Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I went to the IMAX for the full experience. I didn't try to follow the plot or make any sense of it, it was just sheer entertainment. I don't think you're supposed to disect those kinds of movies based on content or character - it's just Action/Adventure for the senses.
and yet it was nominated for an academy award...
and people act as though it is Citizen frikin' Kane.
so, other than the fact that i hate that crappy movie, does anyone have any thoughts on my analysis of the Batman mythology?
Did you see "Batman Begins?" Because that episode portrayed how Bruce Wayne actually eschewed his inherited riches to go on a grueling, arduous journey to the Far East where he lived a very spartan existence--almost monk-like, and devoted himself to learning martial arts so he could return to the U.S. and exact his revenge on his parents' killers.Also, his dad's company wasn't exactly running solely on the slavish devotion of its workers. Indeed, the ownership of the corporation had fallen into the hands of some greedy, opportunistic Gordon Gekko types who basically tried to strip Wayne of his birth right. True, he did wrest back control, but when he did he used the money and the technology they developed in order to fight evil and embark on a career of public service. He could have easily just wallowed in the good life and done nothing. Instead, he continually placed himself in the way of harm so as to protect Gotham from the Bad Boys.* The playboy life he pretended to live was merely a ruse used to throw off any suspicions of his true identity.* But, while think you're being a tad hard on Brucey, I do think that the Dark Knight was a vastly overrated movie, and was mediocre at best. Still, not bad enough to warrant a "worst movie of 2008" raspberry. And I think Ledger's performance was shher genius, and feel he would have been nominated for an Oscar even if he hadn't died. (But I think maybe he wouldn't have won.)
Just my two cents.
Last edited by DrummerBoy; 12-30-2009 at 09:38 PM..
Did you see "Batman Begins?" Because that episode portrayed how Bruce Wayne actually eschewed his inherited riches to go on a grueling, arduous journey to the Far East where he lived a very spartan existence--almost monk-like, and devoted himself to learning martial arts so he could return to the U.S. and exact his revenge on his parents' killers.Also, his dad's company wasn't exactly running solely on the slavish devotion of its workers. Indeed, the ownership of the corporation had fallen into the hands of some greedy, opportunistic Gordon Gekko types who basically tried to strip Wayne of his birth right. True, he did wrest back control, but when he did he used the money and the technology they developed in order to fight evil and embark on a career of public service. He could have easily just wallowed in the good life and done nothing. Instead, he continually placed himself in the way of harm so as to protect Gotham from the Bad Boys.* The playboy life he pretended to live was merely a ruse used to throw off any suspicions of his true identity.*
okay, clearly - clearly the worst movie of 2008. and that's not even saying that Heath Ledger (who's death is the only reason that piece of movie has gotten so much praise) did not play a great villan. he was a great villan. but every single moment that Heath Ledger's villan was not on screen was excrutiating. that movie was so bad, that i now despise Batman's very mythology and see it only as a childish, selfish fantasy. here's how:
1. this f'n guy is born into...wealth beyond imagining. his family couldnt go broke if they were hell-bent on doing so.
2. at the age of 7 or so, the parents are taken out, so theyre outta the picture, and all that wealth is transferred to guess who. ah, so much money, and no parents to enforce any sort of boundaries.
3. luckily for Bruce, he will never have to learn how to run a company, nor will he have to worry about safeguarding his wealth due to the slave-like devotion of his late parents' employees. these unyieldingly loyal relationships which were cultivated by young Bruce's parents - not by him.
4. so when he isnt wearing tights and punching people in the face, he is "putting on appearances" by living the life of a billionare playboy.
does that not sum up the life of Bruce Wayne, the poor tortured soul.
1. Duh. It makes Batman much easier to write for since he can logically have almost anything he can imagine. However, there have been stories where for whatever reason Bruce was broke and still was able to fight for justice as the Bat.
2. Again, duh. Who the hell else would it be transferred to? Not sure what you mean by the parents not "enforcing boundaries". Batman will not kill and fights some of the darkest evil imaginable. What boundaries should he have?
3. Bruce is written as a genius in everything. The flightly playboy image is a ruse and he is fully aware of how to run the company and keep it profitable. Also, he has many benefits for his employees such as full rides to college, taking care of widows & orphans, etc.
4. Once again, duh. He plays the role of Bruce Wayne so well no one suspects that he is Batman. He is different from other superheroes though, in that his true personality comes out in Batman. Most other heroes wear their mask while they are fighting evil, Bruce wears his in the boardroom and at social functions.
The fact that Batman is a response to a childhood tragedy has been addressed in the comic book (by the Joker, natch). Of course it is a childish response, almost a revenge fantasy.
