Yes, I do. They could have made it "funny" and dark. The original Joker was "funny" and dark, more so than Ledger's character, and he wasn't some stupid "agent of chaos."
that statement is entirely inaccurate. the caesar romano joker (from the tv series) was funny. the joker's original appearances in the comics have him portraited as a homicidal maniac whose crimes are illogical, whimsical, and brutal. batman said something along the lines in batman #1, that the joker's logic makes sense to him alone.
the joker stayed dark and murderous throughout the 1940's. it wasn't until the 50's that he turned into a funny practical joker.
well Marvel ain't gonna make movies like this ever cuz disney bought them. And disney don't make rated R movies.....
DC movies are sweet. Batman's villians are usually always cooler and more powerful than him(IMO), that's what makes the batman interesting. The Dark Knight was really good, and for those who didn't like it i'm sure it will grow on them someday.
well Marvel ain't gonna make movies like this ever cuz disney bought them. And disney don't make rated R movies
According to the people at Disney and Marvel there's no plans to alter either brands, it's more about Disney making more money. Btw they also own stuff like ABC and ESPN, they are huge like that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by From wiki
In announcing its plans, Disney stated that current management at Marvel would remain in place to oversee its operations.Further, Disney planned to emphasize the Marvel brand instead of changing it to fit the current Disney brand.
I was worried at first but I can see it being ok, maybe even helping Marvel.
Punisher is R rated but yeah they usually don't do R rated movies.
Let's not go too offtopic about Marvel though since this is about The Dark Knight. There is a topic about the disney vs marvel thing if you guys wanna continue it there. http://retrouprising.com/other/debat...billion/t7928/
The Dark Knight is how an R rated superhero movie is saposed to be.
It is PG-13 but I get what you mean. I hate when potentially good movies water things down to appeal to all ages.
Something I noticed while double checking the rating on wiki. Btw I realized after that I could just check the DVD in the same room as me
The members of Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic thought highly of the movie. This includes many notable critics-
( Click to show/hide )
Quote:
Based on 263 reviews collected by Rotten Tomatoes, the film has an overall approval rating from critics of 94%, with an average score of 8.5/10.[147] Among Rotten Tomatoes' Cream of the Crop, which consists of popular and notable critics from the top newspapers, websites, television, and radio programs,[148] the film holds an overall approval rating of 90%.[149] By comparison, Metacritic, which assigns a normalized rating out of 100 top reviews from mainstream critics, calculated an average score of 82, based on 39 reviews.[4]CinemaScore polls reported that the average grade cinemagoers gave the film was "A" on an A+ to F scale, and that audiences skewed slightly male and older.
Also-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wiki
Roger Ebert of the Chicago Sun-Times describes The Dark Knight as a "haunted film that leaps beyond its origins and becomes an engrossing tragedy." He praises the performances, direction, and writing, and says the film "redefine[s] the possibilities of the comic-book movie".[152] He named it one of his twenty favorite films of 2008
Now I realize these are all just opinions but I think they add some credibility to the idea of The Dark Knight being awesome.
When I said "funny," I didn't mean that he made me laugh. I meant that he thought what he did was funny. He wasn't some "agent of chaos." Do you see that I use "QUOTATION MARKS??!!!"
The Dark Knight is how not to make a movie. It had no plot whatsoever. To sum it all up,it was just explosions, chase scenes, bad lighting, overdrawn philosophical discussions and three main guys, one with throat cancer, one who smacked all the time, and one who was just killed off.
