or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Blu-ray & HD DVD › Blu-ray Software › The Official Dark Knight BR Review and Discussion Thread (This is NOT for PQ)
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The Official Dark Knight BR Review and Discussion Thread (This is NOT for PQ) - Page 7

post #181 of 445
Quote:
Originally Posted by griffon2k View Post

Steeb,

I think you missed a point of a MAJOR line in the film.

Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
Spoiler  
Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
Dent: You either die a hero, or live long enough to see yourself become a villain. I don't think he's dead, I think Gordon and Bats let everyone believe he died a hero to embolden the city against the unjust. After all, they faked Gordon's death and Batman survived that fall AFTER taking a bullet. It's no stretch...

I don't think so, but I could be wrong. My take:
Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
Spoiler  
Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
Dent's line was meant to be prophetic in the sense that he did indeed live long enough to see himself go from a hero to a villain. I believe he was killed by the fall and they let everyone think he died as a hero (by blaming the murders on Batman) in order to - as you said - embolden the city against the unjust and make sure that the people that Dent put behind bars stayed there.

I suppose you could be right, but I really think he died. I'll be watching it again in the next few days, but I don't remember any sort of indication that he was still alive. Besides your interpretation of that line, is there any evidence in the film at all to suggest that he was still alive? I don't remember any.
post #182 of 445
Steeb and griffon - check here if you want the answer to your discussion. Eckhart answers the question, the link leads to spoilers.
post #183 of 445
Quote:
Originally Posted by shadowrage View Post

Steeb and griffon - check here if you want the answer to your discussion. Eckhart answers the question, the link leads to spoilers.

Nice. Thanks.
post #184 of 445
Quote:
Originally Posted by griffon2k View Post

Uh-no. Catwoman is a catburgular who grew up in the streets and may be the forgotten child of one of Gotham's mob bosses. Given the depth of Gotham's mob problem in the Nolan movies, THAT's how to bring her in. And it's faithful to the comics to boot.

They could introduce Robin too if they wanted. With Rachel gone, Bruce needs someone to humanize him, to ground him. Catwoman could do that as a love interest or Robin as a mirror of Wayne's tragic youth and choice of a life of a dangerous life. They just don't need to try to reinvent the wheel.


I was just kidding. I haven't read the comics, I was more just annoyed at the trophy women than anything.
post #185 of 445
Quote:
Originally Posted by griffon2k View Post

They could introduce Robin too if they wanted. With Rachel gone, Bruce needs someone to humanize him, to ground him. Catwoman could do that as a love interest or Robin as a mirror of Wayne's tragic youth and choice of a life of a dangerous life. They just don't need to try to reinvent the wheel.

I'm pretty sure I've read that Christian Bale has gone on record as saying that if they introduce Robin, he'll leave the franchise. I hope he sticks to his guns - I really don't think Robin would fit well with this incarnation of Batman.
post #186 of 445
Robin is basicly a creation for comic book storytelling (Yes so is Batman, but..)

Were he could ask Batman all the stupid questions, what batman was doing. And at the same time he gave Batman the opportunity to actually speak to someone.

It the new movies, Gordon has taken some of that part, and it works better. Batman wouldnt risk a young boys life like that.
post #187 of 445
Quote:
Originally Posted by shadowrage View Post

Steeb and griffon - check here if you want the answer to your discussion. Eckhart answers the question, the link leads to spoilers.

or all actors sign contracts stating that they're not permitted to talk about things like that and eckhart just made it all up
post #188 of 445
Quote:
Originally Posted by griffon2k View Post

Steeb,

I think you missed a point of a MAJOR line in the film.

Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
Spoiler  
Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
Dent: You either die a hero, or live long enough to see yourself become a villain. I don't think he's dead, I think Gordon and Bats let everyone believe he died a hero to embolden the city against the unjust. After all, they faked Gordon's death and Batman survived that fall AFTER taking a bullet. It's no stretch...

Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
Spoiler  
Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
isn't the suit bullet proof in some way? Which wouldn't prevent him from being a little "disoriented" by the bullet ...Batman says it himself at the end, HE can take it, HE won't die a hero but will be seen as a villain... Or like Alfred said to Rachel, he's more than a hero... And Dent did live long enough to become the villain... But for the people of Gotham, he must stay the hero, while the silent guardian, the dark knight continue to protect them, and of course, continue to be the true hero... Wow, just saying this makes me want to watch it again!
post #189 of 445
Quote:
Originally Posted by MovieSwede View Post

Robin is basicly a creation for comic book storytelling (Yes so is Batman, but..)

Were he could ask Batman all the stupid questions, what batman was doing. And at the same time he gave Batman the opportunity to actually speak to someone.

It the new movies, Gordon has taken some of that part, and it works better. Batman wouldnt risk a young boys life like that.

Sam Raimi said Venom would never be in any of his Spider-Man movies, no matter how much fans loved him. Marvel overruled him. He still screwed the character to showcase Sandman, but the point is that directors and actors can and do change their minds, especially when property doesn't belong to them.

Robin is different to everyone. Unfortunately, most people see him as his 60's incarnation, Schumaker's hack job,or just as a child who tags along with Batman. I've always seen him as ground for Batman, someone who humanizes him, can truly relate to him (lost his parents at a young age too.), and gives vindicates his vision: that if inspired, the people of Gotham will themselves stand up to it's villains.

There's a good story to be told with Robin in it, it's just in the way you handle it. And if they could handle Ra's Al Ghul, Joker, and Scarecrow of all people, I think they could handle the Boy Wonder.

That said, I'd be just fine if Nolan did leave him out. I'm just saying it could be done.
post #190 of 445
Quote:
Originally Posted by sb1 View Post

I'm all for original ideas. I'm not, nor have ever been a comics fan, I just like good movies.

This reflects my point of view. I haven't read comic books since I was a kid and have never read a graphic novel. Nevertheless, I thought that both of Nolan's batman films were marvelous. I also like Robert Rodriguez's and Frank Miller's stuff. Sin City is one of my favorite movies.
post #191 of 445
Quote:
Originally Posted by CCsoftball7 View Post

I played the film last night on my Sony Player (S301 - With 4.3 Firmware)...periodically throughout the film, there were instances where the audio "glitched" for lack of a better term. It would be playing...picture was fine, audio would disappear for about 1/2 a second. Is anyone else seeing similar issues?

Thanks.

Jeff

I had the same problem with my PS3 optical audio output going to my Outlaw 990 pre/pro. The drop outs sounded the same as when OTA signals are lost with my HDTV receivers. The picture was not affected.

This happened about 8-12 times during the movie.

Scott
post #192 of 445
In regards to all the Maggie comments ..........

I just watched TDK last night on my projector with a 125" screen.I was visually assaulted.When that Fugly mugg popps in for a close up on a 9' screen @ 1080p its no joke.What the F were they thinking ?She works cheap,thats the only explanation.That was the 1st time I had seen her,and hopefully the last.
post #193 of 445
Quote:
Originally Posted by shadowrage View Post

Steeb and griffon - check here if you want the answer to your discussion. Eckhart answers the question, the link leads to spoilers.

i might be pulling at strings here, but

Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
Spoiler  
Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
they do ask is harvey dent dead and not is two face dead. also, in that final scene they show a closeup of the coin after it is flipped. I really do have no idea what to believe on this
post #194 of 445
A few random thougths:
  1. Maggie Gyllenhaal was not as good as Katie Holmes. It didn't feel as though she had as much substance to her, and her goofy grin just didn't work for the character. Even when she was trying to be serious, her mouth betrayed her. Looks-wise, that's the only problem that I had with her. The Rachel Dawes character should not have a bigger smile than the Joker.
  2. Bale's voice did seem too over the top in this movie. I haven't seen Batman Begins for a few months, but my memory is that of a more fitting, realistic, portrayal. It was distracting in this movie.
  3. Heath Ledger as the Joker. OK, I'm sure I'm in the minority here, but I didn't see an Oscar-worthy, role of a lifetime here. He was OK for the film, but I certainly wasn't blown away. For the most part, he seemed to be channeling Brad Dourif. In fact, if they were to make a sequel down the line featuring Joker, Brad could fill the role just fine.
  4. While my wife enjoyed the soundtrack, I thought it was lacking. Not sure what I was expecting, but a day after watching it I can't recall it at all. It just wasn't used as a significant part of the movie.
Overall, I thought the movie was OK, but not up to the level of Batman Begins. It felt a little long, and the story was rather convoluted. The elaborate nature of the plans were good - it was nice to see a couple of clever characters try to outmaneuver each other, but it also seemed a little too dependant on knowledge of the story. By that, I mean that the Joker's plans were keyed to certain people behaving in very predictable ways, which is not that realistic in life. This was very reminiscent of The Prestige, by the way.

