Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

About two years ago I did a thread w/ CR vs BB. Now that both of their sequels out I believe these are two great origin stories with more than solid sequels. While the cast in Nolan's Batman films are more known to the general public, both CR/QOS had very good scripts IMO. This thread is so that we can compare their qualities. Again these are strictly the last two films of the Batman and Bond franchise, none of the others.

-Better franchise:
-Title:
-Craig or Bale(in these roles only):
-Better supporting cast:
-Better action:
-Better direction:
-Better script:
-Which franchise did you have more hype over?
-Which franchicse makes you eager to see the third installment the most:
-Other thoughts:

-Better franchise: Bond because Casino Royale is the best movie of all four movies.
-Title:Quantum of Solace is the best title, however it's the worst movie of them all.
-Craig or Bale(in these roles only):Craig is far better, Bale annoys me. I can't help but think how much Bale looks like a clean shaven inbred hick.
-Better supporting cast: Dark Knight wins this one. The cast was amazing.
-Better action: Dark Knight.
-Better direction: Dark Knight, it was a very admirable feat to direct such a movie.
-Better script:I guess Dark Knight. I thought both scripts were rather weak, except for Heath Ledger's dialogue.
-Which franchise did you have more hype over?I was more excited to see James Bond's QS.
-Which franchicse makes you eager to see the third installment the most:I'm looking forward to seeing the next James Bond over the next Batman. I hope the next Bond movie is better than QS, but it will be hard to top Casino Royale, that movie was perfect.
-Other thoughts:James Franco would make a great Joker.

Batman wins overall imo because Casino Royale was the worst Bond film ever made.

I hope my parents get me DK for Christmas. I doubt if I can wait to see it, though. uhuh

Originally posted by Darth Martin
About two years ago I did a thread w/ CR vs BB. Now that both of their sequels out I believe these are two great origin stories with more than solid sequels. While the cast in Nolan's Batman films are more known to the general public, both CR/QOS had very good scripts IMO. This thread is so that we can compare their qualities. Again these are strictly the last two films of the Batman and Bond franchise, none of the others.

-Better franchise:
-Title:
-Craig or Bale(in these roles only):
-Better supporting cast:
-Better action:
-Better direction:
-Better script:
-Which franchise did you have more hype over?
-Which franchicse makes you eager to see the third installment the most:
-Other thoughts:

Christian Bale, Batman Begins or the Dark Knight for all of them.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Christian Bale, Batman Begins or the Dark Knight for all of them.

Agreed. Without Batman Begins, there'd quite possibly be no Casino Royale and Bond 'reboot'.

Originally posted by NonSensi-Klown
Casino Royale was the worst Bond film ever made. Glad to see someone shares the same opinion as I do.

Originally posted by NonSensi-Klown
Batman wins overall imo because Casino Royale was the worst Bond film ever made.

Is that a joke? What about Die Another Day or Moonraker?


Anyway I'd say Batman beats Bond (and thats coming from a huge james bond fan). Casino Royale and The Dark Knight were pretty much equal in terms of story, acting, action, directing etc. except I have to say that I'm not a big Christain Bale fan. His acting could not carry that movie on its own, but thank god the supporting cast was excellent. Daniel Craig however, is most likely the best bond to date.

Quantum of Solace however, was not quite as good as Batman Begins due to its choppy editing and stupid plot/villain. But Batman Begins had some of the most god awful action sequences ever. It still wins though, by a bit

Originally posted by Bardock42
Christian Bale, Batman Begins or the Dark Knight for all of them.

Same

Haven't seen Quantum of Solace yet, though, but I've heard a lot of mixed things about it.

I think these are close with TDK giving Batman a slight edge. That movie was pretty much perfect with very few mistakes. But so was CR I might add with the love story in the last act hampering it just a bit.

Now BB vs QOS are inferior to their partners BUT QOS is only a tad bit worse than CR IMO. However when I saw TDK it completely erased Begins for me.

And while I believe Bale is unfairly overshadowed im TDK Craig as Bond is perfect. There's no touching him.

I'd love to see a crossover with Craig's Bond going head to head with Ledger's Joker. Now that would be a head two man's punch.

"You wanna know how I lost my balls?"

