Ain't It Cool News: The best in movie, TV, DVD, and comic book news.

THE DARK KNIGHT Returns To Theaters On January 23rd, 2009!

primero bitches! by Orionsangels	Dec 4th, 2008 11:32:05 PM

third? by couP	Dec 4th, 2008 11:32:58 PM
gg dark knight, kick titanic's ass
UNDERWORLD: RISE OF THE LYCANS? by Gatack2	Dec 4th, 2008 11:33:29 PM
I think you overestimate it's chances plus that chick from the first two movies won't be in it.
The Dark Knight? by jingle_balls	Dec 4th, 2008 11:33:46 PM
Never heard of it? What's it about?
woot by Wonko	Dec 4th, 2008 11:33:52 PM
second?
I just got the dvd.... by Salchucks	Dec 4th, 2008 11:35:48 PM
but i'll see it again in IMAX if it comes.
Underworld as competition? umm... no by br1947	Dec 4th, 2008 11:36:52 PM
I like the Underworld series, I do, but honestly, I'd rather see Dark Knight in the theaters one more time. Plus, if it means we can finally shut people up about Titanic, I will see it many times again. Dark Knight got where it is for being a good movie almost everyone loved. Titanic only earned half its box office, the other half came from the boyfriends and husbands that got taken along for a torture ride.
My prediction by Shadowhawk	Dec 4th, 2008 11:38:16 PM
It will pull in about $20 Million in it's re-release. However, if Heath wins best actor, it'll do $65 Million in re-release.
I'll see Rise of the Lycans... by Sebilrazen	Dec 4th, 2008 11:38:26 PM
once that weekend, but I'll see TDK at least twice, I'll do my part to sink Titanic.
what about australia? by Citizin_insane	Dec 4th, 2008 11:42:47 PM
i'll see it again, though, i still enjoyed iron man more...
Didn't See It in IMAX... by WaitingforAvengers	Dec 4th, 2008 11:43:59 PM
The summer was too crowded to work in an IMAX screening...I'll definatly take the extra chance to see it on the massive screen, I'm sure I won't be the only one.
Buuuuuuullllllsssssshhhhhiiiiiit ! by Lord John Whorfin	Dec 4th, 2008 11:44:00 PM
Dark Knight ain't gonna get nominated for Best Picture. Not in a million fucking years.
It'd be funny by WaitingforAvengers	Dec 4th, 2008 11:44:38 PM
I'd love it if by some fluke, there was an upset and Iron Man got nominated instead.
Dark Knight will make regular Imax re releases by greenstyle92	Dec 4th, 2008 11:45:36 PM
every 2 to 4 years for the next 2 decades. It had innovative use of Imax for a blockbuster and there is no way to replicate that on the home format. So every now and then, it will make sense to see it get another Imax run when pent up demand is high enough. For that reason, I do think making up the last 77 mil is going to be an eventual inevitability, but not for this first re release. Give it time. One can only hope that some other movie doesn't sale past Titanic's mark in the interim.
Ajusted for inflation, The Dark Knight is FAR behind the gross o by thecat	Dec 4th, 2008 11:46:08 PM
...meaning Dark Knight just wasn't THAT huge of a movie, folks. It's not even ahead of MARY POPPINS. And it is FAR behind such films as Star Wars (#2 adjusted), The Sting, Jaws, and The Sound of Music. And it is ALMOST ONE BILLION DOLLARS BEHIND GONE WITH THE WIND. So The Dark Knight is so far behind these films in true attendance and adjusted gross it isn't even funny.
Beaks you're a funny funny chicken by quadrupletree	Dec 4th, 2008 11:49:03 PM
or some other fowl.
Uh oh, the cat just brought up adjusted! by greenstyle92	Dec 4th, 2008 11:49:25 PM
Oh, I'm shaking in my boots now! Okay, so it's not quite up there adjusted, but hey, the movie was $200 mil ahead of it's closest summer competition, and that still counts for a fuckin' lot. And they can still technically say "Second biggest movie all time," so fuck it. This is Big. That it's a Batman movie of all things in this position is mind blowing.
I agree with Lord John Whorfin by Mr Spork	Dec 4th, 2008 11:50:12 PM
The only way The Dark Knight would get nominated would be if it were some foreign language film that only the Oscar voters, and not the average moviegoer, have seen.
SINK TITANIC!!! by Thrillho77	Dec 4th, 2008 11:50:19 PM
It's time for Nolan to be the King of the World!
Titanic by KDog629	Dec 4th, 2008 11:50:29 PM
You know what I find really fascinating? Good, thanks for asking. What I find fascinating is that it's been eleven years, minus a week since Titanic was released. Just over 4000 days. 4000 days that we've all gotten up and went to work and seen maybe three hundred other movies. We've loved and lost and gotten married and had children. We're about to have our third President since Titanic was released, and the only ones who have yet to shut up about it are the people who get absolutely orgasmic about hating it. Titanic aimed for a mark and hit it square. The story was sappy and treacly? Okay. I'm betting you weren't the intended audience. I think a lot of the anger over Titanic had everything to do with geeks feeling that the director of The Terminator and Aliens had lost his balls and gone soft. I can understand that. But, please, for the love of God. $600 million dollars (in 1998 money) and 12 Oscars speak for themselves to a certain degree. I loved Dark Knight, and frankly, loved Titanic for what it was. If TDK passes it, that'll be great. If not, then that's fine too. Nothing will ever top Gone With The Wind. Anyway, I'm done. But, seriously...let it go.
Hmmf. by codymr	Dec 4th, 2008 11:50:46 PM
I read last week somewhere else that TDK would not get an IMAX re release. Good to see the first article was wrong. I only saw it once last summer and I'd like a second look on the BIG screen.
Heath will get a post humous Oscar. by greenstyle92	Dec 4th, 2008 11:51:13 PM
That one is in the bag. Best picture? hard to say. I could easily see the oscar compromise being nominating it for such but not winning. But hell, The academy has shown to suckers for money makers. And it is, you know, deep and stuff, so maybe, just maybe...
KDog...I agree with you....but by Thrillho77	Dec 4th, 2008 11:52:55 PM
I still want to TRY to SINK TITANIC!!! but it won't be the end of the world. Hell, I enjoyed Titanic, but would only watch it once.
greenstyle92 I know The Dark Knight was "big" -- by thecat	Dec 4th, 2008 11:54:49 PM
...but it still doesn't come close to the REALLY biggest movies. So if it beats Titanic and becomes #1, the truth is still, it simply isn't THAT big (compared to the biggest, which it will claim to be). Again - IT'S ALMOST ONE BILLION BEHIND GONE WITH THE WIND. It's not even as big as
greenstyle92 I know The Dark Knight was "big" -- by thecat	Dec 4th, 2008 11:54:50 PM
...but it still doesn't come close to the REALLY biggest movies. So if it beats Titanic and becomes #1, the truth is still, it simply isn't THAT big (compared to the biggest, which it will claim to be). Again - IT'S ALMOST ONE BILLION BEHIND GONE WITH THE WIND. It's not even as big as
Underworld 2 opened at $26.9 million by MrD	Dec 4th, 2008 11:55:32 PM
on Jan 20, according to Wikipedia. That's actally an improvement on the first films $21m in September 2003. However, this is the third film, the second had rancid reviews, and its a prequel. Maybe it'll bite, but I'm not sure it'll be that big a draw. Inkheart, Possession, Last Chance Harvey, and Killshot all open at the same time. I've only heard of one of those so far (Inkheart), so I have no idea what sort of reception they'll get. I'll do what I can to catch a showing, but with TDK on BluRay (DVD for those stuck in the first half of this millenium), I think it'll be hard to drag $77 million worth of viewers out to catch it again. Even if all the geeks in the country rallied behind it in order to knock of Titanic, I still think the odds would be against it.
KDog629 by codymr	Dec 4th, 2008 11:55:43 PM
Well said. To be honest I don't really care about box office returns that much... But as much as I enjoy browsing AICN I find there are way too many haters of every kind. Haters don't really add anything to talkbacks.
con't by thecat	Dec 4th, 2008 11:56:10 PM
...The Dark Knight isn't even as big as MARY FUCKING POPPINS. Needless to say...'nuff said.
thecat by BadMrWonka	Dec 4th, 2008 11:59:15 PM
um...what on earth are you talking about? can you say all that again, but with, you know, a little more cohesion and explanation? when you're darting between like 4 types of statistics like a gecko on a wall in mexico, it helps to actually use terminology...and paragraph breaks. like this!
thecat - Records are about bragging rights by MrD	Dec 4th, 2008 11:59:24 PM
and rarely have much meaning beyond their narrow turf. Sure, TDK and Titanc and ET and Star Wars can't compare to Gone With the WInd, but then those films weren't rereleased a gazillion times over several decades, withoutthe competition of television and air conditioned homes. Given how fractured entertainment has become in our culture (in movies, music, tv), the fact that there is still the chance for one film to be seen and appreciated by so many is worth acknowledging.
thecat by Gonzo Keinz	Dec 4th, 2008 11:59:25 PM
remember, when busting out the inflation argument, to include The Birth of a Nation as the invisible #1 or #2 film. they didn't keep financial records then, but it's rumored to have made 50 million+ (even found one history book that said there are legitimate estimates that it may have hit 100 million) during its TEN YEAR run. even at the low end, it would easily be in the top 5. i don't understand the fascination people have with box office records that aren't adjusted for inflation. in the mid forties, $10 was like $50. would you pay $50 to see any random run of the mill movie? would you take a family of four to it? and why am i in here jabbering about this?
one of them is doing "The Prisoner"? by Circean6	Dec 5th, 2008 12:04:37 AM
Criminy...who HASN'T been attached to do a remake of The Prisoner?!? First a movie, then a TV series, then both, now back to just a movie?
You know what is really funny? by The Dum Guy	Dec 5th, 2008 12:04:47 AM
Is the fact that Burton's Batman seemingly lead the way of "tent pole" movies that come out around every summer since 1990. Given that, The Dark Knight would've (in theory) done better if the current way releasing movies was not... to say, that if there wasn't another "must see" motion picture coming out every Friday of every week, then Dark Knights attendence would've been bigger. All's I'm saying is, that if a really great film maker had done what Nolan did prior to Burton's Batman, there is a good chance that it would've done better than the Dark Knight, as far as how many people would've bought tickets.
And... by The Dum Guy	Dec 5th, 2008 12:07:02 AM
I plan to see this again in IMAX, only b/c I haven't seen it in that format, yet.
Gonzo by MrD	Dec 5th, 2008 12:09:58 AM
You do know that they weren't paying $10 for a ticket back in the 1940s, right? In 1945 the average ticket price was about 35cents, the equivilent of $4 in 2007 dollars. Actual 2007 ticket price? $6.88. So what is the relevence of us paying $50 to see a film today?
Dum Guy by MrD	Dec 5th, 2008 12:13:13 AM
As someone who remembers movies prior to 1989, I can promise you that there were summer tentpole films for a long time prior to Batman. One could argue that Jaws began that summer blockbuster phenomenon, and Star Wars made it a permanant fixture. Since then its been a gradual evolution of the process, of which Batman was just one (admittedly big) step.
the inflated gross, by ITSELF, is irrelevant by BadMrWonka	Dec 5th, 2008 12:13:42 AM
if you're going to look at it that way, then what about the total amount of theaters the movie opens in. how many theaters it ENDS UP in? how long it's in theaters? how many re-releases? what were the tickets costs relative to the GDP at the time? no matter how you slice it, you could claim virtually any popular movie had some sort of record. in 1939, when GONE WITH THE WIND (I'm putting it in all caps, because thecat seems to think it's necessary to do so) was in theaters, was 23 cents. average price of a ticket in 2008, $7.08. (not sure where that is, I'm paying 9 bucks a pop here in Seattle, but whatever) so obviously that is a MUCH larger inflation than the dollar at large in the U.S. but what the hell does that mean? does it mean that Gone with the Wind actually should be inflated MORE in terms of the all time list, because it sold so many more tickets to get to the same total amount (the amount which is then adjusted for inflation by normal dollar standards)...or should we say that Titanic deserves it more because people were willing to pay so much more, per ticket (relative to GDP) to see the movie? my point is, if you really start to go down these roads, it's a little mind numbing. but if it gets Dark Knight in theaters again, so I can see it in IMAX (which I missed), then fine by me. I doubt it hits $600 million on this run though.
Who the heck does this necgray guy think he is?? by Dogmatic	Dec 5th, 2008 12:17:40 AM