While I can appreciate Nolan's take on Batman, neither of these movies have approached what was accomplished in the Batman Animated series the 90's. Yes, they were meant for two different audiences, and there were some clunker episodes, but overall, that TV show captured the Batman character and universe much better than any film to date. I'll take Hamill's portrayal of the Joker over Ledger's any day.

Scott
post #195 of 445
srw1000 -- I disagree with respect to every point you made about The Dark Knight, particularly your conclusion that Katie Holmes was better in Batman Begins than Maggie Gyllenhaal was in The Dark Knight. Holmes is a pretty girl but hardly an acclaimed actress. Her performance in Batman Begins earned her a Razzie Award nomination for worst performance of the year. That is perhaps a bit harsh but not by much, it seems to me. About the only contest I can say I think Gyllenhaal should lose to Holmes is beauty. While Gyllenhaal is a pretty woman, she is far less so than Holmes.

I believe that Heath Ledger earned the nearly universal acclaim he received for his performance as The Joker. Where did the Brad Dourif analogy come from? I certainly didn't see any similarity between Ledger's Joker and any character I have seen Dourif play.

I think, and 311,000 IMDb voters would seem to agree, that The Dark Knight is one of the best action movies ever made, perhaps one of the best of any kind. Check it out:

http://www.imdb.com/chart/top?tt0468569

What the hell, though, without differences of opinion we wouldn't have horseracing or betting on football.

I do agree that the Batman animated series was simply out of this world. I watched them all with my grandson in the 90s and we both loved them. The animated Scarecrow was as scary a villain as I have seen anywhere
post #196 of 445
Quote:
Originally Posted by srw1000 View Post

A few random thougths:
  1. Maggie Gyllenhaal was not as good as Katie Holmes. It didn't feel as though she had as much substance to her, and her goofy grin just didn't work for the character. Even when she was trying to be serious, her mouth betrayed her. Looks-wise, that's the only problem that I had with her. The Rachel Dawes character should not have a bigger smile than the Joker.
  2. Bale's voice did seem too over the top in this movie. I haven't seen Batman Begins for a few months, but my memory is that of a more fitting, realistic, portrayal. It was distracting in this movie.
  3. Heath Ledger as the Joker. OK, I'm sure I'm in the minority here, but I didn't see an Oscar-worthy, role of a lifetime here. He was OK for the film, but I certainly wasn't blown away. For the most part, he seemed to be channeling Brad Dourif. In fact, if they were to make a sequel down the line featuring Joker, Brad could fill the role just fine.
  4. While my wife enjoyed the soundtrack, I thought it was lacking. Not sure what I was expecting, but a day after watching it I can't recall it at all. It just wasn't used as a significant part of the movie.
Overall, I thought the movie was OK, but not up to the level of Batman Begins. It felt a little long, and the story was rather convoluted. The elaborate nature of the plans were good - it was nice to see a couple of clever characters try to outmaneuver each other, but it also seemed a little too dependant on knowledge of the story. By that, I mean that the Joker's plans were keyed to certain people behaving in very predictable ways, which is not that realistic in life. This was very reminiscent of The Prestige, by the way.

While I can appreciate Nolan's take on Batman, neither of these movies have approached what was accomplished in the Batman Animated series the 90's. Yes, they were meant for two different audiences, and there were some clunker episodes, but overall, that TV show captured the Batman character and universe much better than any film to date. I'll take Hamill's portrayal of the Joker over Ledger's any day.