Originally posted by Bardock42
Christian Bale, Batman Begins or the Dark Knight for all of them.

Originally posted by Final Blaxican
Batman wins overall imo because Casino Royale was the worst Bond film ever made.

WTF is wrong with you.

CR is the best. DAD is the worst.

Originally posted by Darth Martin
About two years ago I did a thread w/ CR vs BB. Now that both of their sequels out I believe these are two great origin stories with more than solid sequels. While the cast in Nolan's Batman films are more known to the general public, both CR/QOS had very good scripts IMO. This thread is so that we can compare their qualities. Again these are strictly the last two films of the Batman and Bond franchise, none of the others.

-Better franchise:
-Title:
-Craig or Bale(in these roles only):
-Better supporting cast:
-Better action:
-Better direction:
-Better script:
-Which franchise did you have more hype over?
-Which franchicse makes you eager to see the third installment the most:
-Other thoughts:

Better Franchise; Bond, because Casino Royale And the Quantum of Solace are just so badass.

Title; Dark knight, It is a daunting title.

Better supporting cast; Dark Knight, Joker owned that movie.

Better Actions; Quantum of Solace, i've never seen shit like that in an action movie before and i have seen almost every action movie ever made.

Better direction: Nolan, he single handedly saved the batman franchise and made superhero's cool again.

Better script; Casino Royale.

Hype; Batman

Which franchise makes me eager to see the third installment? Bond. I don't know how they will top the action in Quantum of Solace without going overboard into the territory that the previous bond films went...,CORNY.

Originally posted by =Tired Hiker=
-Better franchise: Bond because Casino Royale is the best movie of all four movies.
-Title:Quantum of Solace is the best title, however it's the worst movie of them all.
-Craig or Bale(in these roles only):Craig is far better, Bale annoys me. I can't help but think how much Bale looks like a clean shaven inbred hick.
-Better supporting cast: Dark Knight wins this one. The cast was amazing.
-Better action: Dark Knight.
-Better direction: Dark Knight, it was a very admirable feat to direct such a movie.
-Better script:I guess Dark Knight. I thought both scripts were rather weak, except for Heath Ledger's dialogue.
-Which franchise did you have more hype over?I was more excited to see James Bond's QS.
-Which franchicse makes you eager to see the third installment the most:I'm looking forward to seeing the next James Bond over the next Batman. I hope the next Bond movie is better than QS, but it will be hard to top Casino Royale, that movie was perfect.
-Other thoughts:James Franco would make a great Joker.

what is the matter with you hiker?! You really think Quantum of Solace is a worse movie than Batman Begins?

-Better franchise: QOS compliments CR better than the Bat duo.
-Title: Bond
-Craig or Bale(in these roles only): Craig
-Better supporting cast: Batman
-Better action: Fight scenes-Bond Overall action-TDK had some of the illest stuff i've ever seen.
-Better direction: Batman
-Better script: Bond
-Which franchise did you have more hype over? Batman
-Which franchicse makes you eager to see the third installment the most: Probably Batman b/c Bond will always be semi-same whereas after TDK there will be a continuation. Whereas Bond 23 will be another mission.
-Other thoughts: TDK>CR>QOS>BB

Okay, I just saw Quantum of Solace. I must admit... I was pleasantly surprised. Sure, it's not as good as Casino Royale, but it's pretty freakin' awesome. Dominic Greene makes a much better villain than Le Chiffre (even though both aren't very memorable). Like Casino Royale, though, it's second half is much better than it's first half...

So.

Better Franchise: BatNolan. Casino Royale and Batman Begins are roughly on par, maybe with a small nod in Royale's favor, but The Dark Knight is better than both of 'em, and QoS is inferior to both of them. They're all great movies, though.
Title: Casino Royale
Craig vs. Bale: Probably Craig.
Better Supporting Cast: Judi Dench is great as M, and Eva Green does a goodl job as Vesper. These are the only notable supporting performances, though. Heath Ledger's Joker blows them to bits alone, and Gary Oldman, Aaron Eckhart, and Morgan Freeman all- at the very least- match them.
Better Action: Fistfights Bond, outside of that Batman.
Better Direction: Christopher Nolan, easily.
Better Script: This is quite difficult, actually, because I liked both of the scripts, but I gotta give it to Batman, mainly for Heath Ledger's lines.
Excitement: I wasn't all that excited for both of them a couple of months ago, until I saw the first images of the Joker. Since then, I was friggin' hyped. So TDK wins.
Third Installment: Bond, because I don't feel that a Bat-sequel can be made that will top TDK. Quantum of Solace is definitely top-able, though.