Did you see "Batman Begins?" Because that episode portrayed how Bruce Wayne actually eschewed his inherited riches to go on a grueling, arduous journey to the Far East where he lived a very spartan existence--almost monk-like, and devoted himself to learning martial arts so he could return to the U.S. and exact his revenge on his parents' killers.Also, his dad's company wasn't exactly running solely on the slavish devotion of its workers. Indeed, the ownership of the corporation had fallen into the hands of some greedy, opportunistic Gordon Gekko types who basically tried to strip Wayne of his birth right. True, he did wrest back control, but when he did he used the money and the technology they developed in order to fight evil and embark on a career of public service. He could have easily just wallowed in the good life and done nothing. Instead, he continually placed himself in the way of harm so as to protect Gotham from the Bad Boys.* The playboy life he pretended to live was merely a ruse used to throw off any suspicions of his true identity.* But, while think you're being a tad hard on Brucey, I do think that the Dark Knight was a vastly overrated movie, and was mediocre at best. Still, not bad enough to warrant a "worst movie of 2008" raspberry. And I think Ledger's performance was shher genius, and feel he would have been nominated for an Oscar even if he hadn't died. (But I think maybe he wouldn't have won.)
Just my two cents.
yes, i saw Batman Begins, and i thought it was pretty good. in fact it's the only Batman movie i own or like. but lets not sit here and act like prior to this film there wasnt like 50 or 60 years of this childish fantasy i speak of. right or wrong?
and yes, youre right. i am just being hard on the film BECAUSE it's so damn overrated. you are 100 % right, the movie is MEDIOCRE AT BEST. but it isnt the absolute worst movie ever or of the year. that honor would have to go to "You Got Served" or something like that. TDK is just one of the most overrated movies of all time.
and yes, Ledger's performance was great, and for it, he probably would and should have been nominated for an Oscar. i cant argue against Heath Ledger's performance being fantastic, but we're talkin' like 15 minutes of screen time... and everything else in the movie was garbage. that's my argument - is that this is a bad movie overall. people who think that the entire movie was genius are diluted.
i thank you for your post which seems to come from a place of honesty and common sense. my original post is a little over-the-top and venomous because i am trying to make a point - that i detest the fact that such an overallhorrible film gets such praise through merely the power of suggestion. that and the fact i find (mostly due to my disappointment in what turned out to be a very overrated film) the entire Batman mythology to be pretty unappealing.
yes, i saw Batman Begins, and i thought it was pretty good. in fact it's the only Batman movie i own or like. but lets not sit here and act like prior to this film there wasnt like 50 or 60 years of this childish fantasy i speak of. right or wrong?
and yes, youre right. i am just being hard on the film BECAUSE it's so damn overrated. you are 100 % right, the movie is MEDIOCRE AT BEST. but it isnt the absolute worst movie ever or of the year. that honor would have to go to "You Got Served" or something like that. TDK is just one of the most overrated movies of all time.
and yes, Ledger's performance was great, and for it, he probably would and should have been nominated for an Oscar. i cant argue against Heath Ledger's performance being fantastic, but we're talkin' like 15 minutes of screen time... and everything else in the movie was garbage. that's my argument - is that this is a bad movie overall. people who think that the entire movie was genius are diluted.
i thank you for your post which seems to come from a place of honesty and common sense. my original post is a little over-the-top and venomous because i am trying to make a point - that i detest the fact that such an overallhorrible film gets such praise through merely the power of suggestion. that and the fact i find (mostly due to my disappointment in what turned out to be a very overrated film) the entire Batman mythology to be pretty unappealing.
Good post, Linson. It's good to see someone "man-up" and admit they may have been a bit harsh on something because of their disappointment in it. Your explanation reminds me of my own reaction to Scorcese's "The Departed." Normally, I'm a huge Scorcese fan and in fact "GoodFellas" is one of my favorite movies of all-time. So I was so looking forward to the much-ballyhooed "Departed" and when I saw it on opening day I was sorely disappointed, calling it a mediocre "GoodFellas" only with cell-phones. I also thought Nicholsen and Leo both sucked in it. But all my freinds thought it was great. (I did like the soundtrack, though.)
But after some months went by and I watched it on dvd I realized it was actually a pretty good flick; just not near as good as "GoodFellas."
What? Dark knight was a great flick in my opinion. The acting by Heath Ledger was fantastic. He was born to play this role.
umm. ok. here's my point - ASIDE FROM HEATH LEDGER'S PERFORMANCE - is there anything good about that movie?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
