The Dark Knight

0 Kudo

Forum Jump

Author	Comment
Joe Karlosi		#581	[-]
(08/05/08 6:35 AM) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite	killer meteor wrote: Joe, Joe, Joe... So now its claptrap because a lot of people really like a film, and are genuinly roused by it, yet you wern't. What an immature statement It is my opinion that all this overpraising is pure claptrap. It should be understood that it's only my opinion without having to write "IMO" all the time, though. And bear in mind that I was responding in kind to the blanket statements posted by Doctor Lamont and Modpro, to begin with, conveniently stereotyping the members of the CHFB who didn't like the film. Yet I don't see you objecting to that. To be fair, the usual suspects, who tend to not so much criticise the film but rather the fact that it doesn't tie in to their childhood ideals, "Usual suspects"... that's rather nasty. Why do so-called horror fans appear so righteous when the genre as a whole has endured constant identical criticism since the early days of cinema? "So-called" horror fans, eh? So if they don't see it your way they are not horror fans. What was that you were saying about "immature statements"? Feel free to dislike the film or the approach, but there is no "right" in prefernces Exactly. So I think I'll stick to my own opinion, and be allowed to state it. ---------------------- "It's MORE ... than a hobby!" Last Edited By: Joe Karlosi 08/05/08 6:52 AM. Edited 1 times.
Omega Man		#582	[-]
(08/05/08 7:37 AM) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite	<< "So-called" horror fans, eh? So if they don't see it your way they are not horror fans. What was that you were saying about "immature statements"? Reference virtually everything you posted above, Joe, in relation to the chiding I take from some folks here -- including yourself at times -- just because I don't think some of the Universal Monster films of the '40s are all-that-and-a-bag-of-chips. You didn't like DARK KNIGHT, and think it's "overpraised". (That's perfectly fine by me, although I disagree for the most part.) I believe that too many horror film aficianados allow nostalgia to color their opinion of certain Golden Age films, rather than being objective about them. They overlook blunders, plot holes, bad scripts, etc., in these old movies from their childhood while ripping newer movies to pieces for... blunders, plot holes, bad scripts, etc. What's the difference? "Dammit, it's jammed!" www.eccentric-cinema.com
Doc Savage		#583	[-]
(08/05/08 10:11 AM) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite	I'm not surprised that out of the millions of people who saw this film there are five or six who hated it. What surprises me is they all seem to be members of this board. I didn't know David Denby of the New Yorker was a poster to this board.... One of the things I've loved about this discussion is the anecdotal comments -- 'my cleaning lady who doesn't speak English really loved this movie and so did her family.' (Roger Ebert watch out!) My two nephews -- 20 and 16, respectively -- saw it at different times with their girlfriends. Both couples walked out.
Carl Eyesnheart		#584	[-]
(08/05/08 11:16 AM) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite	Anybody ever notice how superhero flicks (especially DC) seem to be able to get people worked up unlike any other film? My fanzine all about Rock N Roll: www.sonicruin.com
Damascinos		#585	[-]
(08/05/08 11:36 AM) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite	Omega Man wrote: ...too many horror film aficianados allow nostalgia to color their opinion of certain Golden Age films, rather than being objective about them. They overlook blunders, plot holes, bad scripts, etc., in these old movies from their childhood while ripping newer movies to pieces for... blunders, plot holes, bad scripts, etc. Bravo, sir! With a big dramatic rolling R! This should be quoted at the head of this site.
modpro		#586	[-]
(08/05/08 11:37 AM) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite	Boy, the disappointed audience members are leaving the theaters in droves! Their harsh word of mouth criticisms are killing this movie's chances at the box office. Batman, the Unbeaten Joal Ryan Sun Aug 3, 11:59 PM ET The Dark Knight isn't king of the world, but it's getting closer. The fastest-grossing blockbuster in Hollywood history took in another $43.8 million at the weekend box office, per studio estimates, staying on course for a potential run of $500 million-or more. The latest Mummy movie, The Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon, did about what was expected, if a little less than the most outsized predictions, coming