Scott

I more than agree with the Heath Ledger as joker comment. He was good, but wasn't great. What made him great really is the fact that he died. We heard that he did a good acting job prior to his death and then when he died his fellow cast started using the oscar buzz word, like Gary Oldman did in interviews. When he died immediately the media and public went off the charts since he is young and how he died. Had he not died I am sure the film would have done well and he might have been up for an oscar. Now he will definitely be up for an oscar and his death will give me an added chance for a win although it shouldn't be a factor it certainly is with all the chatter saying he might get it.

Nothing like a death to make one a martyr. Again, it doesn't take away from his performance or how good it was saying he shouldn't get an oscar because of his death, but my point is his death shouldn't add to his getting an oscar and the problem is it does for many even in the Academy.

I had to refresh my memory on Brad Dourif and I think you are right he could do the role. I was thinking you meant Stephen Dorff from Blade, and actually he could pull it off as well.
post #197 of 445
Quote:
Originally Posted by skyofavalon View Post

In regards to all the Maggie comments ..........

I just watched TDK last night on my projector with a 125" screen.I was visually assaulted.When that Fugly mugg popps in for a close up on a 9' screen @ 1080p its no joke.What the F were they thinking ?She works cheap,thats the only explanation.That was the 1st time I had seen her,and hopefully the last.

She looked much better in that movie Stanger than Fiction, really good there, but that could be IMO. I agree the makeup and hair made her look like hell in DK.
post #198 of 445
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by srw1000 View Post

I had the same problem with my PS3 optical audio output going to my Outlaw 990 pre/pro. The drop outs sounded the same as when OTA signals are lost with my HDTV receivers. The picture was not affected.

This happened about 8-12 times during the movie.

Scott

Exactly. I watched again last night and had the same issues. I tried to output both soundtracks and got the same results.

Jeff
post #199 of 445
I think everyone's being too tough on Haggie, I mean Maggie...


post #200 of 445
Quote:
Originally Posted by gwsat View Post

srw1000 -- I disagree with respect to every point you made about The Dark Knight, particularly your conclusion that Katie Holmes was better in Batman Begins than Maggie Gyllenhaal was in The Dark Knight. Holmes is a pretty girl but hardly an acclaimed actress. Her performance in Batman Begins earned her a Razzie Award nomination for worst performance of the year. That is perhaps a bit harsh but not by much, it seems to me. About the only contest I can say I think Gyllenhaal should lose to Holmes is beauty. While Gyllenhaal is a pretty woman, she is far less so than Holmes.

I think the physical beauty of the actress playing the part is irrelevant to the character. That said, her grin played such a prominent role on the screen that every time I saw her it was very hard to take the character seriously. She just came across a vacuous. Maybe it was just her, maybe it was the combination of her and the script, but she just didn't fit with the movie.

Don't get me wrong, Holmes' portrayal wasn't Oscar-worthy, but at least her presence wasn't distracting. She was merely adequate, while Gyllenhaal wasn't.

Quote:
Originally Posted by gwsat View Post

I believe that Heath Ledger earned the nearly universal acclaim he received for his performance as The Joker. Where did the Brad Dourif analogy come from? I certainly didn't see any similarity between Ledger's Joker and any character I have seen Dourif play.

I'll give you two examples. I immediately thought of his Luther Lee Boggs portrayal from the X-Files. My wife mentioned Piter De Vries in David Lynch's Dune. There are probably others. I wouldn't compare it to how underused he was as Wormtongue in LotR, though.

Quote:
Originally Posted by gwsat View Post

I think, and 311,000 IMDb voters would seem to agree, that The Dark Knight is one of the best action movies ever made, perhaps one of the best of any kind. Check it out:

http://www.imdb.com/chart/top?tt0468569

What the hell, though, without differences of opinion we wouldn't have horseracing or betting on football.

Yes, there is certainly room for dissenting opinions here. I can understand how some people like the movie, but it didn't work all that well for me. The very end, for example, went off in a thematic direction that I didn't like, agree with, or completely understand. For pure action movie excitement, I thought Iron Man did a much better job, although much lower expectations may have helped in that case.

Quote:
Originally Posted by gwsat View Post

I do agree that the Batman animated series was simply out of this world. I watched them all with my grandson in the 90s and we both loved them. The animated Scarecrow was as scary a villain as I have seen anywhere

Aha, we can find some agreement.