Good stuff!

I do have doubts as well that TDK can be topped.

It just seems tough to make another Batman movie and maintain the theme of escalation without losing some realism in the process, y'know what I mean?

Originally posted by ragesRemorse
what is the matter with you hiker?! You really think Quantum of Solace is a worse movie than Batman Begins?

Did you really like the shaky cam and the 0.00014 second shots during the action scenes though? QoS was a great movie but it could have been an excellent movie with better editing/direction. Although the same could be said for batman begins, well the directing anyway.

Difference is, Batman Begins is, first of all, a character study, while QoS is an action movie. Therefore, its action is automatically more important to the actual film, being its dominating quality.

(That being said, though, I liked most of the action in QoS, and I don't think Batman Begins is that bad, either.)

People who criticise Batman Begins for its action scenes strike me as slightly... crass... dare I say, unintelligent, even? Who CARES if there aren't 90 minute long "awesome" ninja-karate-Matrix fights in a film, as long as it's, y'know... a good film. Which Quantum of Solace, from what I hear, was decidedly not.

It was good. People didn't like it because Bond wasn't Bond-ish (I mean in the classic way. Daniel Craig is still awesome and his Bond is great.) and because it's plot wasn't top-notch. Casino Royale might've left expectations too high, too.

Don't go in expecting a masterpiece; go in expecting an entertaining action movie. You won't be disappointed.

(And I've actually come to like some of Begins' action sequences, most notably Batman's emergence. Using him as a lurking monster- rather than an action hero- is a great narrative choice.)

-Better franchise: Batman
-Title: Dark Knight > Casino Royale > Quantum of Solace > Batman Begins
-Craig or Bale(in these roles only): This one is hard. I thought both actors gave better performances in their first movie of the series. I will go with Craig though.
-Better supporting cast: Dark Knight > Batman Begins > Casino Royale > Quantum of Solace
-Better action: Dark Knight > Casino Royale > Quantum of Solace > Batman Begins
-Better direction: Dark Knight > Batman Begins = Casino Royale > Quantum of Solace
-Better script: Dark Knight > Batman Begins > Casino Royale > Quantum of Solace
-Which franchise did you have more hype over? Batman
-Which franchicse makes you eager to see the third installment the most: Batman
-Other thoughts:
-Best movie: Dark Knight > Batman Begins = Casino Royale > Quantum of Solace

Originally posted by Master Crimzon
It was good. People didn't like it because Bond wasn't Bond-ish (I mean in the classic way. Daniel Craig is still awesome and his Bond is great.) and because it's plot wasn't top-notch. Casino Royale might've left expectations too high, too.

Don't go in expecting a masterpiece; go in expecting an entertaining action movie. You won't be disappointed.



I didn't go in expecting a masterpiece, but I was expecting a Bond movie. Casino Royale felt like a Bond movie to me, but Quantum of Solace didn't. Quantum of Solace felt like a decent action movie with Daniel Craig, but it didn't have moments that made me feel like it was a Bond movie. And even if it were to have felt like a Bond movie most of the time, the end sucked big time.

Originally posted by Myth
I didn't go in expecting a masterpiece, but I was expecting a Bond movie. Casino Royale felt like a Bond movie to me, but Quantum of Solace didn't. Quantum of Solace felt like a decent action movie with Daniel Craig, but it didn't have moments that made me feel like it was a Bond movie. And even if it were to have felt like a Bond movie most of the time, the end sucked big time.

I actually loved the end. Him not killing that dude is a sign of his emotional growth and development.

I like this take on Bond. I didn't mind his 'no-nonsense', cold-blooded assassin approach to the role, even though I was annoyed by the lack of "Bond, James Bond" and similar lines.

Originally posted by Master Crimzon
I actually loved the end. Him not killing that dude is a sign of his emotional growth and development.



I didn't mind that part. I was talking about the climax, not the actual final scene.

