| Author | Comment | ||
|---|---|---|---|
Carl Eyesnheart |
|||
|
You know, I'm hardly the same person I was 20 years ago. Why should we expect our fictional characters to stay the same for 70+ years? They need to adapt
to the times more so than we need to, if they wish to survive.
My fanzine all about Rock N Roll: www.sonicruin.com
|
|||
BijouBob8mm |
|||
I'm in the camp that says they should court Depp to fill in Ledger's shoes for the third one. I think they should stay FAR AWAY from Penguin, Riddler, or Catwoman in the Nolan Franchise.I'd rather they not repeat villains. I can see how Penguin and Riddler might not fit so well, here, but I do think Catwoman as a femme fatale would work here, especially with a film noir touch. You know, when Nolan is done, maybe they could look at Frank Miller's presentation of the Dark Knight in his later years...can you imagine Clint Eastwood as an older Batman, coaxed out of retirement for a final bow? |
|||
Jeffrey Allen Rydell |
|||
BijouBob8mm wrote:15 years ago? Sure. These days? Um...
- Jeff
|
|||
BijouBob8mm |
|||
|
I dunno, Jeffery; I bet Clint could still kick my...well, you know! (Yeah, you're right; the prime time for that casting is probably past.)
|
|||
yendor1152 |
|||
|
Saw this last night, and I think the pros outweigh the cons. Ledger's conception of The Joker was closer than any other acted version (except the great
Cesar Romero's ultimate personification) to the original comic book incarnation. Totally insane. He might've been messy, but outside of that, he
captured the Joker's essence beautifully. And his voice was COMPLETELY different than in Brokeback Mountain. Towering performance.
I've always liked Christian Bale (for a truly startling child performance, as well as an excellent film, watch him in Spielberg's Empire of the Sun), but he definitely took a back seat to Ledger. This is to be expected, I think. With most superhero movies, the second and subsequent installments are all about the villains. The superhero is secondary. Given that, Bale was good and a tough mofo. I also loved their version of Two-Face! Awesome performance, too. Great make-up and digital effects on the face--very close to being seamless, especially when he was in the hospital bed and only slightly turning his head. Amazing. Now for the bad. The film was way too long. Too much on the love angle. Too many dark, confusing scenes--especially in the conclusion when Batman was seeing with his infrared camera eyes (I think that's what they were). Great effect, though--looked exactly like the Batman from the 40's and 50's in the comics! Some of the dialogue was garbled, and waaayyy too many shots of glass shattering! What was it with Batman's cowl? The forehead piece made his cranium look huge! All in all, I'd rate this 3 stars out of 4, but I still think it's a cool film. Very different than the usual superhero fare. Close to being an epic! And I did like how they included The Scarecrow in a little throway piece...it was good to see Eric Roberts utilized, as well--and Anthony Michael Hall was an effective newsman. Wow, he's certainly changed physically from the days of 16 Candles. Rod
Last Edited By: yendor1152
07/24/08 1:21 PM.
Edited 1 times.
|
|||
Mattel Jones |
|||
I was a little confused by the way TDK ended but after reading an informative essay by Erik Lundegaard (click on the Joker to access) it makes absolutely perfect sense. It is an essential move to stave off institutionalization and its low result: camp. That said if I had my druthers I'd like to see Nolan's Batman clash with Superman in the next film. I think Bale could really bring out that xenophobic aspect of Batman's frequently rocky friendship with Superman (as portrayed in and since Frank Miller's version). A BATMAN VS SUPERMAN film would be about the only surefire way I can imagine that Warner could top the Boxoffice of this one.