That has to be the FIRST person i have seen who has nothing but negative (save the Joker) to say about Dark Knight....hype and such do not take away from the quality of the film. I loved Braveheart...but I think Heat should have been nominated and won in 1995 for Best Picture...and this movie is Heat...except it's a freakin' Batman movie!!!! I missed IMAX last time....count my money in the race to push CRAP-TANIC out of its completely undeserved position at last!!!
Theater can't compete with BluRay by MattmanReturns	Dec 5th, 2008 12:19:46 AM
I already saw it a bunch of times in the theater, I'd rather watch it at home in 1080p without crappy theater speakers fluttering on and off and babies screaming. Going to the movies is like playing russian roulette. 5 out of 6 times you're okay... but that one bullet really kills it.
Adjusted is bullshit. by critch	Dec 5th, 2008 12:21:28 AM
The DVD market didn't exist when Titanic came out. It was in theatres for 9 months. DK was in for what, 3? Not to mention that Titanic had shit for competition, whereas DK was in the middle of summer. And quit bringing up Gone with the Wind. Yeah, more people went to see it. 60 years ago there wasn't anything else to do. No tv, no vhs, no dvd, nothing but a radio show once in a while. Adjusted is only brought up by losers that try to downplay, in this case, one of the greatest performances by a movie in history.
Re: Inflation by Acquanetta	Dec 5th, 2008 12:21:41 AM
Even if you don't adjust for inflation, Dark Knight has little chance of surpassing Titanic's total (ie. worldwide) gross. If you have to cherry-pick how much of the gross should count- on top of ignoring inflation- I don't really see the point. But you also have to wonder how wide this re-release will be- especially that long after the dvd's release.
All fans unite against CRAP-TANIC!!!! by Dogmatic	Dec 5th, 2008 12:21:56 AM
For years I dreamed of a film that would unseat Titanic (a decent film to be sure but totally and completely undeserving of the #1 all-time position it holds) from the a place it should not have had this long. I had hopes for others...Spider-Man, Return of the King, Spider-Man 3, and film capable of unseating Titanic....but nothing...all lost...then came the Nolans with the crime saga epic extrordinaire that is The Dark Knight and suddenly there is hope again! It almost did it and fell short at #2...come on people!!! It made 77 million plus in its first weekend! Thank you thank you WB for doing this!!! Giving one last opportunity to finally have a movie more worthy than Titanic in the #1 spot! If we don't do it now I fear it could be a very very long time before lightning strikes twice....
TDK is Heaths Movie. by DOGSOUP	Dec 5th, 2008 12:22:58 AM
Search your feelings, you know this to be true...
HEY BEAKS! You made my facebook favorite quotes!!! by Dogmatic	Dec 5th, 2008 12:23:35 AM
"20 years ago if you told me a super-hero movie would be nominated for Best Picture, I would have burned your house down and framed you for murder." That made me laugh so hard I cried, and that hasn't happened in a long time! Great stuff!!!
I don't care why. by Bass Ackwards	Dec 5th, 2008 12:25:47 AM
Glad I'll have another shot at seeing this in IMAX.
Oh, but 77 million won't happen. by Bass Ackwards	Dec 5th, 2008 12:30:31 AM
And WB knows that.
Re: Adjusted is bullshit by Acquanetta	Dec 5th, 2008 12:32:10 AM
Both films had their share of advantages, though. For example, Titanic wasn't able to use the internet to market the way that Dark Knight did. And it's not like Titanic was released in the 1970's. It was extremely rare for a movie to stick around that long in 1998. The dvd market may have been just beginning, but the VHS market was well-established. Remember, Titanic opened with something like $20+ million, and then built its gross over MONTHS. This means that, six months after it was released, it still managed to survive the entire 1998 summer movie season.
it would be AMAZING!!! by aportee	Dec 5th, 2008 12:34:10 AM
if the Dark Knight passes 600 million. The fact that it has to compete against blu ray movies, 80 inch hdtvs and tons of other competion from movies in theaters. Titanic or even Gone with the wind didn't have that. So, inflation is full of Sh@t
inflation, adjusted, blah blah blah by seanpb	Dec 5th, 2008 12:37:05 AM
discussing all this stuff is a bit of a moot point. yes tickets are dearer now. but as someone else said films today have to compete with so much other entertainment: TV, the internet, games, other movies (that was a really good point, back in the day there wasnt a big film released every couple weeks). also films like gone with the wind ran for how long in theaters...its much of muchness i say. both are massive massive films that earnt every dollar they made. the fact they had to make them differently is testament to either their quality or longevity. or both.
If they're going to re-release it. . . by BroVinny	Dec 5th, 2008 12:39:20 AM
. . . could they at least include a gag reel?
Who the hell is gonna go see Underworld 3? by Somerichs	Dec 5th, 2008 12:47:56 AM
Just sayin...
you can't just say something is bullshit by noiretblanc	Dec 5th, 2008 12:48:02 AM
and then exit the building without giving any legitimate justification for saying so, explaining reasonably as to why, and expect to be taken seriously, because you've done nothing to remotely even begin to consider the burden of proof
Re: Entertainment "Competition" by Acquanetta	Dec 5th, 2008 12:57:08 AM
The "competition" argument works both ways, though. Older films may have had less competition, but people also didn't take the films as seriously. You didn't have entire generations that were devoted to pop culture like we have today. It's why the Adventures of Superman tv show wasn't aimed at the same kids who had watched the Fleischer cartoons a decade earlier. Those kids had grown up and started families, careers, etc. But today it's not unusual to find people in the 20's, 30's, 40's, etc. just as passionate about films as the kids. It's why we have so many box office records broken every summer, and how a film like Dark Knight can gross nearly $160 million in ONE weekend. The only reason we started paying attention to box office records is because they used to stand for years- or even decades- before being shattered. This is not to say that Dark Knight's performance wasn't impressive, just that it's interesting to look at how different each blockbuster era has been. You can't simply dismiss one aspect (such as inflation), and then pretend that other factors weren't working in Dark Knight's favor. Face it, being released in an age that caters heavily to film buffs, comic fans, and videogame geeks certainly didn't hurt The Dark Knight's box office chances.
If you think for 1 second... by TheMcflyFarm	Dec 5th, 2008 01:02:21 AM
that a new Underworld movie starring nobody from the previous films that screams direct to dvd is going to hurt anything else at the box office, then you have a damaged brain.
You know what this country needs today? by BuckminsterOhare	Dec 5th, 2008 01:03:44 AM
A seven-cent nickel. Yessiree, we've been using the five-cent nickel in this country since 1492. Now that's pretty near a hundred years' daylight saving.Now, why not give the seven-cent nickel a chance? If that works out, next year we could have an eight-cent nickel. Think what that would mean. You could go to a newsstand, buy a three-cent newspaper and get the same nickel back again. One nickel carefully used would last a family a lifetime!
The Dark Knight SUCKED BALLS by Bass Bastardson	Dec 5th, 2008 01:05:42 AM
I can list the good qualities of TDK in less than one second - Heath Ledger. It would take me an hour to write out my list of complaints. I'm almost tempted, but I just don't have the energy right now and besides, it's not like any of you would listen to me anyway. I'll just say that it was poorly shot, completely illogical, ridiculously stupid, horribly acted (by everyone except Ledger and Oldman), pretentious... and just plain boring.
I'll chime in again, to say.... by The Dum Guy	Dec 5th, 2008 01:05:54 AM
Think of the economy in general at the time. There are a lot of films that are considered "hits" (like Commando being the hit it was, making $50 mil. plus), but think of how bad people had it this last summer... we had already started the recession, and gas prices where at an all time high. I don't personally give a shite about box-office take, but the fact that a film stands to the test of time of being good is a feat unto itself (Godfather, Jaws, Citizen Kane(which was a box-officebomb)). I think that Dark Knight will most likely go down in history as a benchmark, and the fact it came out when it did is testament to the quality of what brought it to be.
I wouldn't even sneak into see Underworld 3 by spacechampion	Dec 5th, 2008 01:06:11 AM
let alone pay to see it. TDK, on the other hand, I would pay to see again. I was actually just today lamenting I had only seen it once.
Underworld 3 can syphon this off by wash	Dec 5th, 2008 01:10:10 AM
that's what she said
TDK as a film and the Oscars by Darth Thoth	Dec 5th, 2008 01:10:27 AM
OK, I enjoyed the movie alot but let's keep it real- it wasn't a great movie. It had great performances, made you think, and showed innovative movie making techniques. But the film falls apart big time by the end. Again, really good movie but not great. Now, the Oscars are a joke. It's all about hype and buying off the members, literally. TDK has big capital behind it and was a hit so I really would not be surprised if it gets a best picture nom. And honestly, this was a weak year in film in my opinion- TDK was actually one of the better movies I saw in theaters. But, I will say this about Heath Ledger and the Oscars. My criticisms of the Oscars aside, it does mean something in the court of public opinion to get nominated and/ or win. Heath's performance was absolutely phenomenal. I'd love to see him win the thing as a fitting tribute to not only an iconic performance, but in honor of a life cut way too short.
Why buuuuulllllllsssshhhhhiiiit? by Lord John Whorfin	Dec 5th, 2008 01:20:22 AM
Crowded category this year, son. Just off the top of my head, films that will be nominated for Best Picture before Dark Knight: Slumdog Millionaire, Benjamin Button, The Wrestler, Milk and Doubt. That's already five and there are more, some probably better bets. Another reason why not: Return Of The King won recently.
I will see it once more... by Sakurai	Dec 5th, 2008 01:24:55 AM
I only saw it twice.
Who cares when AVATAR is fucking our eyeballs in 2009? by Motoko Kusanagi	Dec 5th, 2008 01:41:45 AM
nobody
36 Mafia Won n oscar by DRACULA_WANTS_THE_AMULET	Dec 5th, 2008 01:42:02 AM
and so did eminem, so ummm well who says it's bankrupt. Different but not bankrupt.. Roll up to your house knock on your door and blow your ass up! :::Knock, Knock:: "Who's there" It's the health department nigga. Your test just came in.. Your HIV postitive Bitch!- 36 mafia. Mixed in the phatasm song for that one me thinks or unsolved mysteries... Damn 36 mafia won an oscar, which lead to some retard real life mtv show. 36 mafia...
frankly, either side of the tdk criticism discussion by noiretblanc	Dec 5th, 2008 01:47:13 AM
has to prove their claims. the people that are detracting from it haven't even started making the case legit, but i'd be dishonest if i said that if you're going to claim that it's really good, or great even, you wouldn't have to explain why you think so beyond some slight mention of things. that being said, i'd take the culmination of well-expressed opinions off of rottentomatoes over some rash talkbacker, because at least those people have a semblance of cred
Didn't Heath die around that time last year? by EyeofPolyphemus	Dec 5th, 2008 01:49:38 AM
Best picture Oscar? Nah. They are cashing in on the anniversary of his death.
Whatever by yodalovesyou	Dec 5th, 2008 01:51:43 AM
If I've already got it on DVD why would I feel obliged to see it again at the cinema, just to spend my hard earned money; putting more money into a bunch of studio executive's pockets.
lord john by noiretblanc	Dec 5th, 2008 01:52:18 AM
that's at least getting started on the burden of proof. now you just have to explicitly explain why what's better than what. look, i'm not saying you're wrong, but i'm also saying you can't just throw around the word bullshit when there's the slightest bit of doubt...now, ghost rider, there'd be no doubt
You got it on DVD... by DRACULA_WANTS_THE_AMULET	Dec 5th, 2008 01:57:00 AM
Sucks to be you man, cause the IMAX shit is cropped on the DVD... you have to see it in blu to see it right.
www.sinktitanic.com by Zartan	Dec 5th, 2008 02:01:29 AM
If not The Dark Knight, Watchmen. Star Trek. Anything. Fuck Titanic.
Bass Bastardson by yiannis	Dec 5th, 2008 02:06:11 AM