Anyone reading this thread who hasn't sampled these episodes, but enjoys the Batman character, should check them out. Very well done, and can be enjoyed by fans of all ages.

Scott
post #201 of 445
On the Maggie/Katie issue (again)...

I don't see how Maggie can be considered ugly (although that one pic isn't very flattering), and I think she was better in the part than the prissy I-can-cast-stones-because-I'm-better-than-you job that Katie did....just my opinion, and I respect who disagree.

Batman's chatter box......

Bale's voice didn't bother me, but it was inconsistent throughout the movie. Sometimes it was much more strained than others. Intentional based on who he was talking to, maybe? I don't know.

The soundtrack.....

How anyone can consider this movie less than extremely impressive in the audio department is beyond me, and I'm listening to the legacy DD track at 640kbs. I do realize people have different tastes in sound, but this is easily demo material for me.

On the movie itself....

I just watched it again for the third or fourth time, and I think it's an incredible piece of work. It doesn't have the fun rewatchability for me that Ironman or something does (down the road), but a fantastic, serious film that more than deserves to be taken seriously by anyone - not just action movie, comic, or home theater fans. Like most any movie, action movies especially, it has moments that test reality, but the positives of the film destroy the negatives.
post #202 of 445
Quote:
Originally Posted by sb1 View Post

The soundtrack.....

How anyone can consider this movie less than extremely impressive in the audio department is beyond me, and I'm listening to the legacy DD track at 640kbs. I do realize people have different tastes in sound, but this is easily demo material for me.

I don't know if this was directed at me or not, but my comments were directed toward the musical soundtrack, not the overall sound. I thought the whole sound design of the film was great, just the music that was lacking. I should have been more clear.

Scott
post #203 of 445
Quote:
Originally Posted by srw1000 View Post

I don't know if this was directed at me or not, but my comments were directed toward the musical soundtrack, not the overall sound. I thought the whole sound design of the film was great, just the music that was lacking. I should have been more clear.

Scott

It was, in fact, your statement that brought that out. I thought you were talking about the sound of the film. My apologies.

However, out of curiosity, I would like to know what you didn't like about the score... The sound quality itself, or the actual composition?
post #204 of 445
Quote:
Originally Posted by srw1000 View Post

A few random thougths:
  1. Maggie Gyllenhaal was not as good as Katie Holmes. It didn't feel as though she had as much substance to her, and her goofy grin just didn't work for the character. Even when she was trying to be serious, her mouth betrayed her. Looks-wise, that's the only problem that I had with her. The Rachel Dawes character should not have a bigger smile than the Joker.
  2. Bale's voice did seem too over the top in this movie. I haven't seen Batman Begins for a few months, but my memory is that of a more fitting, realistic, portrayal. It was distracting in this movie.
  3. Heath Ledger as the Joker. OK, I'm sure I'm in the minority here, but I didn't see an Oscar-worthy, role of a lifetime here. He was OK for the film, but I certainly wasn't blown away. For the most part, he seemed to be channeling Brad Dourif. In fact, if they were to make a sequel down the line featuring Joker, Brad could fill the role just fine.
  4. While my wife enjoyed the soundtrack, I thought it was lacking. Not sure what I was expecting, but a day after watching it I can't recall it at all. It just wasn't used as a significant part of the movie.
Overall, I thought the movie was OK, but not up to the level of Batman Begins. It felt a little long, and the story was rather convoluted. The elaborate nature of the plans were good - it was nice to see a couple of clever characters try to outmaneuver each other, but it also seemed a little too dependant on knowledge of the story. By that, I mean that the Joker's plans were keyed to certain people behaving in very predictable ways, which is not that realistic in life. This was very reminiscent of The Prestige, by the way.

While I can appreciate Nolan's take on Batman, neither of these movies have approached what was accomplished in the Batman Animated series the 90's. Yes, they were meant for two different audiences, and there were some clunker episodes, but overall, that TV show captured the Batman character and universe much better than any film to date. I'll take Hamill's portrayal of the Joker over Ledger's any day.