up with $42.5 million. If estimates hold, it'll finish second behind The Dark Knight. For The Dark Knight now, it's not so much about where it places-although it's the first movie since 2007's Disturbia to top the box office three straight weekends-but how fast it movie descends the mountain of money it made in its opening days. If it comes down from the peak gradually-and it was down only 42 percent this weekend-it could become only the second film, after Titanic, to break $500 million at the domestic box office. Much sooner than that will come the $400 million milestone. With the movie currently sitting on about $394.9 million, Warner Bros. executive Jeff Goldstein said The Dark Knight should enter the $400 million realm by Monday or Tuesday. "What happens after this is only a guess," Goldstein said today. One thing Goldstein wasn't banking on was his studio's movie threatening Titanic and its $601 million all-time record. "That's so far out of the realm," Goldstein said, "it's not even on our radar." Movies that should be on The Dark Knight's radar are Spider-Man, Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest, Star Wars: Episode I-The Phantom Menace, E.T., Shrek 2 and Star Wars, the six current members of Hollywood's $400 million club. With The Dark Knight expected to reach $400 million in record time, a mere 18 or 19 days into release, one or more of those kingpins could be dropped down a place on the all-time list as the Batman movie continues its climb. One record at a time. Drilling down into the box-office standings: • The new Mummy movie could be the smallest-opening of the Mummy movies. But it's the biggest-opening Brendan Fraser movie of the summer, after the still-chugging Journey to the Center of the Earth (fifth place, 6.9 million; $73.1 million overall). • The Mummy did beat The Dark Knight in packing theaters. Tomb of the Dragon averaged $11,290 per screen, compared to The Dark Knight's $10,267. • Things went from weak to weaker for The X-Files: I Want to Believe (ninth place, $3.4 million), which saw ticket sales plunge 66 percent from last weekend. At $17.1 million overall, its modest $35 million budget is starting to look out-of-this-world. • If Kevin Costner's Swing Vote looked like a throwback to the days when movies were about people who didn't wear capes, then so was its debut: $6.3 million (sixth place), or about what the star's Revenge opened with 18 years ago. • If The Dark Knight was holding up like Mamma Mia! (fourth place, $13.1 million; $88 million overall), Titanic would have more cause for worry. • Having now passed $200 million overall, WALL-E (eighth place, $4.7 million) stands as the top-grossing (partly) silent movie of all time. • Hellboy II ($2.5 million) had a relatively quick but prosperous stay in the top 10. Bounced after three weekends, its overall gross stands at $71.3 million. • Wanted ($1.3 million) moved out of the top 10 after five weekends. Its $131.3 cumulative gross makes it Angelina Jolie's second-biggest movie, just ahead of the original Lara Croft, and a ways behind Mr. & Mrs. Smith. • In limited release, Woody Harrelson's Transsiberian was, pound for pound, the weekend's biggest movie, taking in $30,200 at two theaters. Here's a recap of the top-grossing weekend films based on Friday-Sunday estimates compiled by Exhibitor Relations: • The Dark Knight, $43.8 million • The Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon, $42.5 million • Step Brothers, $16.3 million • Mamma Mia!, $13.1 million • Journey to the Center of the Earth, $6.9 million • Swing Vote, $6.3 million • Hancock, $5.2 million • WALL-E, $4.7 million • The X-Files: I Want to Believe, $3.4 million • Space Chimps, $2.8 million Sam F. Park
Doc Savage		#587	[-]
(08/05/08 11:52 AM) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite	Boy, the disappointed audience members are leaving the theaters in droves! Their harsh word of mouth criticisms are killing this movie's chances at the box office. Why do you turn questions of aesthetics into questions of accounting? Think of the many, many movies that have had great financial success, only to be reassessed at some later date and found wanting. Most of the 'blockbusters' of recent decades (the years when movies got dumber and dumber) are not particularly distinguished, despite the amount of money they made. I think a good example here would be the summer of T2 -- this film opened against The Rocketeer. The Rocketeer is now considered something of a classic by afficiandos, though T2 crucified it at the box office. I think time has sided with, and will continue to side with, The Rocketeer. So, Modpro, I think a fair question to you is -- is how much money a film makes an indication of its aesthetic worth? Are most Adam Sandler movies, which make oodles of money, worthwhile?