I just calls them like I sees them, noiretblanc... by Lord John Whorfin	Dec 5th, 2008 02:16:52 AM
I don't HAVE to DO anything. I have no "doubt" that Dark Knight will not get a Best Picture nomination. Your doubts don't mean anything to me. How could they? No where have I stated that the films I've listed are better or worse films than Dark Knight. I haven't even said whether or not I thought Dark Knight was good. Further, I've made nary a claim as to the actual value of an Academy Award or even a nomination. It's just common sense, son. Where's your so-called "burden of proof" rebuttal that Dark Knight WILL get nominated? It's not necessary. It won't get nominated, Ledger will MAYBE get a posthumous Best Actor nomination and will be featured in the traditional memorial montage. Not everyone believes as I do. My beliefs do not require them to.
Bass Bastardson by yiannis	Dec 5th, 2008 02:17:30 AM
(without hitting Return accidentally!) Go on! I want you to spend that hour of your life listing your criticisms of TDK! If you really want people to listen to you, it helps if you actually have something to say. Stating an opinion on something is all well and good, but as the old saying goes, "opinions are like assholes - everyone's got one". Noiretblanc is right. Try making your case properly, articulating points in a clear manner and making use of example and comparison, and then people might engage you in debate. Go on! I'm perfectly happy to use the exact same hour out of my life to engage in a debate with you, but you need to give me something to work with. Or have I got it wrong? Are you, in fact, NOT looking for a rational debate of any kind? Are you, in fact, a spotty, lonely, awkward little 14 year old with no friends, no future and no life, whose only joy in his miserable existence is to sit in a darkened room, hunched over his computer as if it was the Ring to his Gollum, typing stupid, inane shit into anonymous message boards for something to do between those all-too-brief moments of frantic masturbation? Maybe I'm wrong and you'll come back quoting Fellini and Kurosawa at me, in which case you will immediately receive the apology you deserve. Please forgive me, though, if I don't hold my breath here...
awesome by palooka_boy	Dec 5th, 2008 02:25:03 AM
a chance go see it in IMAX like i never did before
It will be hollow victory..... by standundermyumbrella	Dec 5th, 2008 02:27:26 AM
...if it reaches $600 million,worldwide Titanic is standing at $1,8 billion,Dark night at $1 billion, you do the MATH!!!
rereleases shouldn't count in "first run" grosses by TheSeeker7	Dec 5th, 2008 02:29:55 AM
It's incredibly lame. Hey, Titanic didn't need a rerelease to become #1. The only reason that Star Wars is as high as it is is from all the damn rereleases it's had over the years. Just leave well enough the fuck alone. Or go ahead, put it back out there, but it doesn't count towards the record.
That which does not kill us by kwisatzhaderach	Dec 5th, 2008 02:32:08 AM
makes us stranger.
In a pinch, I'm with Bass Basterdson by Geronimo Jackson	Dec 5th, 2008 02:35:08 AM
I was one of the people who was excited for TDK, to the point that I overlooked its flaws upon my first viewing. Now that I've seen it again, I realize it's riddled (pun intended) with problems. Ledger is great, the atmosphere is great, but it's Use Your Illusion to Batman Begins' Appetite For Destruction: self-important, bloated, sacrificing substance for grandeur. There was no need for the HK scene, the ferry dilmema, the f-ing cellphone tracking angle. It's a big jerkoff. The second time I watched it I couldn't deal with Bale's crappy raspy voice that is meant to be filled with so much gravitas. This film will age as poorly as Heather Locklear's face.
YES! by The Amazing G	Dec 5th, 2008 02:43:53 AM
maybe this time I can go see the Imax version!
lord john by noiretblanc	Dec 5th, 2008 02:50:31 AM
the point hasn't been about your beliefs or mine. the point hasn't been about the merits, or lack thereof, of the oscars. those are all separate matters themselves. the original point was about claims being taken seriously. but, whether you like it or not, there is certainly reasonable doubt that tdk is meritless unto the academy in one way or another, for whatever the academy is worth, and you only have to hop on over to rottentomatoes to get a general sense for that. that's the only point i'm trying to make. i don't want to weigh in one way or another for whole other reasons irrelevant to that point. still, if you're going to assume what kind of movies are getting into or not getting into the oscars, you are making some value judgement on them, if even only as fashion or political statements. you can certainly call things solely like you see them, but may have to expect that people will not take your claims seriously solely based on that...not that it's inherently a bad thing.
Are you kidding me? WHO GIVES A FUCK! by Big Dumb Ape	Dec 5th, 2008 02:51:26 AM
Personally, I liked DK, but I didn't love it. Did I want to see it on the big screen, to get out of the house for a bit, and to see another big budget summer movie? Did I want to see it for Ledger's final performance? Yes. As a comic geek at heart, was I sort of rooting it on? Sure, but to be honest I actually enjoyed IRON MAN a helluva lot more -- so much so that I did pay to see that twice versus only being able to sit through DK once. And you want to know the funny thing about feeling DK was good, but it wasn't "all that" as everyone always makes it out to be? I thought I was in the minority for feeling that way, and yet it's only here at AICN do I find so many people salivating over it. When I ask all my friends who saw it, they basically feel the same as me. They're glad they saw it on the big screen, it got them out of the house for a bit in the summer, they thought it was okay to pretty good...and yet no one says they loved it, as if it had changed their lives or views on film forever. Personally, I felt it dragged in parts. I thought it started off better than it ended, and as for the ending (the final three-way confrontation between Batman, Gordon and Harvey) I found that to be underwhelming. By the time it ended, I was like "What, that's IT?" But, hey, to each his own, I say. So, if you loved it THAT much, good for you. Enjoy. But here's what cracks me up now. WHY the fuck would you care if this beats TITANIC's domestic box office? Why the hell would you feel a need to help it bust a record that has no meaning in life? Seriously, unless you own stock in Warner Bros., the ONLY thing you're doing is putting more money in Warner's corporate bank account and ensuring that all of the top WB brass and maybe even some DC Comics execs get BIGGER bonuses now. In short, at a time of economic distress across the country... hell, across the entire world... you're simply making the rich RICHER. You're only lining their already cash-heavy pockets with even MORE coin versus going out and supporting some other films that could use your dollars or backing some filmmakers that could really use your bucks in these lean times. So, here's what I say: FUCK YOU, Warner Bros. I love that your press release is the usual blabbering PR nonsense, while everyone sees right through it and knows you're just trying to re-release this thing to grab some silly bragging rights. And to line your pockets even more. So, now I hope it DOESN'T get the $77 million just because that would actually make me smile even more. Yeah, that's right, I said it! I hope this re-release is a financial dud. Simply because I fucking hate stunts like this, and given the way the economy is right now its even more fucking ridiculous.
Lord John Whorfin by yiannis	Dec 5th, 2008 03:08:09 AM
I don't usually make a habit of intruding on other people's discussions in talkback, but I feel I have to here. You state in repeated posts that TDK WILL NOT get a Best Picture nom, as if it was fact. You claim not to need to back this up (as all opinions, justifiably held, need backing up to show their justification) and then demand noiretblanc back up his opinion that TDK MIGHT be nominated (forgive me, but I didn't see him anywhere say it "absolutely will" - happy to accept correction if wrong, though!). You seem to think that this argument is a matter of "Fact vs. Opinion" with "fact" being on your side, but it's not. Unless you have a time machine or are clairvoyant, there is no such thing as "fact" when talking about next year's potential Oscar nominations, as the nomination process has not happened yet. Therefore this is "Opinion vs. Opinion", plain and simple, and if you are going to ask your adversary to back up HIS opinion, you must in turn be ready, willing and able to back up YOURS. That is the nature of what we have called for the last few thousand years "debate" and no amount of quotes from popular sci-fi films (yes, I did get where that was from!) change that... Secondly, your list of 5 potential other candidates for Best Picture are all supposed to be very good, although I am yet to see any of them myself and must therefore rely on the opinions of others in this matter. However, "good" seems to have never been a criteria on which Oscar-winning films are based. How many "good" films did Scorsese make without winning or even being nominated? I thought that The Departed, while still a "good" film, could arguably be called one of the worst films Scorsese has made, at least by his standards, yet it won both Best Picture and Best Director. Why? Because the political, sentimental and populist wheels all aligned to say that "this was Scorsese's year", irrespective of the quality of movie he actually made. I would argue that the political (9/11 allegory), sentimental (Ledger) and populist (box office records) wheels are very much aligned for TDK right now, wouldn't you? Also on this point, Oscar voting is frequently influenced by the marketing strategies, something the Weinsteins in particular have openly admitted to manipulating to their advantage (Shakespeare in Love is the best possible example of this) and the marketing behind TDK's Oscar push is going to be enormous. After all, it's getting a full-on re-release for god's sake! Not a limited run in a couple of arthouse cinemas, or a few samplers being posted to Academy members, but a full-on, public re-release! Finally, we are talking about a NOMINATION here, not an actual WIN. This makes your Return of the King argument somewhat redundant, as what that represented was a WIN for "fantastical" films (in which cagtegory I'd also include sci-fi and things like gothic horror) that had previously received a pretty healthy series of NOMINATIONS without success (people forget that Star Wars was a Best Picture nominee in this vein way back in 1978). A nomination for TDK would represent the first ever nomination for a film from the "comic book" genre. This is not exactly a new genre by any stretch of the imagination, but it is currently entering what would seem to be a golden period - at least for productivity if not altogether for quality. This genre is going to be one of the prime moneymakers in Hollywood over the next decade, filling the pockets of the very people who nominate films for Academy Awards. A nomination, while still allowing another so-called "serious" film the actual win itself, would legitimise this genre in the minds of the sort of people who feel it NEEDS legitimising, in the same way that nominating Star Wars legitimised everything it represented (escapism, fantasy and the summer "event" movie). All of this points towards a very strong likelihood that TDK will be one of the 5 Best Picture nominees at the 2008 Oscars. Am I saying that this IS going to happen, definitely? No, of course not! I am merely pointing out a series of trends, based on my own opinion of the Oscar process over the years, that would support the POSSIBILITY of a nomination. If you don't believe that TDK is DESERVING of a nomination, then come out and say that. People might still disagree with you, as people disagree with all opinions from time to time, but that would be YOUR opinion. However, don't attempt to come out with some half-assed prognostication whose only basis is in your own mind and try to pass it off as unequivocal fact, as this kind of argument is ultimately self-defeating. TDK being nominated would empirically prove you wrong, but TDK NOT being nominated would not prove you right, just as a coinflip coming up "heads" after you called "heads" does not mean you KNEW it was going to happen. Until you can come up with something to validate your sweeping, generalised claims, that's all you've done as far as I'm concerned: called "heads" on a 50/50 chance.
Who gives a fuck about Underworld? by V'Shael	Dec 5th, 2008 03:15:14 AM
Are you high?
Sex and The City Movie for Best Picture!... by blindambition238	Dec 5th, 2008 03:18:41 AM
Or at least that's what WB is pushing for as well..
Big Dumb Ape...right there with you by TheMandrakeRoot	Dec 5th, 2008 03:29:45 AM
This is a ridiculous stunt by Warner Bros. just to earn the fat-cats more cash. And also holding the box-office record is rather trivial, and in this case not very legit at all since it would only happen on a re-release. As for the film itself, I dug it a lot on my first viewing, and for sure was in awe of Mr. Legders (who wasn't?) performance. The second viewing? Not so much. Found the film dragging too much and myself getting bored. The plot holes became blatantly obvious, and Batman's voice became laughable. I could go on, but at the end of the day the film just didn't seem very remarkable to me on repeated viewing. I'll probably catch it again on Blu-Ray when it's released, but that's more for my love of hi-def then the film itself. I will certainly not waste another 10 bucks to help it break a pointless record come January.
kudos, yiannis, for having the energy by noiretblanc	Dec 5th, 2008 03:39:53 AM
i don't blame anyone on here for not wanting to be as thorough and thoughtful as they could be, since it's not like it's a formal function and most of us are probably too comfortable lying around in only our underwear at the moment, or whatever, but i for one find discussions with thoughtful points interesting. and boobs. boobs are also interesting.
LOL Underworld??? by kafka07	Dec 5th, 2008 04:03:20 AM
I don't know if I buy Underworld being a serious competitor with Dark Knight. But since they both open on the same weekend, I suppose it's possible. Not sure if I'll even check out TDK in theaters again, since by then I'll have watched it a few times on dvd already. But once more on the big screen would be cool.
As far as inflation/adjustment goes... by NEUR0M4NCER	Dec 5th, 2008 04:44:36 AM
we should look at how France rates films: Tickets sold. Why the fuck would studios not simply track the number of tickets sold in US/UK you ask? So that they can fuck about with numbers and statistics to make something out of nothing, that's why. You can trawl through BoxOfficeMojo all you want, taking note of adjusted figures, number of screens, etc, but in the end, the ONLY correct way of quantifying a film's success is 'bums-on-seats'.
Best of luck to Nolan & Co.! by SeXX ED	Dec 5th, 2008 04:45:54 AM
That amazing, ground-breaking work of art deserves every single accolade it receives.
Umm by deanbarry	Dec 5th, 2008 04:46:26 AM
But won't everyone who loved the film, have a copy of it on one of those nifty little silver disc thingees that go into the boxes at home? I know I sure will. And would have watched it a few times before it is released at the theater. Again. Who would pay to go watch it again? Someone mentioned the re-release of Star Wars. Yes, i went and watched them at the cinema plex, despite already owning them on dvd/video/laserdisc and have viewed countless times. But that was due to the fact I had only ever seen them on the big screen 20 odd years earlier and it was an extraordinary experience it large and proud. The Dark Knight was on our screen only months ago. I know the Oscar running flicks get a retread at the box office close to the awards day...but colour me sceptical. I can't wait for the 10th of Dec. My silver disc player thingee is going to get a work out with BattyMan!!! The Blu version :)
Don't want to burst your balloon... by Mr Gorilla	Dec 5th, 2008 05:01:31 AM
...but way back in 1977 the original Star Wars was nominated for a Best Picture Academy Award. In the light of that, er, the Dark Knight getting a nom isn't such a big deal. Surely.
Question? by kaspianwithak	Dec 5th, 2008 05:02:05 AM
Almost all of the dark knight's flaws (overly melodramatic, and underwhelming finale is the only one I have perceived so far) are ones you notice after a second viewing. If you come out of the theater feeling like you just saw a freaking amazing movie... which is the more honest reaction? The one after the first viewing, or the one after you've watched it several times and picked it apart?
On the DVD vs. seeing it again in theaters... by kaspianwithak	Dec 5th, 2008 05:04:20 AM
I have seen it twice, have a good bootleg, will buy the most expensive edition released, and probably still see it again in January (definitely if it gets nominated for best picture, I always go to the thing where you watch every best picture nominee back to back).
The Dark Joker and Dark Two Face by Dingbatty	Dec 5th, 2008 05:17:12 AM
Does Batman actually show up in the re-release?
paramount pictures spun the box office figures... by emeraldboy	Dec 5th, 2008 05:19:33 AM
in regard to Forrest Gump.
If TDK isn't nominated for BP... by sapno_krei	Dec 5th, 2008 05:22:58 AM
...no superhero movie ever will. That, I think, is why there's a good chance it will be nominated.
Why? by Fortunesfool	Dec 5th, 2008 05:30:40 AM