After seeing TDK on Monday afternoon I was (also) compelled to view BATMAN ('89) that night in order to compare my reaction to the two films. I do like the set design of the Burton film better than the urban reality of Nolan's version. Ledger and Nicholson are apples and oranges in their approach, but props go to Ledger since unlike Jack's his version doesn't seem the slightest bit campy (even dressed in a nurse's uniform). I do (at least after initial viewing) prefer Keaton's Batman/Bruce Wayne to Bale's. Keaton has a little bit more of a 'boy in the man' quality. The trauma of his youth stunted an aspect of his developmental maturity. In some regards he is still a pissed off little kid. You can see that he relishes getting to 'nerd out' (with glasses on) in the batcave doing the detective stuff and likes putting on the costume even more. He's still a kind of child acting out the revenge fantasy that's been forced on him by the murder of his parents. Alfred is really a father figure here, and that relationship is replayed in the Nolan version albeit with a much more mature Bruce Wayne. So mature that Bale's Wayne seems ready (even eager) to give up being Batman in both of Nolan's films! That never comes across in the Michael Keaton version (at least not in the first one, I have to re-watch Returns). As far as the supporting players; clearly Oldman's (BATMAN: YEAR ONE style) Jim Gordon has a lot more to work with than Pat Hingle did. Even so Hingle was a great alternative to the way Neil Hamilton portrayed the character. Likewise you can't really compare the Harvey Dents since the material is so different. However I can imagine, given the chance, Billy Dee Williams making the transformative personality switch from crusading DA to psychopath a little more convincing than golden boy Eckhart manages to do (IMHO). As far as the love interest I'll take ('89 vintage) Kim Basinger over Maggie G any day, although I have to say I can't imagine Michael Caine's Alfred being so dumb as to bring Rachel Dawes into the Batcave (no that's a Boy's only clubhouse that only a 'mature' character like Bale's Bruce Wayne would dare to violate).
Last Edited By: Mattel Jones
07/23/08 2:06 PM.
Edited 1 times.
|
|||
Wich2 |
|||
|
"But please don't continue to say that the absurd 1966 TV series was "The True Batman"."
Joe, I can only think of one guy who used to maintain that - ad nausem, ad absurdum - hereabouts, and his presence was un-requested a while back. |
|||
happydude33 |
|||
BijouBob8mm wrote: I agree with the idea of a noirish Catwoman, for sure. And they did manage to --------SPOILER!----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------create a wide open hole waiting to be filled by some kind of female presence in the next one. |
|||
gene phillips |
|||
|
Mattei said:
Alfred is really a father figure here, and that relationship is replayed in the Nolan version albeit with a much more mature Bruce Wayne. So mature that Bale's Wayne seems ready (even eager) to give up being Batman in both of Nolan's films! That never comes across in the Michael Keaton version (at least not in the first one, I have to re-watch Returns). I'm glad you said this, Mattei, because though I haven't seen BEGINS for some time I wrote the other day that I had the strong sense from the first one that Bale-Batman gave the impression that he'd rather not be Batman; that it was sort of a cross to bear rather than a mission.
Last Edited By: gene phillips
07/23/08 4:56 PM.
Edited 1 times.
|
|||
yendor1152 |
|||
|
Kim Basinger looked great in the first film, but her constant shrieking left me in the cold.
Rod PS: I think Prince would make an awesome Joker! I remember his Batman video, where he was half Joker and half Prince. Great make-up, and he certainly had all the moves down. |
|||
JimPV |
|||
|
I know most of the leads are signed on for a 3rd film, but are Nolan and his creative team?
|
|||
DanglingHeretic |
|||
JimPV wrote: No confirmation yet. I think it's safe to assume that Nolan will return. He'd be a fool not to. The third film, like the third Spiderman, could be poor and still break the $300,000,000 mark.
Some of my favorite pics: DanglingHeretic.monsterkidclassichorrorforum.yuku.com/fs/ls/id/300316
|
|||
Latarnia |
|||
Wich2 wrote: Actually, I have access to an early Batman comic, from 1942, and I would say it's closer to the TV series than what has been but forth of late. Mirek |
|||
Chesterbelloc |
|||
|
This is more or less the review of this flick I posted over on the Home Theater Forum on Sunday:
I've been mulling this film over since Friday afternoon. I saw it twice that day, and got something different out of it each time. The first viewing was dominated by Heath Ledger's brilliant interpretation of the Joker. His hypnotic portrayal both delighted and horrified me, and I breathlessy anticipated his every move. His performance is dynamite, and is the Joker of THE KILLING JOKE and the O'Neil/Adams version of the character personified on screen(makeup or not). I really hope he gets some kind of official recognition for his work. The second viewing, I just let myself get lost in the story and the other characters. To see James Gordon portrayed on the screen as a strong and important character is a dream come true for me. Bale's complex portrayal of Bruce/Batman is the best ever. And special kudos to Aaron Eckhart for his brilliant and believable performance as Harvey Dent/Two Face. Finally, the general movie going public gets to see this brilliant character as he should be portrayed. The rest of the cast-especially Caine, Freeman and Eric Roberts-give solid support. Maggie did a great job in her most important scene, but it would have been a bit more emotional on a personal level if they would have kept Katie Holmes(not because Katie is a better actress, but because I identify her with Rachel Dawes now). The story is complex, disturbing and yet hopeful. This is not a nihilistic film. The Joker personifies that viewpoint, but every other good character in the film fights against that bleak view of humanity. And even though everyone in the movie ends up scarred(either literally or emotionally), the fight for good goes on. The technical side of the flick is flawless. The photography and stunts are amazing. The main action sequence at the films center is the best one I've seen in years. More filmmakers should rely on physical stunts rather than CGI. It makes a huge difference in impact. I can't wait to see what Nolan and company have in store for us next. |
|||
Mattel Jones |
|||
yendor1152 wrote: Having just watched it a couple days ago I really don't recall her spending a lot of time 'shrieking' , she was depicted as having recently returned from taking pictures in a War Zone. Maybe she did scream a bit but it's not the first thing that comes to mind for me about her performance. Rachel Dawes could have used a little more screaming since she obviously didn't take her relationship with Bruce Wayne very seriously. Let's see Gotham City's richest man and most dynamic crime fighter is in love with me.....hmmm...maybe I should ditch him and try to start up a workplace romance? Yeah those always go well. On an entirely unrelated note has anyone ever commented on a throwaway bit in the first Burton BATMAN film where the Robert Wuhl character appears for the first time at the newspaper office (bullpen?) and is sarcastically greeted (sort of Lugosi style) by a fellow who seems to look an awful lot like a body double for George Reeves as Clark Kent? It's just a few seconds of screentime and that guy is never identified or heard from again. Was it an inside joke? |
|||
sirharryflashman |
|||
Mattel Jones wrote: Funny, I watched it Friday evening after seeing THE DARK KNIGHT and that scene jumped out at me too. Turned to my wife and asked "Whaddaya figure?
Clark Kent gag?"...
|
|||
Doctor Lamont |
|||
Actually, I have access to an early Batman comic, from 1942, and I would say it's closer to the TV series than what has been but forth of late.You're right on here. The television show was fairly faithful to the comics of the time. Maybe that's why the comic was on the verge of being canceled when the TV show came out. By the way, you keep bringing up "The Golden Age" Batman, but the Batman you seem to be talking about, the one who hung out with Batmite, Bathound and the rest of the Batclan is from the early Silver Age, the same period when Batman fought aliens from space and wore rainbow colored costumes. The original version of the character was lose any quite grim, and more violent than the Batman in TDK. In his earliest stories he often killed the gruesome foes he faced, and he didn't lose any sleep over it. Villains were shot, burned, tossed into vats of chemicals,and hung by their necks by a rope dangling from the batplane. Even the later 1940s tales often had a touch of the macabre.
Last Edited By: Doctor Lamont
07/23/08 6:38 PM.
Edited 1 times.
|
|||
Doctor Lamont |
|||
What everybody seems to miss when getting all excited about the 'real' Batman is this -- Batman is not really a character, he's a product.And when that product becomes campy it stops selling. The Batman TV show was a hit when it first aired because it was a novelty and a well done spoof. By the third season nobody was buying it anymore, and they haven't bought it since. |
|||
yendor1152 |
|||
Mattel Jones wrote: Basinger did more than "scream a bit." Every time she was in danger or rescued, she shrieked long and loud. When Batman crashes through the skylight, he grabs her, and she shrieks (yes, shrieks) as they sweep across the room. She also shrieks when they fell from a building, but thankfully her high-pitched blatting was cut-off as the rope becomes taut (and don't even get me started on the implausibility of that particular scene). As portrayed in Burton's Batman, Vickie Vale was a famous photographer who often put herself in precarious situations to get the perfect shot. Certainly someone with that kind of backbone wouldn't be the kind of person I'd expect to scream "like a girl" in times of danger. It just didn't fit. Burton relied more on the "damsel in distress" stereotype, and went against what the character represented. At least, to me. She shouldn't have been screaming at all. Rod
Last Edited By: yendor1152
07/23/08 7:41 PM.
Edited 1 times.
|
|||
Latarnia |
|||
Doctor Lamont wrote: I specifically mentioned a Batman comic from 1942, pretty distant from the Silver Age and the Comics Code. I repeat again, it's closer to the TV series than the current movie Batmans. Mirek |
|||