| re: The Dark Knight | |
|
Posted by: |
Vin 01:57 pm UTC 08/18/08 |
| In reply to: | re: The Dark Knight - Smeghead 12:57 am UTC 08/17/08 |
| So I've finally seen the movie and can comment pseudo-intelligently. I thought it was very good. Certainly the best since Burton's, and maybe better than the original, if only because, for me, the original suffered from a lack of Batman and too much Joker. "Batman Returns" remains my favorite, I think, and I still like Michael Keaton best as Bruce Wayne. Bale looks more like the character, but something about him throws it off for me - a certain immaturity (or maybe just that wart on the side of his nose, or his subtle, but very non-Bruce Wayney lisp). The "Bat-voice" really was way too much, very distracting, especially when he was trying to deliver more substantial dialogue. Its one thing to drop the voice a couple of octaves, but to growl every word??? I would say this is definitely the most realistic Batman movie, in the sense of grounding what Batman does in technology and logistics. Like, he needs an actual plan and some help to go to Hong Kong and steal a guy. He doesn't just hop in the Bat plane and fly it himself. Ledger was really good as Joker, better than I was expecting, though probably not truly an Oscar-worthy performance. Also loved Aaron Eckhart as Harvey Dent. Didn't really care for the ending; seemed like a very implausible / ill-logical / unnecessary way for Batman and Gordon to deal with the situation. Anyway, tying this back to Jim - Due to the aforementioned firmer grounding in reality and plausible detail, I believe Nolan's vision of Batman is less-suited for stage adaption than Burton's, which is more about symbol, style and archetypes. > Actually a film where the heroes act like heroes and the > whole thing isn't dark and miserable... that's my idea of > a Superhero film. 80's comics are far more my style. > > > So a film where the characters have absolutely no depth > > and a piece of shit plot is more your style. Aren’t you a > > trooper. > > > > > I haven't seen it either... I don't do movies in > > > theaters... but it is my understanding it is much darker. > > > I don't really like "Dark" superheroes... Burton's take > > > was more my style. > > > > > > > I still haven't seen the new film, but is it really much > > > > darker than Burton's? That would be saying something. > > > > In any case, Jim can do dark just fine. Its not like his > > > > Batman demos are better suited for Adam West than > > > > Christian Bale. > > > > > > > > > Because Rinkoff did so well at getting the Dream Engine > > > > > off the ground. Jim really should just hire a manager who > > > > > knows what he is doing! > > > > > > > > > > Though the WB execs would probably want a whole new Batman > > > > > that is Darker like the movies now and not based on the > > > > > Burton Batman. > > > > > > > > > > > That's a good point. If Sonnenberg isn't working to make > > > > > > Batman happen than Rinkoff should take over and just pitch > > > > > > it himself! > > > > > > > > > > > > -=John Galt=- > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thought Question: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Given the phenomenal success of this movie, is it > > > > > > > conceivable that there isn't at least ONE money-grubbing > > > > > > > executive over at Warner Bros. who ISN'T thinking about > > > > > > > reviving the Batman musical project? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I don't think it is. | |
| reply | | |
| Previous: | re: The Dark Knight - Smeghead 12:57 am UTC 08/17/08 |
| Next: | whats been going on? - wenners 12:45 pm UTC 08/15/08 |
| Thread: | |