It was one of the dullest comic book movies ever. Has anyone adjusted the 'box office' to take into consideration that fact that each Imax ticket costs roughly 3 time the amount of a standard one. If roughly one third of people saw it in Imax then we'd have to take a third of the Titanic audience and triple their ticket prices to make it fair. Bloody over-rated film any, if you ask me.
TDK Deserves the Best Picture Nod by TheLastCleric	Dec 5th, 2008 05:34:00 AM
Even if it doesn't win it certainly deserves to be nominated and it's certainly better than any number of films in recent memory that have won, including Forrest Gump, The English Patient, Shakespear in Love, and Return of the King. There will, or course, always be a handful of detractors but seriously, fuck 'em. TDK was the brilliant Batman flick I always wanted and never thought Hollywood would deliver.
I saw the dark knight and while I thought it.. by emeraldboy	Dec 5th, 2008 05:40:35 AM
was very good. The film looked great and Heath ledger was great. the sound was excellent and there was at least one or two jolts. But when the movie was over and I left the cinema. I had this feeling of....being deflated. I hated for example that they had learned nothing from Katie Holmes debacle. Maggie Gyllenhall is a great actress or not. and her character was still underwritten. and one note. the stuff with the letter was badly handled. the movie was stuffed with too many subplots. and it was all a bit rushed.
BEAKS, IT WILL SURPASS TITANIC... by Napolean Solo	Dec 5th, 2008 05:52:12 AM
Without a doubt. I said Warners was going to re-release it if it didn't eclipse Titanic on it's initial run. It will easily gross another $100m at the B.O and I'll tell you why; THE PUBLIC LOVES FANTASTIC. As soon as it starts being publicized for a contender to the Titanic throne (not by the studio, by the media and people like us)a whole new wave of interest will occur, and people will want to take part. Mark my words.
No, no, no... by Uga	Dec 5th, 2008 06:01:56 AM
It will already be on DVD by then, and in everybody's homes. It won't even approach $600 million - $5 million tops in re-release.
I havent seen this film yet but by all accounts.. by emeraldboy	Dec 5th, 2008 06:05:59 AM
this will be Danny boyles year. The critics love slumdog millionaire and the academy loves movies about people who triumph over adversity.
wall-e will get... by emeraldboy	Dec 5th, 2008 06:08:08 AM
best animated film. Best foreign language film: Waltz with bashir. though that could also get animation nod.
Hey there, TheMandrakeRoot! by Big Dumb Ape	Dec 5th, 2008 06:19:30 AM
I totally agree with what you said across the board. I have nothing against picking up DK for my video collection, but like you said it's more for a love of Blu Ray and wanting to see what it looks like in the format as opposed to loving the film itself that much. All in all, sure, it will be fun to see certain parts again. I didn't hate the movie, I just don't think it was as earth-shattering as everyone makes it out to be. Frankly, I thought the ending was boring. So, fine, Warners can get my money from that...from adding it to my home collection to watch whenever the mood strikes me...but screw the idea that I'm going to shell out even MORE money to help them win a silly box office record. Even as it is, Warner's is going to make a shitload of cash off Christmas home video sales. Which frankly makes the theatrical re-release (and the money grubbing stunt that it is) even more ridiculous.
Wall-E has Best Animated film locked up... by Big Dumb Ape	Dec 5th, 2008 06:29:06 AM
...Though for all the talk here of DK deserving a Best Picture nomination, in the end, I thought Wall-E was better than DARK KNIGHT and is more deserving of an Oscar. Wall-E was definitely one of the 5 best of the year. That film kicked ass on every single level.
Hope it ends in 10th place, with 700 thousand... by JackPumpkinhead	Dec 5th, 2008 06:50:14 AM
This B-grade beat'em up film is almost as superinflated as Depp or Paris Hilton.
Greenstyle92 is correct... by J.B.M.A.	Dec 5th, 2008 06:58:52 AM
You can't replicate the IMAX experience on your home theatre regardless of how large your plasma is. Whatever The Dark Knight's flaws, it deserves a viewing for those sequences alone. If you haven't seen it in IMAX yet then you're really missing out.
last minute change of minds? by Bouncy X	Dec 5th, 2008 06:59:29 AM
maybe 2 days ago i read that they had scrapped this idea. either way it doesnt matter, i'll have the blu-ray by then and as cool as it was seeing it in imax, im not gonna pay again for something i can watch for free. i realize the irony there since i had to pay to get the "free" version but you know. but it will be interesting to see how well it does. although this is unfair when movies do this and add to their total. some movies are only as high on the "all time" list due to re-releases, that crap should be based on its original release. now if something like Titanic happened where the movie just stayed for very long then ok.
Oh and Underworld 3? by J.B.M.A.	Dec 5th, 2008 07:00:19 AM
Come off it. They're pretty shakey movies at the best of times, and Rhona Mitra is no Kate Beckinsale...
Please let them edit out half an hour for the re-release. by tonagan	Dec 5th, 2008 07:03:16 AM
I'll happily sit through long movies, but that was a tiring film.
Adjusted for inflation by doubleARon	Dec 5th, 2008 07:22:15 AM
First of all, I really love Titanic, despite the weaknesses, it's gorgeous and haunting and really, really ballsy. That said, I've been thinking about the adjusted for inflation figures. Constantly you hear how one movie's success via box office numbers is overblown because of inflation, BUT... what about other factors, folks? What ELSE were you going to do when Star Wars came out? Watch your movie collection at home? Nope. Play video games? Nope. Watch HBO? Nope. How many other movies were in the theater at any given time? There weren't even new movies every week. See what I'm saying? There is SO much more Entertainment competition for ANY movie nowadays that the success of a movie by box office tells such a small story compared to older movies. Titanic broke through the saturation a bit, in its day, and that is noteworthy to say the least. Today, I'd argue that the entertainment landscape is much further saturated, however. In fact, the very genre that The Dark Knight (probably) belongs to (comic book/super hero) is beyond saturation. So, that's noteworthy, too, no? Just sayin' Oh, and somebody blamed girls dragging boyfriends to Titanic for its success. Don't you think a good deal of boyfriends dragged girls to The Dark Knight? And yes, seeing this in IMAX is a must, if you haven't. That's the reason this will make money. Plenty of people have heard fans blabber on about how much better the IMAX experience was and now they'll get a chance to see it that way. Also, I have a hard time wanting to see it any other way.
critch by doubleARon	Dec 5th, 2008 07:24:41 AM
Oops, you made that point already And oops, I forgot my paragraph tags Sorry to anyone suffered through reading my post! lol
Hell yeah! I saw it twice in theatres last summer... by Cletus Van Damme	Dec 5th, 2008 07:25:50 AM
...and will gladly see it twice more to help break the record.
Kaspianwithak...honesty differs. by Cletus Van Damme	Dec 5th, 2008 07:29:47 AM
Depends on if you're talking emotional honesty or logical honesty. I think that emotional honesty is more "pure," and logical honesty is more accurate, for lack of a better word. At the end of the day, or the reel, it all comes down to why you go to the movie in the first place; emotional stimulation or intellectual stimulation.
Beaks, you're fucking high. by Zarles	Dec 5th, 2008 07:34:53 AM
TDK could make another $77M if it were projected upside-down and backwards. Underworld 3? Pfft.
Paul Benedict just died by Grammaton Cleric Binks	Dec 5th, 2008 07:36:45 AM
He was the Jeffersons' neighbor, and was on Sesame Street.
ADJUSTED DOES MATTER by WerePlatypus	Dec 5th, 2008 07:56:16 AM
Titanic, adjusted for infliation, made 900 million domestic. If adjusted DOESN'T matter, than you'll be eating crow in 2050 when preteen sluts are paying $50 a ticket to see the 3-d animated Princess Pony Warrior, knocking The Dark Knight's dick in the dirt. Suddenly. . . "Adjusted for Inflation" feels like a pretty good argument. . .
lately by davidroland	Dec 5th, 2008 08:02:05 AM
It's only been in the past few decades that movies started being shown in theaters only once.
If you really think TDK is groundbreaking... by hypnotron	Dec 5th, 2008 08:11:33 AM
You haven't watched enough great movies! Rather than asking people to justify why they think it is deeply flawed, I would rather hear someone justify why they think it is groundbreaking! It is just a very average crime film in which the good guy dresses up in a black rubber suit and the bad guy wears make up! I guess this excites a lot of you who mistake pretension for depth!
Talk about arrogance. by Stalkeye	Dec 5th, 2008 08:11:36 AM
Hey I liked TDK just like most avid comic moviegoers, but why shell out another $10 when i can watch this on my PS3/Blu ray player? Fucking Warner Bros did this shit with purple rain after the VHS was released.BTW the screener was leaked over a month ago.Good luck.
Cool, I have not seen it yet. by Diagnostic	Dec 5th, 2008 08:14:41 AM
Now, If I can just find an IMAX somewhere.....
They should edit down the ferry boat sequence. by Bob Cryptonight	Dec 5th, 2008 08:16:27 AM
It was the weakest part of the movie. It was a good idea and very Jorkeresque, but it was horribly written (as if someone completely different had scripted it).
There is an IMAX in my city by Diagnostic	Dec 5th, 2008 08:17:24 AM
They wont play first run movies 'cause they are in a government building. Stupid, rotten gov. I wonder if they will have it now. Hey maybe they'll have a movie on stupid whales.
I love the shit out of Dark Knight. by Lucasblows	Dec 5th, 2008 08:33:38 AM
It will not be nominated for Best Picture.
Adjusting for Inflation by Duck of Death	Dec 5th, 2008 08:33:57 AM
If you adjust for inflation, The Dark Knight actually grossed ZERO dollars. Suck on that, Bat-fanboys!
noiretblanc (plus others) by yiannis	Dec 5th, 2008 08:35:17 AM
I try as much as possible to always be thorough and thoughtful. I may be old fashioned, but I just think life ain't worth living any other way and I treat the internet the same way I treat all other aspects of my life. Plus, if I write posts long enough that they need a cup of tea and some biscuits just to make it through the whole thing, I like to think this acts as a built-in "idiot filter", getting rid of all those too dumb or too lacking in attention span to make it the whole way... On a few other points people have mentioned: Yes, the re-release is a blatant marketing ploy to make the rich richer! What do you expect from Hollywood? Philanthropy? Yes, all box office records are made meaningless by inflation (plus about 100 other cultural and historical factors that have already been mentioned) Yes, people will already own the DVD/Blu-Ray by then, but that will not stop some going back for the IMAX experience (including me if Christmas/New Year doesn't clean me out financially) No, TDK isn't the best film of the year and almost certainly doesn't deserve to WIN Best Picture (I only qualify that because I've yet to see most of its competition - being in England we tend to get them in January rather than December). However, what it is is a film destined to become a classic in a genre that has NEVER had a classic film to its name, arguably the LAST genre left without a film to call "classic". This is just one of 100 reasons to give it a nomination, but you can find 100 reasons NOT to nominate it as well. In the end, Hollywood are a weird, illogical bunch so god knows which way they'll turn. Either way, it'll piss somebody off... And somebody please explain to me how it is possible to hate TDK, please? I will always respect the opinions of others, no matter how much I might disagree, but I simply CANNOT understand how a film this good can be criticised to the level some have, unless it is due to some bloody-minded determination to hate the film no matter what. A few people have said that the faults of the film become evident on repeat viewings. While I will agree that there were things I noticed the 2nd time around (Bale's voice is definitely annoying, the last-reel effects are disorientating and distract from the story, Two-Face's storyline feels rushed and the film definitely sags whenever Ledger is offscreen), I would argue that such criticism is largely superficial. What resonated with me more and more each time I saw the film (which is a lot of times - A LOT!) were the themes of the film. And what themes they are, subjects that most so-called "serious" films normally baulk from even going near: the consequences of lies, honour, life and death choices, love, loss, betrayal, the ability of the media to generate fear, even the very definition of such supposedly simple concepts as "good", "evil", "hero" and "villain". These themes were handled in a mature, honest way, but also in such a way that there were no easy answers to these questions. In every conceivable way in which a film can be called "good", this film was good. The script took the above themes and applied them to a clever, intricate but clear plot, giving the actors real, fleshed-out characters to play and heartfelt, realistic dialogue to say. The actors themselves took these gifts and created powerful performances out of them without ever needing to overact or chew scenery - some of the best moments in this film, like in many films, are the most subtle ones. The camera angles and moves presented the action in a clear and concise way, mobile without resorting to shaky-cam, focused without ever being static. The editing ensured that the film moved at a natural pace, allowing moments to linger where necessary while still moving the plot along briskly. The stunts in the movie were exciting and original, but always part of the story. The music perfectly captured the mood of each scene and the sound effects were grand without being overpowering. Seriously, what exactly is "crap" about that? If people didn't LIKE the film, though, that's a different thing entirely. Quite frankly, I am sick and tired of people claiming something was "crap" because they didn't like it. To me, that sort of attitude is either self-centred bordering on narcissism ("if I didn't like it that must mean it is crap, because I have perfect taste and judgement") or just plain lazy. There's plenty of films I've liked that I'll happily admit were total crap (anything with Van Damme in it for starters!), just as there have been plenty of films that didn't appeal to me, but which I will happily agree are well made films (try as I might, I just can't like Citizen Kane, but I would never deny the achievement of it). So, if you didn't like TDK, say that you didn't like it! Don't say that it's a "crap" film, because it isn't. Don't pick out the bits you didn't like and try and present them as objective faults on the part of the moviemaker, just say you didn't like those bits! I know that talkbacks are the place to bitch and moan, but at least show some common sense. This was a movie made by a collection of talented professionals, each one working to the peak of their talents. If they created a product that didn't appeal to you, it doesn't make it a bad or badly made product. If you could do better, you wouldn't be posting your opinions on an AICN talkback...
I just got it on dvd by Broseph	Dec 5th, 2008 08:42:46 AM
And would definitely go see it in theater as i didn't get to see it in the theater.It really is amazing
Count me in by Kentucky Colonel	Dec 5th, 2008 08:44:45 AM
I'll be there a couple more times. Now that they have IMAX at AMC Hoffman 22 in Arlington maybe they'll show it there instaed of Kung Fu Panda....which as far as I know is still playing on their IMAX screen. Bastards!
They should add 30 minutes to the Dark Knight. by Leafar the Lost	Dec 5th, 2008 08:48:04 AM
Personally, I think that a good film should be at least 3 hours long. I hope they add any footage taken out of the first movie to make it 3 hours. Heath Ledger will win the Oscar for Best Actor. There is no question about it.
It won't get win for Best Picture. by rev_skarekroe	Dec 5th, 2008 08:49:30 AM
It might get nominated. Sometimes the Academy Nominates hit movies that actually have no real chance (Star Wars). However, putting it back in the theaters will remind everyone about all the Heath Ledger Oscar talk over the summer.
Movies ain't sports by Vote Fa Stokes Brutha	Dec 5th, 2008 08:54:33 AM
I'm not sure what the deal is with the film community constantly trying to shoehorn sports-like numbers and stats onto ART? Whether it be box office discussion or Oscars or "what my stripper girlfriend thought", there is NO WAY to quantify the quality of a film. If everyone on planet Earth signed a notarized document proclaiming Raiders of the Lost Ark to be bad filmmaking, it would not change the fact that for me, it's a perfect movie. That said, I would absolutely love to check out Dark Knight again in the theater (saw it twice regular, once IMAX), but by this point, we'll have it on DVD and I don't know if my wife will want to go, so it'll just be me and my non-regular-people peers. Which leads me to believe that the rest of America will say "I just paid for this on DVD. Why should I go see it in theaters? Oscars are for movies about gay cowboys and self-aware racist euthanasiers."
best pic? fuck you by spidercoz	Dec 5th, 2008 08:56:37 AM
It was good but for fuck's sake. Wall-E deserves a nod more than this.
If the Blu Ray & by chewyou812	Dec 5th, 2008 09:06:31 AM