The whole facility was ridiculous. The first time it showed it, the bad guy asked something along the lines of 'What is that humming sound?' One of the guys said something about it being 'the energy cells.' Then the bad guy said, 'Sounds unstable.' That obviously overly suggested that the place will blow up. Now there was no reason for the energy cells other than to provide general electricity to the building. So now all there is to wonder, is how the place blows up. Bond crashes a car through the garage door. That's it? Who designs a building so that the smallest crash causes the whole place to blow up? Then on top of that, the guy who does not seem physically intimidating at all becomes an expert fighter with an ax? I wish there was some sort of hint before that suggesting he knows how to fight, but not only can he fight, but he is an expert with an ax?

That was the part I was referring to that I hated.

Originally posted by Plutonic_Hat90
Did you really like the shaky cam and the 0.00014 second shots during the action scenes though? QoS was a great movie but it could have been an excellent movie with better editing/direction. Although the same could be said for batman begins, well the directing anyway.

The only criticism i have about the action in Quantum of Solace is the scene at the Opera. As Bond was escaping the Opera the Director edited scenes of the Opera together with Bonds escape, focusing more on the Opera. I'm not sure why we were supposed to care about the tragedy that was unfolding in the Opera or what relevance it had with the story. I found it pointless.

As for the sharp edits and shaky cam. I didn't notice the camera being shaky other than when it was supposed to be shaky (i.e, the plane sequence). The quick shots, well, I thought they worked for the most part. It helped create a visceral tone. I never had a problem piecing together what was happening during the action scenes. I rarely if ever, knew what the hell Batman was doing in Batman Begins. I know this is because the suit hindered the stunt mans range of motion.

I'm not sure why everyone is complaining about the story. I guess i can kind of understand that people don't like the fact that Quantum of Solace follows Casino Royale but i liked the fact that the main villain wasn't trying to destroy a city or take over the world. Instead, he wanted to gain power by obtaining a large portion of a countries water resource. How is that a bad story?

Originally posted by Kovacs86
People who criticise Batman Begins for its action scenes strike me as slightly... crass... dare I say, unintelligent, even? Who CARES if there aren't 90 minute long "awesome" ninja-karate-Matrix fights in a film, as long as it's, y'know... a good film. Which Quantum of Solace, from what I hear, was decidedly not.

Well, to be fair Batman would not be a very popular franchise without it's over the top action scenes. Action has always been an integral part of the Batman franchise. How is it crass to criticize an aspect of a movie, especially when that aspect is one of the biggest draws of the movie? Bond isn't a better movie because of it's action, it just has better action.

Originally posted by Kovacs86
People who criticise Batman Begins for its action scenes strike me as slightly... crass... dare I say, unintelligent, even? Who CARES if there aren't 90 minute long "awesome" ninja-karate-Matrix fights in a film, as long as it's, y'know... a good film. Which Quantum of Solace, from what I hear, was decidedly not.

So I'm obviously unintelligent because the action sequences in Batman Begins blows? When I go to see a superhero movie or an action movie than of course I expect to see some awesome action scenes. Long drawn out good vs evil discussions don't make a movie good. Sorry but maybe you're the unintelligent one for going into an ACTION movie and calling other people unintelligent because the action was mediocre at best.

Originally posted by ragesRemorse
The only criticism i have about the action in Quantum of Solace is the scene at the Opera. As Bond was escaping the Opera the Director edited scenes of the Opera together with Bonds escape, focusing more on the Opera. I'm not sure why we were supposed to care about the tragedy that was unfolding in the Opera or what relevance it had with the story. I found it pointless.

As for the sharp edits and shaky cam. I didn't notice the camera being shaky other than when it was supposed to be shaky (i.e, the plane sequence). The quick shots, well, I thought they worked for the most part. It helped create a visceral tone. I never had a problem piecing together what was happening during the action scenes. I rarely if ever, knew what the hell Batman was doing in Batman Begins. I know this is because the suit hindered the stunt mans range of motion.



Funny because I thought that opera scene was pretty cool. I read on IMDBs trivia that the play at the opera and the movie shared some similar themes (not that the audience would really know this) but whatever. Marc Forster is a very 'artsy' director.

