in acting (admittedly, I'm a layman). The way he smacked/licked his lips, smoothed his hair, jerky arm and neck movements - I just think those things nailed the "batsh!t crazy" designation he was going for. From what I've been told, the actual words you use are only 10% of the message that the other person receives. The timbre of the voice and the body language and facial expressions matter much more in communication. If that's true, then Ledger still had to pull it off, right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chargerz Posted July 30, 2008 Share Posted July 30, 2008 See, I think there's a lot of things that are just tough to coach in acting (admittedly, I'm a layman). The way he smacked/licked his lips, smoothed his hair, jerky arm and neck movements - I just think those things nailed the "batsh!t crazy" designation he was going for. From what I've been told, the actual words you use are only 10% of the message that the other person receives. The timbre of the voice and the body language and facial expressions matter much more in communication. If that's true, then Ledger still had to pull it off, right? That is correct. I've been a stage actor for twenty years, and I can tell you from experience that how an actor interprets the script can make all the difference in the world. What Ledger did with this role was absolutely amazing. His gestures, tics, mannerisms and delivery of the lines was all him becoming the character of the Joker. That's very hard to teach and makes his portrayal all the more outstanding. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
westvirginia Posted July 30, 2008 Share Posted July 30, 2008 That is correct. I've been a stage actor for twenty years, and I can tell you from experience that how an actor interprets the script can make all the difference in the world. What Ledger did with this role was absolutely amazing. His gestures, tics, mannerisms and delivery of the lines was all him becoming the character of the Joker. That's very hard to teach and makes his portrayal all the more outstanding. Or disturbing. Someone that crazy was allowed to go out unsupervised? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.