Sorry, Heath won't win by mrfan	Dec 5th, 2008 09:09:55 AM

If the Blu Ray & DVD weren't already out til afterwards this wou by chewyou812	Dec 5th, 2008 09:11:54 AM
And as much I'd love a best picture nomination, I agree with some earlier that a best supporting actor and various technical awards are much more likely. As for Underworld . . . really? A 3quel without the previous film's stars or director? Rhona Mitra's smoking hot, but was there really a need for a 3rd? Is there a huge fan base just counting down the days? And would they be happy about a half ass version that probably belongs in the direct to video market more than your local theatre?
I'll be camping out! by I_Snake_Plissken	Dec 5th, 2008 09:22:23 AM
For Rise of the Lycans. Critics are hailing it as the "Godfather of symbiotic fungus films."
I'd be More Concerned by Crow3711	Dec 5th, 2008 09:33:18 AM
That because every person and their uncle is going to get this movie on DVD for Christmas and watch it before January 21, and have the ability to just watch it at home on their own big screen, I wouldn't think a ton of people, besides people who didn't see it (whoever they are). I just think having the DVD out cannibalizes the re-release. I'm still going though. It's 1,000 times better in iMax. One last chance to see Heath Ledger do his thing on the enormous screen. It'll be bittersweet.
I MIGHT CATCH IT ON IMAX by BringingSexyBack	Dec 5th, 2008 09:47:04 AM
But with the DVD coming out in a couple of weeks, why would anyone pay to see it again in a regular theater?
Prepare to be disappointed (I think) by TheGreatPumpkin	Dec 5th, 2008 09:54:23 AM
I'd love it if TDK beat out Titanic (it had a good run, didn't it?), but with the dvd/BluRay out next Tuesday, I don't see people lining up to get back to the theater in late January. I've already seen it twice (once in IMAX), so where's the draw?
The Dark Knight sucked by alienindisguise	Dec 5th, 2008 10:02:31 AM
plain and simple. The death of an actor doesn't give a movie instant "masterpiece" status like was lavished on this turd of a movie. Had this been a property that was brand new and had not been a comic that's been around 80 years then yes it would've been groundbreaking but those who make comic book films have it easy since all the groundwork has already been done for them. Alot of people need to get their heads out of their asses and see this flick for what it is. A mediocre, over acted shallow movie.
Warner Bros. jump the gun by 420 Boylston St	Dec 5th, 2008 10:10:03 AM
They should have delayed the release of The Dark Knight before considering this approach. Plus I'm hearing they used an inferior codec for the BluRay process so consumers will not have the best picture quality. Double dipping is eminent for the foreseeable future. I wish WB would do things right for once! As for Best Picture nominations we still need to see how David Fincher's film does and that new film with Jeffrey Wright which looks phenomenal. Golden Globe nod is a given but the OSCARS? We'll see.
Who gives a crap how much a movie makes? by Emperor_was_a_jerk	Dec 5th, 2008 10:10:19 AM
If it made 1 dollar or 1 billion dollars it is still a great movie. Besides, it isn't like we all get anything out of others getting filthy rich over a movie.
Too Soon? by SomaShine	Dec 5th, 2008 10:12:04 AM
Ledger will walk away with the Oscar..wait, wait I'm sorry..He won't be walking away with it.
Good! I missed it in Imax by yomomma	Dec 5th, 2008 10:16:47 AM

Never win? by DennisMM	Dec 5th, 2008 10:41:04 AM
As someone pointed out up higher, "The Return of the King" won just a handful of years ago, and fantastic-genre films usually don't fare too well at Oscar time. They like to spread out their love for fantasy and sf. As for "TDK" getting a best picture, nom: Let us remember that "Star Wars" was nominated, ferchrissakes, and that is a silly, stupid film when viewed through a relatively objective lens (yes, I like it, but I don't cum all over myself watching it). Compared to "TDK" (which I liked a good deal, but didn't, etc., and have only seen once) it was the merest trifle, barely worth of consideration. If "SW" can get a nod, I think "TDK" can, in this genre-friendly atmosphere. But no win. Not a chance.
Those who don't love TDK... by HoboCode	Dec 5th, 2008 10:52:13 AM
suck cock by choice.
Hey, loser by DennisMM	Dec 5th, 2008 10:56:52 AM
You say that as if it's a bad thing. Jealous?
Glad to know I'm not the only one who thought it was a steaming by Hawaiian Organ Donor	Dec 5th, 2008 11:10:59 AM
There was a lot of poorly written, idiotic jerkassery throughout the first half. When the ferry sequence plodded along, it really nosedived. This and Indy 4 in the same year was a lot to stomach.
Sorry Node by Hawaiian Organ Donor	Dec 5th, 2008 11:14:17 AM
I really wanted to love this movie. I tried and tried to overlook the nonsensical ferry sequence but in the end it was the X-Wing I couldn't lift out of the swamp. I'm glad you loved it though. We all need some joy in these craptastic times.
Couple of things by Purgatori	Dec 5th, 2008 11:14:42 AM
1. I think this is sort of crazy to re-release so close to the DVD date...which is probably going to be one of the biggest DVD releases in the history of the format, especially in terms of Blu-Ray. This "sink the Titanic" idea isn't really feasible to me. Why spend the money? I don't think it's going to happen. 2. Rise of the Lycans is actually showcasing the real talent of the Underworld franchise, Nighy and Sheen. I'm going to see that film for sure. And is Beckinsdale really that big of a draw? Seriously?
I am so ready for TDK hype to end! by follyway	Dec 5th, 2008 11:24:13 AM
Where has the perspective gone? I loved Dark Knight. But, I loved everyone of Nolan's films starting back when I first saw Following. That doesnt mean The Prestige needed to win best picture. Fuck TDK isnt even better than Batman Begins(thats right I said it). And what is the deal with this imagined competition, who cares? This isnt sport so dont treat it like it is. TDK can make all the money in the world and that wont mean its a better movie. If TDK wins best picture I dont want to hear anyone complain about Crash ever again. There seems to one thing that this all comes back to though and that is Heath Ledger. First off, I love that when he was announced people were ready to riot but now he just gave the greatest performance in the history of cinema. It wass nice but lets not get carried away. When it comes to hime being nominated or even winning though I dont really have a problem. It was a great performance and Oscars get hande3d out to undeserving career capping performances all the time as a sort of "career acheivment" a la John Wayne etc. But anybody who thinks that his performane in TDK comes even close to what he did in Brokeback Mountain has complete shit for brains!
I would give Aaron Eckhardt the supporting oscar by MontyPigeon	Dec 5th, 2008 11:28:03 AM
Over Heath anyday.
Let's see... by Mr Incredible	Dec 5th, 2008 11:44:45 AM
Go to the movies and pay to see it once...or buy it on DVD next week and watch it as many times as you would like; when you want, where you want. What a hard decision. Nice move, Warner Brothers. It's not like the damn movie hasn't made any money.
The ferry scene... by frozen01	Dec 5th, 2008 11:57:53 AM
...was one of my favorite parts of the movie. I didn't think it dragged at all. Honestly (and I'm very embarrassed to admit this) it pretty much caught me with my pants down. I really didn't expect that scene to end the way it did, and I think it said more about me than I was willing to admit. No movie ever has made me take such a close look at myself as much as that ONE SCENE did.
yeah this is all a moot arguement by Timahh	Dec 5th, 2008 12:11:13 PM
there is NO WAY IN HELL, its going to get 77 million on a release, almost 2 months after everyone and their mother bought it on DVD. and if TDK gets a best picture nom, i wont be as morally outraged as others by it, but i will be pretty damn dumbstruck.
They're overblown losers with no perspective by DennisMM	Dec 5th, 2008 12:42:38 PM
Gosh, I didn't even need to write the post. But I'll repeat it: They're overblown losers with no perspective.
INFLATION and SECOND RELEASES by jasher78	Dec 5th, 2008 12:50:36 PM
When you work in inflation there is just NO CONTEST. And Second Releases should never count for box office. Titanic did it in one very long run. Star Wars should not be in the running anymore because it is only up there because of the special editions, etc. Anyways - that's all I have to say about that.
What is nonsensical about the ferry sequence? by HoboCode	Dec 5th, 2008 01:21:52 PM
Just asking?
So... by Cameron1	Dec 5th, 2008 01:45:50 PM
So..... I've chewed this one over pretty much non-stop when I haven't been working. And when I have been working as well. The thing is, it doesn't feel like a Batman movie, now that's not down to the opinion (as I’ve read here and there) that Batman isn't in it enough. But rather because it doesn't behave like any superhero film I've ever seen. Nolan has really pulled away everything that's been standard to these kinds of films and got to the fundamentals. What makes criminals and vigilantes tick, what makes them afraid? What price is justice worth and who can deliver it? It's one of the important points of the film that no matter the facts of Dent's case against the mob, if people know he became a killer the case falls apart. Everything is built on a cult of personality nowadays. The Joker is a cult, the young thugs and the mentally ill being "the minds that the Joker attracts". Batman is a cult - with his hapless copycats inspired by his actions. Symbols lack nuance and as such they are corruptible. It sounds like the opposite of Begins message but it's just the logical conclusion. I think the key line in the film is The Joker's "I'm not a monster I'm just a head of the curve" In my opinion not only is it the one truthful thing he says in the film it's the essence of the last scene in Begins. In that film Batman was the man ahead of the curve, the criminals knew nothing like him. But now it's Batman dealing with something he doesn't grasp. For all his noble intentions and violent righteousness he isn't smart enough to see that unless you have a scorched earth policy the opposition will evolve, even though he's one of the key points of the graph charting the escalation of the dark side. It’s the enantiodromia of the coming Dark Age. Dent, well the man is a dick from the get go, right? Tell me no-one was actually rooting for him, please? A square jawed politician with a martyrdom complex is not going to save anyone. In trying to triangulate where Batman, The Joker and Two Face would stand in relation to each other what I got was the idea that Two Face is the child of Batman and The Joker. In the sense that he is partly an agent of chaos but also a believer in some sort of justice and retribution for the person he lost. Heath Ledger's The Joker might be read as Al Qaeda etc but he can be read as The US too. If Batman was the mob's 9/11 then The Joker is surely the law breaking nihilistic scum in the White House destroying any idea of real justice. The fact that the Joker attracts troubled young men is a fairly obvious allegory for the thousands of people who joined the military after 9/11. (If at this point you think I'm attacking the military across the board kindly grow a brain, thank you.) But then there’s the second most important line in the film, when Bruce asks Alfred how they found the outlaw in Burma and he says they burnt the jungle down, well he could could easily have said “We had to destroy the village in order to save it” When I said it was the finest fictional film about The War on Terror yet made, this is what I meant. Nolan covers the feelings and processes of what happens when reality shifts to incorporate heretofore unimagined horrors and how some can make hay while it happens. The Hong Kong bit was important in terms of A) proving The Joker right B)proving Bruce's handling of Wayne Enterprises had a purpose and showing that Batman isn't defeated by physical obstacle. But I actually don't think that part needs any defending because the film didn't feel bloated at all. 2hrs35mins flew by, I find some films hard going when they only last 90 minutes but this was so well structured and plotted it needed every single second it had to tell the story properly. The film is just full of these thematic elements I'm going to have to watch it again to remember it all. I loved the way Batman isn't made to look cool all the time, he looks kinda goofy sometimes because someone dressing up like that in reality would look goofy. Nolan wasn't interested in appeasing 14 yr old boys here, not at all in fact. I'm just waiting to read someone moaning it was an anti climax because the boats didn't blow up or there wasn't a prolonged fight with a recently disfigured mentally ill man at the end. Maggie Gyllenhaal was great too, although Rachel was underwritten she still gave the film its most heart wrenching moment and that blast of air across her face just before the flames was poetry. I can't fully embrace the film though. Though the boat scenes were thematically essential I couldn't suspend disbelief enough to buy the prisoner's actions. It seemed ridiculous to me that someone that was respected (feared) enough by his fellow cons to speak for them was also selfless enough to sacrifice himself for people he didn't give a fuck about. The reaction on the other ferry was more believable. When the man who thought he could be a badass for “the greater good” had an attack of empathy I let out a little cheer. Batman finally getting the best of The Joker thanks to Lucius Fox flying batarangs things was a really poor way for him to get the upper hand. It should be Batman’s mind and dedication that allow him to “win” eventually. Although I guess the idea that even he needs to rely on others is fitting. It’s superbly edited, the fight scenes are still chaotic but you can tell who’s who a lot easier, the practical effects are amazing, the best I’ve seen in the last 15 years. The score just sorta washed over me though, I couldn’t hum a single bar and I didn’t even notice The Joker’s theme which I read was very well done. Maybe the cinema I watched it in didn’t have the sound level right. Overall though this is a stunning achievement and one I know I’ll be able to re-watch over and over again and glean more from it. As a film that marks where we are now and where we might be going it’s as prescient as Fight Club and I don’t think I can praise it anymore than that.
It was a quote, Zed. by HoboCode	Dec 5th, 2008 01:46:16 PM