The scene I thought was stupid was right before/during the foot chase through Sienna how the drector keeps cutting back and forth between Bond and the stupid horse race. That had absolutely no purpose other than the 10 seconds that Bond runs through that area.

Okay I understand that some people like the quick shots (bourne fan I take it?) but are you seriously going to tell me that you didn't have a problem telling what was going on in the opening car chase? I could barely make out that part.

The first time i watched the movie i had a little trouble following what was going on during the car chase but i forgave that because i wasn't expecting it and during my second viewing i had a better grasp on the perspectives.

I definitely would have liked to see some more wide shots. I think several scenes were hurt by the lack of wide shots but, those are always the most difficult and expensive shots to obtain, so i can forgive that because i feel the action still flowed. The boat chase and the fight on the scaffeling would have benefited most with a few wide shots.

Originally posted by Myth
I didn't mind that part. I was talking about the climax, not the actual final scene.

The whole facility was ridiculous. The first time it showed it, the bad guy asked something along the lines of 'What is that humming sound?' One of the guys said something about it being 'the energy cells.' Then the bad guy said, 'Sounds unstable.' That obviously overly suggested that the place will blow up. Now there was no reason for the energy cells other than to provide general electricity to the building. So now all there is to wonder, is how the place blows up. Bond crashes a car through the garage door. That's it? Who designs a building so that the smallest crash causes the whole place to blow up? Then on top of that, the guy who does not seem physically intimidating at all becomes an expert fighter with an ax? I wish there was some sort of hint before that suggesting he knows how to fight, but not only can he fight, but he is an expert with an ax?

That was the part I was referring to that I hated.

Again, your expectations for this are slightly ridiculous. It can't all be perfectly realistic; this is an action movie. The parachute scene is also absurd if we look at it from an absolutely realistic point of perspective, but whaddaya gonna do? The point of this movie is to thrill, and it does both that and deliver some surprisingly powerful drama. Admittedly, I didn't quite bother to pay attention to that details, but I don't think that they are so important.

Also, Dominic isn't a good fighter; he simply went batshit crazy with his temper and call. Sometimes that can be far more dangerous than technique- I know from personal experience. There was already info suggesting he had a wild temper, like his story about that girl he presumably killed with the pipe, so it's not all that surprising that he managed to give Bond a good fight. Besides, he had a friggin' axe. That's gotta help.

Originally posted by ragesRemorse
what is the matter with you hiker?! You really think Quantum of Solace is a worse movie than Batman Begins?

Yes, I wasn't impressed with Quantum of Solace at all. I thought Batman Begins was great. I also like the first half of The Dark Knight, I watched it for the second time this weekend on dvd hoping I'd enjoy more the second time, but I think the film should have ended right after you find out that Gordon is still alive and the Joker is put in jail. Everything after that, except for a few Heath Ledger moments, was boring. Casino Royale was the only film of all four that really rivetted me from beginning to end. Plus, Craig makes a way better Bond that Bail does as Batman.

Batman movies were much better than the 007 movies in my opinion

... actually, Casino Royale only gets to be really awesome once Bond meets Vesper. Before that, it's just a pretty good action movie.

I'll be the first to admit that TDK was too long, but honestly, it's second half is also immensely important. Harvey Dent's downfall provided the film's emotional backbone.

Come to think of it, would you have liked if TDK was released in a Kill Bill-style "Vol. 1" and "Vol. 2"?

Originally posted by Master Crimzon
... actually, Casino Royale only gets to be really awesome once Bond meets Vesper. Before that, it's just a pretty good action movie.

I'll be the first to admit that TDK was too long, but honestly, it's second half is also immensely important. Harvey Dent's downfall provided the film's emotional backbone.

Come to think of it, would you have liked if TDK was released in a Kill Bill-style "Vol. 1" and "Vol. 2"?

You are not the first to admit TDK was too long. And the whole Harvey Dent and the anti-hero story was just boring to me, important or not. Of all the storylines they could have done with such a huge budget, they chose that one?? I liked the Joker thing a lot. The whole bit about how some people don't do it for money, they do it because they are simply insane, and those are the most dangerous people. The Dent story just got in the way of that.

Originally posted by Master Crimzon

Come to think of it, would you have liked if TDK was released in a Kill Bill-style "Vol. 1" and "Vol. 2"?