Scott

The only thing I disagree with here is about Maggie. I think she's the cat's pajamas.

Everything else, 100%spot-on, and exactly what I thought seeing it in the theater. Nothing special in this flick. Just a great action flick, tons of fun. bit convoluted and would have played much better without Two Face showing up at the end as a major distraction (writing him into the scheme just to use him does not an essential sequence of beats make).

He should have been THE villain for the next one, as we all learned after SM3 (and the Shumacker travesties)--ONE VILLAIN, not 3++

I thought Ledger was great, but not Oscar-worthy. His Joker was awesome, so was Nicholson's, but they are two completely different characters, so you can't really compare the actors as the Joker, as they are not the same role. Ledger isn't even the Napier version of the Joker.

Cartoon Batman >*
post #205 of 445
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hughmc View Post

I more than agree with the Heath Ledger as joker comment. He was good, but wasn't great. What made him great really is the fact that he died. We heard that he did a good acting job prior to his death and then when he died his fellow cast started using the oscar buzz word, like Gary Oldman did in interviews. When he died immediately the media and public went off the charts since he is young and how he died. Had he not died I am sure the film would have done well and he might have been up for an oscar. Now he will definitely be up for an oscar and his death will give me an added chance for a win although it shouldn't be a factor it certainly is with all the chatter saying he might get it.

Nothing like a death to make one a martyr. Again, it doesn't take away from his performance or how good it was saying he shouldn't get an oscar because of his death, but my point is his death shouldn't add to his getting an oscar and the problem is it does for many even in the Academy.

Totally agree. Massimo Troisi was nominated posthumously for il Postino, and he didn't win. His was a PHENOMENAL performance. Ledger's performance makes him look like Troisi's illegitimate stepchild. Of course, the Academy is generally unfriendly to "international" performances, so it would be no shock if Leger pulls it off with a very good, but certainly not great portrayal.

He was great in Brokeback, and the sad thing is that he really was coming into his own when he died.
post #206 of 445
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hughmc View Post

She looked much better in that movie Stanger than Fiction, really good there, but that could be IMO. I agree the makeup and hair made her look like hell in DK.

and don't forget Secretary...

Maggie seems to me more of the real deal type actress. You're likely to see her representing who she truly is, on the streets, unlike Holmes or Spears after the makeup and airbrushing. A beautiful woman either way.
post #207 of 445
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pres2play View Post

Thought Maggie looked nice in Stranger Than Fiction. But her role in TDK was completely wasted. She needs to play a sexy villain, not some tight-ass legal beagle.

You know, if you stare at her strange smile for a second, you can almost imagine her as Catwoman.

but then...that would be completely....impossible.
post #208 of 445
Quote:
Originally Posted by sb1 View Post

It was, in fact, your statement that brought that out. I thought you were talking about the sound of the film. My apologies.

However, out of curiosity, I would like to know what you didn't like about the score... The sound quality itself, or the actual composition?

Sound quality was fine, but I thought the score itself was forgettable. Not really a part of the film, just sort of there, at times. While it doesn't need to telegraph emotions or plot developments, it can be used effectively to underscore tension or excitement, and it didn't do that for me.

Scott
post #209 of 445
Quote:
Originally Posted by Officer Steve View Post


Think bigger...how bout The Dark Knight vs. Predator. Now that would be fk'n cool!

well if it's as good as Aliens vs Predator, I'll bite.
post #210 of 445
Quote:
Originally Posted by tjeepdrv View Post

I don't want to see The Penguin or The Riddler, just because of the internet rumors. I also think they would be boring in Nolan's universe. If he was going to include Catwoman, she should have been in Begins, like the way she was in Year One. I think Bane is a little too much for one movie, especially since he ruins Batman. We don't need 2 movies in a row where Batman ends up ruined, ha. I hope they use another person that is well known in the comics, but not in the movies, like they did in Begins.

Did you initially think the Joker would be boring in Nolan's universe? Give the man a little credit...
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Blu-ray Software
AVS › AVS Forum › Blu-ray & HD DVD › Blu-ray Software › The Official Dark Knight BR Review and Discussion Thread (This is NOT for PQ)