thecat by Stormshadow4life	Dec 5th, 2008 01:58:04 PM
you are just WRONG.... you can't compare an old movie's box office to a new one! there are too many factors that change things! you can only compare movies that came out at the same time but back in 77 when Star Wars came out...there wasn't nearly as much competition in theaters....there was no internet...there wasn't anything good on TV....there wasn't VHS, no DVDs, no on demand, no giant home theater systems. if star wars came out TODAy....it wouldn't have done nearly as well! back then if people wanted to see a movie again...they had to actually go out and see it! now we just have to wait 2 months
Node, about that ferry sequence by Hawaiian Organ Donor	Dec 5th, 2008 02:31:30 PM
First off, the explosives. You mentioned earlier that they wouldn't necessarily check under every nook and cranny on the boat but if memory serves correct, the explosives were huge oil drums sitting in the middle of the engine room. Right out in the open. So like I said, even the most rudimentary of sweeps would have revealed this. But here's the big one and I'm not going to bitch out that fans of the film can overlook it, but I have yet to find one who will even acknowledge it as the most illogical device in the history of cinema. A city of 3 million people, 3 MILLION, is being evacuated by TWO ferries. And one of those ferries is full of convicts? Why? Who in their right mind would choose to evacuate murderers, rapists and pedophiles before law abiding citizens? And what law abiding citizens would put up with this? If YOU showed up at the dock to be evacuated and you learned that one of only two boats was being earmarked for convicted felons, you would go apeshit. As would everyone around you. The ensuing rioting would be epic. Even without criminals being evacuated, there would still be rioting. You're getting what, a few hundred people out of 3 million out of harm's way? You don't think the ones standing on the dock would be complacent to wait around for the ferries to return, do you? I'm sorry, but the concept of attempting to evacuate a city of millions on two very slow moving ferries is just the worst writing I've ever seen. It was nothing but one huge setup to have Tiny Lister chuck the detonator out the window to prove there's still humanity left in all of us. And really, there would have been much more logical ways to show that. To me, it was lazy, pure and simple. The Nolans ran out of creative gas and had no idea to to get to point Z logically so they just concocted something half-assed.
THE DARKIE KNIGHT by BringingSexyBack	Dec 5th, 2008 02:54:41 PM
President of the United States by day. Caped crusader by night. Featuring Hillary Clinton as the Catwoman. John McCain as the Penguin.
PRETENTIOUS HIPSTERS ARE COMING OUT IN DROVES by rhcp2sweet	Dec 5th, 2008 03:14:25 PM
Hipster #1: "Ahh TDK sucked it was so crappy!" Fair Minded People: "Why do you think it sucked?" Hipster #1: Because...Because it was so successful, therefore it must be overrated and sucky. Heath Ledger's death is the only reason people praise it! Attention jackasses: I would love to see any of you TDK haters make a movie better than what the Nolan brothers did. Until then, shut your fucking mouths and go listen to some Devo or watch Garden Fucking State.
Adjust fincial climate: DK did this well in Recession by Damien Chowder	Dec 5th, 2008 03:16:35 PM
Compensate for all the people that would have seen it if they had cash in their pockets and that gives the end result of DK actually making 9 billion dollars domestic!
HOD by HoboCode	Dec 5th, 2008 03:20:51 PM
"if memory serves correct, the explosives were huge oil drums sitting in the middle of the engine room. Right out in the open. So like I said, even the most rudimentary of sweeps would have revealed this." I will concede this point only. The bombs were shown as several drums of fuel piled in the engine room. It should have been found. I can only conclude that the utter chaos and panic of the situation led to it being overlooked, which isn't really that hard to believe for me. "Who in their right mind would choose to evacuate murderers, rapists and pedophiles before law abiding citizens?" The mayor in the film bitched about the same thing and Gordon explains in the film that the prisoners are all the people Dent and Gordon had recently put arrested and that Gordon wants them evacuated first becasue the prisons are at capacity and that he thinks they'll be involved to whatever plot the Joker had in mind. "I'm sorry, but the concept of attempting to evacuate a city of millions on two very slow moving ferries is just the worst writing I've ever seen." Again this is explained in the film. When the Joker threatens the city with his unknown plot he says the "bridge and tunnel crowd are in for a surprise." Gordon decided to evacuate them on ferries becasue not only were the "land routes backed up for miles" but he feared that the Joker had bombed the bridges and tunnels based on that remark. "It was nothing but one huge setup to have Tiny Lister chuck the detonator out the window to prove there's still humanity left in all of us." The prisoners were not "murderers, rapists and pedophiles," they were Dent's and Gordon's mobsters they had arrested. Just because a guy is a thief doesn't mean he's willing to let a bunch of people die in his place. And the "innocents" hadn't blown them up (a bunch of prisoners) yet at that late hour so perhaps he figured they would have done it already if they were going to.
Node, tell you what by Hawaiian Organ Donor	Dec 5th, 2008 03:31:13 PM
I'll rewatch it again with an open mind. I think I missed some of the dialogue because I was grasping to hang on as my attention was waning at that point. But you're the first one to really take the time out to address my issues and out of respect, I feel I need to give the movie a fair shake. So we can discuss it again in a week or two and hopefully I'll catch things the second go round. I really do want to like the movie.
And to clarify so that people don't think I'm pretentious by Hawaiian Organ Donor	Dec 5th, 2008 03:35:31 PM
I realize that lazy writing abounds in action movies. Live Free Or Die Hard was a serious offender. But at no point did that mess ask you to take it seriously so I was able to enjoy it right up until the F-22 tilt-a-whirl.
rewatch TDK...see if it lives up to the hype. by j2talk	Dec 5th, 2008 03:48:18 PM
I liked TDK -I also liked a lot of other films that came out-but I don't understand the love for the movie. Was it simply that people didn't think it would be possible to make a good Batman film? Nothing in the Film surprised me- maybe I've read too many books and comics and seen to many films and TV shows, but EVERY twist/surprise in the film I saw a mile off... The acting?Good but then it is SUPPOSED to be, thats why they get hired.....
Prisoner by barrylutz	Dec 5th, 2008 04:00:00 PM
Please DEAR GOD let Nolan do The Prisoner. PLEASE.
THE DARK KNIGHT doin' that eyeball thing in January by JDanielP	Dec 5th, 2008 04:27:38 PM
Surprised nobody mentioned THAT.
Hilarious... by Lord John Whorfin	Dec 5th, 2008 04:49:38 PM
I think the point is that you're getting your panties in a twist just because someone had the temerity to disagree with the premise that Dark Knight is headed for Academy gold. THIS! IS! TALKBACK! They made a whole lame facet of AICN for you: The Zone. Go there and be satisfied. If you think Dark Knight is going to get the Best Picture nomination, you're living in a dream world. Ledger probably won't even get a Best Actor nomination. Best Supporting Actor, MAYBE. We'll see, shan't we?
Why can't... by Lord John Whorfin	Dec 5th, 2008 05:01:27 PM
you just watch The Prisoner DVDs and experience the awesomeness? Do we really need Nolan's spin on this incredible series? Nolan's best film was Memento, and while still an adaptation, was pretty original and great. I'd rather see him do something of his own that yet another adaptation of something that's already brilliant.
Does the Academy review films? by Amy Chasing	Dec 5th, 2008 05:24:41 PM
Like do they have a magazine or some publication where they do reviews? Or do they just host a party once a year and seemingly randomly hand out awards with no explanation as to why? It always seems to me that there are some credible nominees, some not-so-credible nominees, some credible winners and not-so-credible winners. So with those stats it's entirely possible (you could say 50/50 chance) that Dark Knight will be nominated. It may even win. Doesn't mean anything except what you want it to mean.
If nothing else, worth it just to see it once more on the big sc by GreatWhiteNoise	Dec 5th, 2008 05:25:11 PM
...and yes, Picture and Supporting Actor noms are pretty much a lock. What else has measured up this year to Ledger's performance? Brolin in Milk? Malkovich in Burn After Reading? Hoffman in Doubt? I don't see those beating Ledger.
Too many plot contrivances in TDK. by Mosquito March	Dec 5th, 2008 05:39:30 PM
And not just obvious shit like the dumb cell phone idea, or Batman not going back to the party to save Bruce Wayne's friends from The Joker after jumping off the building to save Rachel. I hate that all the mobsters in Gotham having the same untrustworthy Chinese accountant, who just so happens to be in business with Wayne. I question the ability of The Joker to seemingly be everywhere at once, and have nearly all his plans work to a T, even though he routinely kills all his men. A major plot point depended on police men letting him make a phone call from jail, for fuck's sake. What if they didn't let him? And, how would the cops not realize a detainee had been gutted and a telephone sewn into him? And then there's shit like Gordon faking his death. How the hell would they pull that off, particularly since the police had no idea that The Joker would be there to pull the trigger? And, if they knew he would be there, why would they even show up to have the speech? And, what's with Bruce Wayne being so quick to give up being Batman? After all the years of shit he's gone through to fight crime, he's going to suddenly give it up because The Joker tells him to, presumably just a few weeks or months after the events of the first film? And in the end, Batman taking responsibility for Harvey Dent's killings instead of just blaming the Joker - why? I've heard people try to twist that last one into some kind of logical conclusion, but the fact is that it doesn't serve any purpose. The "white knight" Harvey Dent killed those people after being driven mad by The Joker. After the shit Gotham had just been through, I don't think maintaining the illusion of a dead-and-now-useless man's greatness is all that important, especially at the expense of Batman, who will continue to protect Gotham from people like The Joker. Batman is there to help, now; Dent, whose spree might easily have been forgiven, isn't. Batman's mission is in no way served by such a head-scratcher of a decision. What good does it do to have Gotham think Batman's a killer? At the very least, isn't Gordon concerned about wasting GCPD resources trying to charge a vigilante who never killed anyone with murder? If they caught him, would they really put on a bullshit Batman murder trial? If Batman and Gordon are going to make a mockery of justice - if they're going to lie - why not just blame Dent's murders on The Joker? Even if Joker denied it, people would just say he was crazy and throw the book at him anyway. There are too many goddamn problems with this movie.
Oh, yeah... by Mosquito March	Dec 5th, 2008 05:44:05 PM
I love how Fox gets pissy with Batman for doing the cell phone thing at the end of the movie - after they've just illegally extracted a foreign national from America's biggest rival. What they did in Hong Kong could have started World War III, but Fox is mad because they hijack some cell phones for a few minutes to locate a terrorist who was trying to blow up two ferries full of people? Give me a fucking break. The line was crossed in the first movie.
Box office debate has ruined the summer movie by romanocc	Dec 5th, 2008 06:02:25 PM
It is all about that first weekend now for the summer movies, and if it doesnt have a 50+ million dollar opening, it vanishes from theaters within the month for the next blockbuster. Because there are so many theaters these days, you can essentially see a movie anytime of the day, and people have to remember it wasn't always like that. I couldn't see Batman '89 for week after it came out, as I went after school to get tickets everyday and it was 'sold out' because there were only a few theaters it played on in my area. Now with movies coming to DVD in 6 months, nobody has patience anymore, as waiting was half the fun! I saw Star Wars in 1977, and then didn't see it again until it premiered on HBO til 1983, 6 fucking years!!! Even though it was re-released many times in the theater after 1977, I didn't go crazy anticipating it coming to video because my mindset wasn't like that. Then you waited for it to premiere on the ABC Sunday Night movie, remember Jaws? Raiders? Superman? it was an event. Nothing is an event anymore, cause it is too easy, I guess we are just too spoiled...
Mosquito March by MattmanReturns	Dec 5th, 2008 06:09:35 PM
You're assuming the Joker's plot goes perfectly according to plan. The Joker states that he is an agent of chaos... I doubt he relies on any one thing to go right. He tries everything. In fact, one of his plans fails completely (the ferries). But like a true agent of chaos, he has another trick up his sleeve. If the cell phone plan didn't work to get him out of jail, Harvey and Rachel still would have exploded. It just so happens both plans went right (and I'm glad they did, because it would've sucked if the movie ended right there).
And one more thing by MattmanReturns	Dec 5th, 2008 06:13:03 PM
Yes the plot is contrived in places, but that doesn't mean it's not good. I'd hate to see your version, where the Joker just gets captured and we're robbed of the most captivating, chilling scene of the movie.
Why does everything have to be so black and white by crazybubba	Dec 5th, 2008 06:18:13 PM
for movie fans. I loved TDK, but that doesn't mean it was perfect, a better movie can still be made. The ferry scene was the weak link, willing suspension of disbelief can only be stretched so far. Real convicts would blown up the other ferry before anyone had time to blink. Someone argued that Nolan used the scene to symbolically show how the worst of us are redeemable, but he sacrificed a lot of credibility in order to make the point. What separates his Batman from Burton's is he takes the material more seriously and tries to make it more realistic and that scene was just unrealistic.
< br> without the space by stickmangrit	Dec 5th, 2008 06:48:36 PM
that's how you do a fucking line break. see, wasn't that fun? so, why i love TDK: 1)everything HoboCode said and most of what the other guy stated before going into the weird 9/11 comparisons(though some are valid, it's not integral and it's been roundly debunked by Nolan). 2) the Nolans took the story of Harvey Dent and structured it as an honest to god Shakespearean Tragedy. and then they mad The Joker fate. they then snuck this shit into a summer blockbuster with no real indication of what they were doing to give it maximum effect. there is so much win there it's astounding. 3) i got to see the PERFECT realization of my single favorite fictional character on a motherfucking IMAX screen. and it may very well earn a posthumous Best Supporting award. everything else is mere icing on the delicious, delicious Bat-Cake. and i'm excited as shit about the re-release, despite having seen it in theaters eight times(two Imax screenings, five digital, one celluloid once it hit the second run theater last month to make room for Bond). this means i get to take my three siblings to go see it in IMAX, and that fucking rocks. i'm as much a film nut as anyone, and that side of me got to have last year to revel in. this year was for the geeks, and lo it has been good.
Crazybubba by MattmanReturns	Dec 5th, 2008 06:51:13 PM
Actually, if you want to talk realism, when it comes down to it, I don't think the convicts would mass murder a ferry full of innocent people. I don't think either side would pull the trigger, in reality. So I think Nolan brilliantly portrayed what would really happen.
Maybe non-violent criminals, by crazybubba	Dec 5th, 2008 07:02:53 PM
but i don't know what would stop violent criminals from killing innocent people to save their own asses. They do it all they time for lesser reasons.
Actaully prossor... by theBigE	Dec 5th, 2008 07:41:50 PM
If you look at movies that have sold the most tickets, over time, almost all have had multiple releases. If you take away 2nd and 3rd releases, TDK is right near the top, but still behind Titanic. And Titanic took almost a year to come out on home video - TDK is doing it in 5 months. I think they should have delayed the DVD release, but it's Christmas, what are you going to do?
good point by crazybubba	Dec 5th, 2008 07:42:18 PM
that Mob boss was pretty ruthless in begins.
I hoped this would happen by CherryValance	Dec 5th, 2008 08:01:29 PM
:D I'll definitely be going back. :D And I, for one, hope it beats TITANIC. Not that there's anything wrong with TITANIC, I just loooooooooove TDK soooooooooo much. :D
I would watch Titanic over Dark Knight any day of the week.. by The Grug	Dec 5th, 2008 09:35:25 PM
There I said it.
TITANIC IN 3-D by Mace Tofu	Dec 5th, 2008 10:41:54 PM
If it tops TITANICS BO Paramount and Fox will break out the one thing THE DARK KNIGHT can't beat... tittie's in 3-D
I'll be there by sevadro	Dec 5th, 2008 11:59:53 PM
Definitely need to see this again on the bix screen - and by that I mean Imax.
UNDERWORLD: RISE OF THE LYCANS ? by PTSDPete	Dec 6th, 2008 12:39:16 AM
Come on, Beaks.
Shaddup about adjusted BO by Dark Knight Lite	Dec 6th, 2008 01:02:03 AM
$500m domestic in today's world of torrent downloads and compressed video release windows is a staggering achievement.
Batpod intro. by thebearovingian	Dec 6th, 2008 01:03:11 AM
Probably my favorite part of the movie. Stupid computer voice says "Goodbye", out shoots Batman on the Batpod like a bat out of hell, big, percussive music timed to coincide perfectly. Gets me pumped.
by WerePlatypus	Dec 6th, 2008 08:55:53 AM
Line break Line break line break I don't know about you, but my whole world just changed. . .
Exactly what we need after inauguration by Immortal_Fish	Dec 6th, 2008 11:57:55 AM
Once all the happy tears have run out and the confetti has been swept away, we'll need a hardcore reminder of what the country's "new direction" faces.
The entire argument is moot anyway by tylernol	Dec 6th, 2008 01:54:48 PM
Do any of you honestly doubt that Titanic is going to be re-released someday? I'm guessing they'll do it at either the 15 or 20 year mark. And you know what? Everyone and their grandma is gonna see it. The re-release alone will make another $400 million worldwide, easily. And why not? Titanic is an intrinsic part of many people's lives. I saw it during it's initial release a couple of times, each with people who were important to me at the time and are no longer in my life. I'm sure many, many people feel the same way. And yes, Hollywood does count re-release dollars in final gross, and why shouldn't they? Now compare this to Dark Knight. If they re-released it in 20 years, would it be an event? I doubt it. It's not a cultural touchstone like Star Wars, ET, Gone with the Wind, or yes, Titanic. Dark Knight was lightning in a bottle, fuelled by word of mouth, critical hype, and a rather fortunitous (sp?) death. I honestly don't see it headed for immortal status. So no matter if it hits $600 million or not, the additional $200 million that Titanic is guaranteed to make in re-release kind of kills the debate.
Titanic only works in the cinema. by Amy Chasing	Dec 6th, 2008 05:45:53 PM
I saw a bit of it on TV one night. The movie just falls flat. Somehow they made a film that only works on a big screen. Dark Knight - is good no matter where you are.
Who cares about TDK when WATCHMEN will rule all! by uberfreak	Dec 6th, 2008 11:32:22 PM