Mmmm, not sure. Maybe.

Originally posted by Master Crimzon
Come to think of it, would you have liked if TDK was released in a Kill Bill-style "Vol. 1" and "Vol. 2"?

I wouldn't have liked that... at all. I don't see how it would benefit anyone/anything, with the exception of making it easier for people with short attention spans to sit through the movie(s).

Originally posted by Master Crimzon
Come to think of it, would you have liked if TDK was released in a Kill Bill-style "Vol. 1" and "Vol. 2"?

Ahhh, I misinterpreted the question. I thought you meant would I like the film if it was shot in the style that Kill Bill Vol. 1 and 2 were shot in, which is very stylized and very Cowboy Western/Samurai . . .

. . . as far as dividing the movie into two movies, no I think that would have been a waste of time. That would basically make the second half of The Dark Knight it's own boring movie.

Perfect as is

Originally posted by =Tired Hiker=
You are not the first to admit TDK was too long. And the whole Harvey Dent and the anti-hero story was just boring to me, important or not. Of all the storylines they could have done with such a huge budget, they chose that one?? I liked the Joker thing a lot. The whole bit about how some people don't do it for money, they do it because they are simply insane, and those are the most dangerous people. The Dent story just got in the way of that.

I royally disagree. After all, it isn't until Rachel's death that the film comes to an emotional climax. Without the second half, it loses much of its emotional power- because, you have to remember, the movie is about morality and chaos. Moral downfall, to be more precise, and the human responses to the unending chaos. Without Two-Face, the film would lose much of its emotional power.

As for TDK Vol. 1 and Vol. 2, I agree that it's a bad idea. Also, shooting it in a more stylized version would not have worked (it's pretty stylized as it is).

A complaint I have is that I would have liked the film to show more blood. Not ultra-violence (for example, the "Why so serious?" scene is perfect), but just show a little blood in the gunfights, fisfights, etc. It's supposed to be ultra-realistic; making the actual consequences of the violence more realistic would add to its impact.

I think they should have just gotten rid of Batman and had Daniel Craig fighting the joker as james bond.

Nah. Film would've been too short, with either Joker or Bond killing each other within five minutes...

Yeah but you have to admit, that would be an awesome five minutes of film.

It's awesomeness will kill people. Which means LOTS of lawsuits.

Quantum of the Joker-http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1zgQjnNFsJo

Originally posted by Master Crimzon
I royally disagree. After all, it isn't until Rachel's death that the film comes to an emotional climax. Without the second half, it loses much of its emotional power- because, you have to remember, the movie is about morality and chaos. Moral downfall, to be more precise, and the human responses to the unending chaos. Without Two-Face, the film would lose much of its emotional power.

Yeah, but I had a hard time buying the fact that Harvey Dent held so much animosity toward everyone for saving him instead of saving Rachel. The transition of him being a stand-up rational guy, then turning into a ruthless monster so quickly was quite unbelievable for me. Add to that the whole cell phone sonar thing, the lack of blood as you mentioned, there was just too many things like that to take me out of the movie, let alone even care too much about the emotional climax. Don't get me wrong, it was a great movie, mostly, and the parts with Heath Ledger were gold, and that makes up for a lot.

Originally posted by =Tired Hiker=
Yeah, but I had a hard time buying the fact that Harvey Dent held so much animosity toward everyone for saving him instead of saving Rachel. The transition of him being a stand-up rational guy, then turning into a ruthless monster so quickly was quite unbelievable for me. Add to that the whole cell phone sonar thing, the lack of blood as you mentioned, there was just too many things like that to take me out of the movie, let alone even care too much about the emotional climax. Don't get me wrong, it was a great movie, mostly, and the parts with Heath Ledger were gold, and that makes up for a lot.

Well, it wasn't all that quick. It actually made near-perfect sense. Here are the steps, as I view it:

1. Harvey's term as DA- formerly immensely popular- eventually comes to a failure, as all of his legal methods don't manage to bring the Joker in. Naturally, frustration ensues; he was so close to cleaning Gotham...

2. Harvey bends the rules, with the kidnapping of the Joker's thug. He is already shown to be willing to bend his former concepts due to his constant failure, to the point of intimidating a virtually helpless, insane person.