killer meteor		#588	[-]
(08/05/08 1:06 PM) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite	Joe Karlosi wrote: "Usual suspects"... that's rather nasty. Why do so-called horror fans appear so righteous when the genre as a whole has endured constant identical criticism since the early days of cinema? "So-called" horror fans, eh? So if they don't see it your way they are not horror fans. What was that you were saying about "immature statements"? Feel free to dislike the film or the approach, but there is no "right" in prefernces Exactly. So I think I'll stick to my own opinion, and be allowed to state it. My reference to "horror fans" is not those who dislike the film, but rather those who condemn it for its horror overtones, yet they enjoy lots of films that have the same attributes.
BijouBob8mm		#589	[-]
(08/05/08 1:18 PM) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite	I'm not surprised that out of the millions of people who saw this film there are five or six who hated it. What surprises me is they all seem to be members of this board. You know, I actually enjoyed the movie more than I thought I would. (Have to admit I had early reservations about the Joker being presented as a man in make-up, rather than a man whose skin and hair were actually discolored.) It's got its flaws, as most films do, but it held my interest and kept me entertained more than a lot of other films I've paid to see. Overall, I found this a more satisfying franchise entry than the latest Indy Jones outing, which (to me) relied more on nostalgia instead of strong storytelling. (If that film had been about anyone other than Indiana Jones, I'm not sure how well it would have held up or what kind of audience it would have attracted.) Last Edited By: BijouBob8mm 08/05/08 1:24 PM. Edited 1 times.
Mattel Jones		#590	[-]
(08/05/08 1:34 PM) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite	I find it quite amusing how Modpro trots out the latest box office numbers on this film. You'd think he was getting a percentage. The only people in this thread acting smug or high and mighty about this movie are its supporters. They seem to have all the answers, and any attempt to point out the film's inconsistencies is a wasted effort. You are either willing to suspend your sense of disbelief enough to accept the film's exaggerated idea of reality, or you sadly, just don't 'get it'. Personally when you get right down to it, the only real complaint I have about the Christopher Nolan depiction of Batman, the aspect that separates his version of the character from ALL the BATMEN that came before, is the fact that Nolan's Bruce Wayne doesn't really want to be Batman. If he could give it up he would, and a good part of THE DARK KNIGHT is built around his ultimately thwarted hope that Harvey Dent will allow him to do just that. IIRC when Bruce Wayne vowed on his parents grave to "fight crime" there wasn't any mention of giving up the fight just as soon as a really good D.A. came along. The actor who has had the most experience playing Batman, Kevin Conroy, says Batman is the real guy and Bruce Wayne is the disguise. That's my idea of Batman and ultimately that's where the film lets me down. Last Edited By: Mattel Jones 08/05/08 1:38 PM. Edited 1 times.
davlghry		#591	[-]
(08/05/08 1:46 PM) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite	Sounds like an interesting approach to the third film -- Bruce coming to grips with the fact that Batman is the real man and he's the disguise.
BijouBob8mm		#592	[-]
(08/05/08 1:52 PM) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite	Mattel, some interesting observations. Yes, in print, Bruce Wayne embraces the fact the world does need a Batman and he's determined to give it to them. A coworker said this franchise is sort of like "the Marvel Comics Batman" in tone, and I think it was a good summation.
SteveZodiak		#593	[-]
(08/05/08 4:23 PM) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite	It would be ironic indeed to use boxoff receipts to equate to quality given the opinion most critics have of the movie The Dark Knight is threatening, TITANIC. The willingness to overlook flaws in movies is an internal one and, for me, an acknowledged inconsistent function, and probably indefensible in a rational discussion. Either a movie earns my willingness or does not. If it doesn't, then the flaws stick out like needles on a porcupine; if not, then they are glossed over like frosting on a cake. Today is only Yesterday's Tomorrow.
Joe Karlosi		#594	[-]