necgray by Dingbatty	Dec 7th, 2008 12:27:59 AM
Not defending the movie as I find it inferior to the first (which I also think isn't definitive, as a devout Bat fan), but I'll answer one of your points. Batman simply can't say the Joker did it, as the cops still have to gather evidence, and might discover the lie. If he takes the blame, he might throw them off the scent (though that's still weak, if they quickly find definitive physical evidence, before circumstantial).
And, it was inevitable, as it was unethical by Dingbatty	Dec 7th, 2008 12:41:14 AM
for Gordon to be fraternizing with a vigilance, particularly as he is trying to clean up corruption in the department.
MattmanReturns by Mosquito March	Dec 7th, 2008 01:50:15 AM
I never offered up "my version" of THE DARK KNIGHT. I merely pointed out major flaws in the movie that Christopher Nolan made. As much as I dig BATMAN BEGINS, I actually wouldn't have gone the "realistic" route with the character. Too much of what I love about Batman is not represented in these new movies. But, since Nolan has gone this route - trying to put Batman and The Joker into a world like ours - Nolan is exposing his story logic to a hell of a lot more scrutiny than his film is really capable of withstanding. You clearly have a strong affection for it, and if it works for you, awesome. But, it is not the masterpiece of storytelling that people are crediting Nolan with making. As a story, it's riddled with holes and contrivances that can't be ignored or explained away with conjecture, especially considering that this is being championed as a logical, rational take on these characters.
necgray by yiannis	Dec 7th, 2008 02:17:27 AM
Do you actually teach Screenwriting 101? Are you a lecturer at a film school? If not - in which case I would assume your wonderfully made-up word of "snarky" is meant to indicate sarcasm - what proof exactly are you claiming that you are not "just some talkbacker"? There must be 100s of people on these boards as smart and educated as you (that's the thing about geeks - by nature they tend to be a fairly intellectual group), so unless you ACTUALLY work in the film industry you are no more qualified to comment than anyone else. Please don't attempt to say otherwise, as it makes you sound condascending right from the get-go. With response to your points, I would strongly argue that these so-called flaws in the script you have pointed out are not flaws at all, but conscious creative decisions with a definite purpose. First of all, the "Joker crashes the party" scene. Bear in mind at this point that the Joker has no idea who Batman is (the scene itself makes him think it's Dent for a bit and he NEVER finds out it's actually Wayne), looking at the scene from the Joker's perspective, he's arrived at the party where Dent is supposed to be, found that he's not there and that Batman is instead. The clear inference in the Joker's mind there is that Batman has stashed Dent somewhere safe, which is true - the fact that it's still in the same building is totally irrelevant as the Joker would have no reason to even suspect that. His goons have been incapacitated and he's left 1 on 1 with Batman. The Joker has never been a physical villain and knows he doesn't stand a chance in this situation (note also the end in this regard), so now his options are clear. He hasn't got Dent and Batman is present, so he's only got the one option: run away! Dropping Rachel out of the window (knowing full well Batman will have to save her) gives him the time he needs to make his escape. The Joker is not a character for crazy, death-defying stunts, so this escape will probably consist of: getting in the lift going down to the ground floor getting into a waiting car Do you REALLY need to see this boring and pointless scene JUST to figure out what was totally implicit to me even on the first viewing? Secondly, you expect the police to notice one bus from the hospital going in a different direction? First of all, the buses will probably be going in LOTS of different directions anyway - they won't all be evacuating to the same place, will they? Unless it's a big field that's somehow appeared in the middle of a dense urban centre. Secondly, EVERY hospital in the entire city is being simultaneously evacuated, stretching the entire emergency services to absolute breaking point. Thirdly, all of this is happening within a 60 minute time span. The result of all this will be TOTAL CHAOS at every single hospital. Rather than saying that NOT spotting the bus is a plot point, I would argue that for a character to ACTUALLY notice one bus out of probably HUNDREDS doing something slightly odd in all that confusion would not only be ridiculously unlikely but would actually stretch all semblance of plot logic to breaking point. Batman's decision to take the blame for Harvey's crimes is arguably a stretch in logical terms, I'll give you that. What is also true, though, is that it is a moment that the entire film has been forshadowing. Dent, not Batman, is Gotham's true hero. This is stated over and over, just to make sure people get it. The line "you either die a hero, or live long enough to see yourself become the villain" applies equally, but in different ways, to both Batman and Dent. Dent lived long enough to become the villain, yet he NEEDED to be the hero, therefore his death must be one of a hero. Batman, who is ready and willing to "die a hero" if necessary, may ultimately be the "true" hero, but in the film the public of Gotham have already begun to turn on him, vilifying him already. If he blamed the Joker, then yes, Dent still has a hero's death of sorts, but the effect would be muted by trasferring the hopes and dreams that rested on Dent onto Batman's shoulders. While he is ready for this burden, the public are not ready to trust him with it. However, if he makes himself the villain, then ALL the public love will rest with Dent and, even in death, he will become the standard around which Gotham will rally, even more so because his death will focus the responsibility to carry on his stand aganst crime NOT on some costumed freak, but the everyday citizens (the whole point of the ferry sequence - people must take responsibility for their actions, as well as the lives of their fellow citizens). This to me is a deep and powerful message at the end of the film and, frankly, considering most "logical" films have the depth of a paddling pool, I am quite happy for a film to be a little more "poetic" if it actually has something meaningful to say. Yes, Dent's transformation to Two-Face is a sudden change rather than a logical progression. Of course it is, because it's MEANT to be a sudden change! A sudden personality change in response to a highly traumatic event is not an unknown occurrence. In case you try to argue this, I will point out that on THIS SPECIFIC POINT ONLY, I am FOR REAL more qualified than others to pass comment, as I have had to witness with my own two eyes one of my very close friends go through a personality change that, in many ways, was as dramatic as Dent's, following a traumatic experience, which in her case was being raped. The person she was before the incident literally disappeared, never to return. Dent has been through arguably an even more traumatic experience, as he has been physically destroyed and listened - LISTENED - to the person he loves most in the world die violently. That would be enough to push anyone over the edge and into the kind of madness that Two-Face demonstrates. Scarecrow 's cameo serves the simple purpose of showing the passage of time between the first and second films. The police and Batman have not been idle (echoed by Dent's line about putting "every known money launderer in Gotham behind bars") and the capture of Scarecrow is just the latest (and not the last) step in cleaning up the streets once and for all. Maybe you need everything spelt out for you (I am certainly getting that impression), but I am more than happy for months - Joker's entrance speech suggests one full year - of dealing with the fallout of Rhas Al Ghul's plan to be left out of a film whose plot really begins at the very tail end of this aftermath. If you really want completeness, the Gotham Knight animes, which occur within this gap, showed The Narrows as being converted into an island-wide prison and Scarecrow still at large. It doesn't diminish his character, because Batman has already faced and BEATEN him, so his arc is complete, regardless of the fact that he lived at the end of Begins. In any case, without Rhas Al Ghul, his power is severely limited, which shows clearly in his TDK cameo, as he has become just another pusher. It also makes a good point that the forces against Batman this time around are more self-reliant, needing neither powerful benefactors nor faithful underlings to cause chaos to the city. Where exactly do you want the Faux Batman story to go? There appearance is a clear sign that Batman's message is being misinterpreted by well-meaning but naive people, lent tragedy by the fact that one of them is killed, which also happens to be the first innocent death attributed by the Joker as being on the "real" Batman's hands. That to me is a complete arc, however short it may be. I don't need to see Barry from the suburbs driving his taxi all day, then going home to iron his fake Batsuit! The love triangle most DEFINITELY goes somewhere. Perhaps, though, you are confused because the END of this story is not yet known. Rachel ultimately chooses Dent over Bruce and it is important that DENT hears her say this, as it adds further fuel to the fire of his later madness to know that she had a choice and chose HIM. Bruce, on the other hand, is not aware of this choice and, believing she chose HIM over Dent, makes his subsequent decisions from this position. You could argue that, had Bruce known the truth, Batman would have died in that penthouse, as Bruce would not have had the will left to continue. Alfred's decision not to tell him goes back to something I have mentioned in previous posts as being a key theme in the film, which is the consequence of lies. As a consequence of the lie (omission of the truth is the same thing), Batman is ultimately able to struggle on and achieve his victory, but there is a further consequence of this lie that has yet to be explored: what happens when and if Bruce DOES learn the truth? This is the final act of the love triangle, played out after 2 of the 3 are dead and we will not know the resolution of this point until Nolan makes another movie to continue his story. Lucius's "moral quandary" is the most obvious of these supposedly cryptic plot points. Put simply, he recognised, as Batman did, that you cannot simply "burn down the forest" to catch criminals, as that leads to a totalitarian power, in this case made worse by the fact that it would be in the hands of one man. Lucius values his integrity high enough to state that he will not be a part of a totalitarian regime and, as Batman says at the end (helpfully cross-cut for those not paying attention), "sometimes people need to have their faith rewarded". Lucius still had faith in Wayne to do the right thing, recognising the necessity of the moment by agreeing to help at all, and this faith is rewarded in the end. I don't need Lucius to say "I have faith in you to do the right thing", just as I don't need Batman to say "just this once, promise!". This is implicit (and even explicit) in the events of the film. If you have issues with the story, then I in turn clearly have issues with your seeming inability to look beyond the simple logical progression of scenes in the story in order to see the underlying themes. I have issues with your inability to understand subtext, to understand things that can (and sometimes should) be left unsaid and unexplained. I have issues with you taking a much used and much respected tool in the writer's arsenal (conveying meaning through things UNSAID, rather than making them explicit) and somehow turning use of this into a critique on the writing of TDK. Mostly I have issues with you taking up my time to have to explain these things to you, although if this time results in you, or anybody else, having a clearer understanding of this story then I suppose it is time well spent. I might as well finish off by dealing with your last few criticisms. I renounce your criticism of the Joker's music entirely. As a classically trained musician of 24 year's experience (piano since the age of 4, composition since the age of 10), I am well versed in the ability of music to create mood from atonal sounds. The Joker is a very "atonal" character, jarring and at odds with the world around him, so this theme fits his personality perfectly. You literally could not have a more fitting piece of music for his character, in fact, than an atonal drone cutting through the melodic orchestral score like the oft-referred-to shark in Jaws (a comparison Nolan made for the Joker). Moreover, the sound used is not "industrial" as you call it, because it is still performed by an orchestra and not created electronically, making it a fiendishly difficult type of music to write, although that is perhaps just me getting overtly technical. I would also say that it is not at all overused. In fact, it is only played at those moments when the Joker is ACTIVELY jarring other characters in the film out of their normal mindset, so to have the mindset of the SCORE ITSELF jarred at the exact same time is extrordinarily fitting. On your last two points, however, I agree with you almost totally. While I recognise the need for Bruce Wayne to put on a different voice when speaking as Batman (after all, he has done this for 60 years in comic, TV, animation and film), I thought Bale's voice was too intense for some of the quiet scenes at the end. It still needed a put-on voice, but it could have (should have) been scaled back a bit. To be honest, I think that the whole world is in agreement on this, no matter how much they loved the film. As for Gyllenhal, while I would not be as vitriolic as you, I thought her performance was a little weak. I thought her expressions were good and she told a lot of the story in her eyes (the 2-way date in the restaurant is a good example), but I felt her line readings were a little off, almost as if she was either trying to hard, or simply "externalising" the emotion of the line in her tone of voice, rather than "internalising" it and speaking from that feeling. Maybe she was simply overshadowed by better performances from better actors. Either way, I cannot be too hard on her, as the meaning of her role still resonated perfectly well. I sincerely hope you don't take the fact that I have spent a VERY long post deconstructing your ideas and assume that it is some sort of personal attack on you, and retort with the usual insults seen on these boards when two people disagree. Without in any way wanting to sound superior, it was clear from reading your comments that I understood this film at a much deeper level than you did and thus enjoyed the film far more than you ever could. I have tried to share this understanding with you in the hope that, if you take it on board, your understanding of the film will increase, along with your enjoyment of it. If this is not the case, at least I tried.
Dingbatty by Mosquito March	Dec 7th, 2008 02:33:58 AM
Even if blaming Joker is not a viable option because of evidence, those same by-the-book investigators would certainly wonder how in the hell Harvey Dent got out of his hospital bed, put on a suit, and fell off a deserted building where Gordon and his family are also found, and from which Batman was witnessed speeding away. Any charge/trial of Batman for those murders would have to include perjury from Commissioner Gordon, and his wife and kid would similarly be part of that conspiracy. And, if Batman is suddenly a known murderer, things would only get worse for Gordon. Batman was seen at the bank crime scene chit-chatting with him in broad daylight, and interrogating the Joker at police headquarters. Everybody knows they're in cahoots. Batman being a murderer makes Gordon a known accomplice and a criminal. But, by this point, everybody in Gotham pretty much knows that Batman is in the business of saving Gotham City from the likes of Scarecrow and Ra's Al Ghul and Joker. It's just more proof that Nolan's story is totally fucked, no matter how people try to rationalize it. It all reminds me of the scene in HELLBOY 2 where hundreds of people watch Hellboy kill a giant city-destroying monster AND simultaneously save a defenseless baby - and then when he lands on the street and gives the baby back to its mother, the onlookers who have just witnessed these acts of selfless heroism suddenly turn on him for putting a child in danger, or some such horseshit. It blows my mind that Del Toro couldn't be bothered to come up with a legitimate reason for New York to suddenly hate Hellboy, and that audiences give passes for that kind of contrived storytelling.
Over-rated Batman movies by DIBARAHMAN	Dec 7th, 2008 06:12:13 AM
Come on. Both films were ok. They have been so over-rated, that I am always reminded of the story of 'The Emperor's New Clothes'. I found Bales voice as Batman, especially in The Dark Knight, hilarious, and as far as comparisons between Ledger and Nicholson as the Joker, Jack wins hands down. I'm sorry, but Ledger has been completely over-rated as an actor. When compared with someone like Robert Downey Junior, hes like a soap actor.
Yiannis by DIBARAHMAN	Dec 7th, 2008 06:23:20 AM
Mate, I just read your post. I sincerely hope, you don't think I am being to vitriolic in my response, when I tell you that you are so far up your atonal arse, that your post should be framed and labeled one word 'Dickhead'. Did u spend so long on writing it, cos u have no friends, sitting in your superior abode, surfing the net, dissing people. fuck off wanker.
TITANIC wasn by onezeroone	Dec 7th, 2008 07:31:20 AM