These old-fashioned "critics" simply gave it a good review because they were told to think that because of all the great expectations, and because Ledger died.
what do quotation marks have to do with with anything. if anything, you are specifying that the joker is "funny" haha.
lets see, i know what the plot was, it was fairly easy to follow. i can only recall 2 fireball explosions in the entire movie, 1 chase scene, lighting? well, the majority of the movie is supposed to be at night, so deal with it. do you suppose that the critics (bear in mind, these are professionals that who watch and review hundreds of films per year) gave it good review because a. they thought it was a good movie, or b. they were worried about public perseption of giving a bad review to a movie because the star had died?
i will give you an example of why the "b" idea is bs. pop singer, aaliyah, died during the filming of her movie, queen of the damned. did the critics sing praise on that movie, simply because she died? nope, the movie sucked and they call it right.
brandon lee was killed during the filming of the crow. the movie was given great reviews. why? cause it was a great movie. it too was a movie that was dark, involved characters that talked like they had throat cancer, and face paint. the movie was great and the critics called it right...just like the dark knight.
I still don't see how anyone can like The Dark Knight. It was either boring or irritating. It came far below my expectations. There was just too much that didn't need to be there.
Heath Ledger's acting was not worthy of an Oscar. He didn't do anyhting that was outstanding. I'm glad that The Dark Knight wasn't nominated for the best film. That shows the people who give the Oscars have at least a little sense (though not much).
I still don't see how anyone can like The Dark Knight. It was either boring or irritating. It came far below my expectations. There was just too much that didn't need to be there.
Dude, (no offense to anyone cuz i love you but...) Most of the people here are pretty nerdy...including myself lol. Nerds are a different breed, we love stuff like this, even if it makes no sense to you lol
These old-fashioned "critics" simply gave it a good review because they were told to think that because of all the great expectations, and because Ledger died
Ok so you're just a nutjob about this then huh? It's some big bad conspiracy because almost everyone in the world disagrees with you? Sure, whatever you say.
Honestly I can't see any reason to keep discussing this with you.
Btw, Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic are USER SUBMITTED reviews. I know you think anyone who likes this movie is a moron but you can't deny it's mass appeal. Well, maybe you can but you'd be wrong.
Btw do you think The Dark Knight is worse than Batman and Robin?
I read all the reviews of The Dark Knight and how it was so great. When I finally watched the movie I was disappointed. Dudebro edit- Spoilers from this point on.
First, the plot was lame. The movie just kept jumping from place to place. first it was get the mobster , then the Joker , then Two-Face. It didn't flow properly. So many things were just shoved in there.
Second, the main characters were irritating. Batman had an annoying voice and you couldn't tell what he wanted. Did he want to be Batman, did he want tro quit, or was he afraid he had to quit. The Joker was the most annoying. he didn't seem to have a point, he was always smacking and repeating himself, and he was always contradicting himself. Two-face had very little backstory, and he was only there for
the last 30 minutes.
Third, there was so little action for a two and half hour movie. Most of the fight scenes were so short and there wasn't many of them. The fight between Batman and the Joker was only two minutes long. The chase was the only good bit of action there was. Batman also didn't use many of his bat-gadgets.
Finally, the end was so lame. Batman could have stopped Two-face without killing him. He could have used a batarang or stuned him.
These are my reasons and I wanted to see if anyone agrees.
There's a lot of symbolism to what happened in the movie. Just because the characters didn't do what seemed logical doesn't mean the movie is bad, it means you have to look deeper into it than surface level.
Batman and Robin was worse than The Dark Knight in terms of filmmaking but it was not overrated. Plus, the lighting was better.
Not liking a movie because it is overrated is you letting your opinion be altered by other people's. Why should what other people think affect what you think?
I think it is that this topic has gone on for too long. Mostly it is everyone vs you and both sides have already said everything there is to say and now it is on a loop repeating itself.
that statement is entirely inaccurate. the caesar romano joker (from the tv series) was funny. the joker's original appearances in the comics have him portraited as a homicidal maniac whose crimes are illogical, whimsical, and brutal. batman said something along the lines in batman #1, that the joker's logic makes sense to him alone.
the joker stayed dark and murderous throughout the 1940's. it wasn't until the 50's that he turned into a funny practical joker.
He was talking about Jack Nicholson not Caesar Romano!!!!!! sorrry, for ovvereacting,
sorrry, for ovvereacting,
Linear Mode