(08/05/08 4:31 PM) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite	Omega Man wrote: << "So-called" horror fans, eh? So if they don't see it your way they are not horror fans. What was that you were saying about "immature statements"? Reference virtually everything you posted above, Joe, in relation to the chiding I take from some folks here -- including yourself at times -- just because I don't think some of the Universal Monster films of the '40s are all-that-and-a-bag-of-chips. You didn't like DARK KNIGHT, and think it's "overpraised". (That's perfectly fine by me, although I disagree for the most part.) I believe that too many horror film aficianados allow nostalgia to color their opinion of certain Golden Age films, rather than being objective about them. They overlook blunders, plot holes, bad scripts, etc., in these old movies from their childhood while ripping newer movies to pieces for... blunders, plot holes, bad scripts, etc. What's the difference? For one difference, this is the "Classic Horror Board". So it's a little more, shall we say, "unusual" when you come on to bash HOUSE OF FRANKENSTEIN, THE WOLF MAN or FRANKENSTEIN METS THE WOLF MAN. Whatever one thinks of THE DARK KNIGHT, it is still essentially a brand new superhero film --- and one that is only one month old; it's not a "classic horror", thus I don't see that it's an inconsistent going on here with me. Secondly, while you may think some of us here "overrate" certain 40s Universal films, I don't believe there is any comparison as with TDK, as nobody is claiming that something like FRANKENSTEIN MEETS THE WOLF MAN is the greatest thing since sliced bread, or worthy of being #1 on IMDB's "Top 250". So let's get some perspective here! Third - I get chided too for things, not just you. Fourth - about the "nostalgic" thing .. this does not fly with me. I may have a strong nostalgic liking for certain films, but I still rate them objectively. I love FRANKENSTEIN MEETS THE WOLF MAN and HOUSE OF DRACULA,but yet I only give them * and 1/2 (not ***) . ---------------------- "It's MORE ... than a hobby!*" Last Edited By: Joe Karlosi 08/05/08 4:40 PM. Edited 5 times.
taraco		#595	[-]
(08/05/08 4:45 PM) Burgomaster Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite	Could we please discuss the MOVIE and not each other? All this reads angry and pissy and it's not very pleasant. Jeez, it's simply a discussion of THE DARK KNIGHT. Relax, OK? Thanx. david
Joe Karlosi		#596	[-]
(08/05/08 4:50 PM) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite	Okay - I thought the movie was Overrated. ---------------------- "It's MORE ... than a hobby!"
taraco		#597	[-]
(08/05/08 5:05 PM) Burgomaster Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite	Noted.
Gord Shriver		#598	[-]
(08/05/08 6:57 PM) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite	Went to the theater with the intention of being entertained--and I was. It had a good cast (which many films of any type don't), excellent photography (the location shooting of Hong Kong and Chicago was great), good sets, a strong story (which this type of film often doesn't have), and it moved.
Doctor Lamont		#599	[-]
(08/05/08 7:36 PM) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite	I didn't know David Denby of the New Yorker was a poster to this board Now name all of the critics who praised the film. It says a good deal when it makes the news when a movie gets a negative review. is how much money a film makes an indication of its aesthetic worth? A hunk of garbage can make money, while a work of genius might flop, but when a movie makes this much money, especially in this economy, it means it has affected a large number of people. If art that affects no one is bad art, then art that affects many people just might be good art.
Mattel Jones		#600	[-]
(08/05/08 10:22 PM) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite	*Doctor Lamont wrote:"....when a movie makes this much money, especially in this economy, it means it has affected a large number of people."* In this economy even at 12-15 dollars (or more for Imax), the per person price of a movie ticket is a LOT cheaper than pretty much any other form of public entertainment. Museums, Live theater, concerts, professional sports, and amusement parks are all quite a bit costlier. It helps that this film's tragic post production history has fueled Media hype and public interest, but most importantly in a Summer dominated by blockbuster superhero films, Batman is the mack daddy of the genre and it would have been more of a shock, and hence 'newsworthy' if its boxoffice had not topped the rest of the pack.

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

Add Reply

Yuku free message boards

The Dark Knight

Quick Reply