TITANIC wasn't Torrent-ed like TDK by onezeroone	Dec 7th, 2008 07:34:22 AM
or for that matter fighting with X360s and Wiis. and yeah, prices have gone up but economy has also made it tougher to spend money on luxuries like watching movies in a multiplex.
23 by MrScientist	Dec 7th, 2008 11:54:52 AM

DIBARAHMAN by yiannis	Dec 7th, 2008 12:29:47 PM
Oh dear oh dear! If you really think that I am "up my own arse", then you must also accuse Christopher Nolan and the rest of the makers of TDK of being "up their own arses" too. My analysis of the film may have been long, but it also did not contain anything that hadn't been made either explicit or implicit by the filmmakers. The reason TDK has been so successful is precisely because it contains these deeper themes and deeper thinking, making it something far more than just another summer movie, or indeed just another Batman movie. Considering these themes were obviously totally lost on you and considering you consider Jack playing himself with makeup a better performance than Ledger's total immersion into a character, I feel quite justified in considering myself "superior" to you, as you are clearly a very shallow person with little or no soul. Also, considering that, in a three line post, you call me both a "wanker" and a "dickhead", say that I'm "up my own arse" and tell me to "fuck off", then actually have the gall to turn around and accuse ME of "surfing the net, dissing people", I also have no problem calling you a hypocrite.
You clearly missed DIBARAHMAN's point, yiannis by tylernol	Dec 7th, 2008 01:06:57 PM
I think he was trying to tell you to get a life you stupid blowhard. Writing huge volumes of text on a site known for being populated by no-life basement dwellers, desperately trying to defend something that you personally didn't create and whose success won't change your miserable life one iota is, without a doubt, pathetic.
TDK TB: Escalation by HapaPapa72	Dec 9th, 2008 12:33:34 PM
I love your little piss-ant film-buffs try to talk tough. They make me laugh. If Matrix were here, he'd laugh, too. I've only seen The Dark Knight once. I love Batman, always have, always will. I love Batman Begins slightly more than The Dark Knight because A) I love origin stories and B) Batcave, Batcave, Batcave. It also seemed more like Gotham City to me in the first one than a two and a half hour tourism ad for The Windy City. But just as Batman spawned those imitators at the beginning of the movie, I love how Heath's Joker spawned a legion of already pasty white fanboys to break out the makeup and flood YouTube with their Heath impressions. A couple were actually good. Everyone got the lines right, and the inflections, but none had the improv, the craziness, the unpredictability. But fans were having fun nonetheless, so no prob. Heath did an awesome job. But I thought he did great in a lot of other movies, too. Everyone mentions A Clockwork Orange's Alex, but I smelled a whiff of Brandon's Crow and even a smidge of Jack Sparrow at the gang meeting. Not saying it was on purpose or bad for the scenes, but that's what I saw. ANYWAYS, the point of my rambling is that I'll see it one more time with my wife. I just dread the "fanboy frothing" at the mouth if it does break the Titanic record. Cheesy Celine Dion song... but Kate Winslet naked. All movies have their high and low points.

Talkbacks

THE DARK KNIGHT Returns To Theaters On January 23rd, 2009!

User login

Quick Talkback

Talkbacks