3. In a desperate attempt to get Joker, Harvey impersonates Batman (therefore saving his ass and putting himself on the line).

4. Things seem to work out fine, but then the very people of Gotham City- police officers bent by money and power- kidnap Harvey, the man trying to stop corruption and evil. A possible reason for him losing faith in humanity later on?

5. Rachel goes KABOOM. Batman saves Harvey (accidentally); Harvey is forever alienated from the concept of Batman (Batman 'betraying' him after he saved him, etc...) and general justice, in addition to the loss of Rachel (minutes after she told him she would marry him).

6. Harvey is disfigured. Now, Harvey was quite arrogant throughout the movie... I'd say that should be one hell of a blow to his ego.

7. Harvey finds out the nickname the cops, including Gordon, had for him; once again, the people of Gotham City aren't exactly showing love for their 'savior'.

8. Joker molds Harvey's fragile state of mind, converting him into a psychopathic vigilante determined to get revenge at all those who caused what happened to him. The corrupt cops, Maroni, Batman, Gordon (for having a police department full of corruption). As the Joker's concept of anarchy and justice sinks in, Harvey gives all these people the same 'chances' as he had; to be 'fair'.

So, yes. It wasn't abrupt and, while it wasn't perfect, it still makes sense.

Also, the sonar thing didn't really bother me, although it was a departure from the film's realism. So, ultimately, because I cared about the characters and the emotional value, I enjoyed the film's third act.

All that stuff being said, though, this film was absurdly over-praised in certain positions. I was in a fanboy mood after watching the film a bunch of times, and while I still consider it to be one of the great modern crime dramas, people saying that it's the greatest movie of all time really gets annoying.

... although the bashers, like those losers on ImdB who give it 1/10 (while calling it a 'very good movie', mind you), are a hundred times worse. Good to see someone having a balance.

Okay, so we have a difference of opinion over the Harvey thing.

Originally posted by Master Crimzon
It's awesomeness will kill people. Which means LOTS of lawsuits.

eh, thats what politics are for...,sorting out the bodies. James Bond and Renegades like Batman just make shit dead.

and to butt in on the above discussion. I'd have to both, agree and disagree. Harvey Dent was a great character and the movie couldn't have worked without him. His transition from Harvey Dent to Two-Face was a bit rushed. I know they had to follow the message of the film (You either die a hero or live long enough to see yourself become the villain.) That is just stupid and i don't know why they decided to incorporate that into their main theme. At any rate, for the movie that was made, Harvey needed to die as a psycho-two face. Two face should have come to be but his reign of terror should have been saved for the third movie. Either way, it is great how it is because we kind of get two movie's in one.

Originally posted by ragesRemorse
eh, thats what politics are for...,sorting out the bodies. James Bond and Renegades like Batman just make shit dead.

No, Batman does not kill.

Intentionally.

Originally posted by ragesRemorse
and to butt in on the above discussion. I'd have to both, agree and disagree. Harvey Dent was a great character and the movie couldn't have worked without him. His transition from Harvey Dent to Two-Face was a bit rushed. I know they had to follow the message of the film (You either die a hero or live long enough to see yourself become the villain.) That is just stupid and i don't know why they decided to incorporate that into their main theme. At any rate, for the movie that was made, Harvey needed to die as a psycho-two face. Two face should have come to be but his reign of terror should have been saved for the third movie. Either way, it is great how it is because we kind of get two movie's in one.

Well, I feel that portraying Harvey's downfall in this movie specifically- and his reign of chaos- is necessary, unless you want to do "TDK Vol. 1" and "TDK Vol. 2".

The message of this movie isn't exactly 'you either die a hero or livelong enough to see yourself become the villain'. Actually, this is part of why it's great; it doesn't have a singular message, rather choosing to display difficult questions without easy answers. Harvey's downfall represents to the triumph of chaos over order and justice. It's bleak and it's dark, and questions the true power of order and the nature of man's morality.

Ultimately, only Batman- who walks the line between hero and villain- is able to remain relatively uncorrupted. Why? We need to think about that for a bit.

Originally posted by Master Crimzon Ultimately, only Batman- who walks the line between hero and villain- is able to remain relatively uncorrupted. Why? We need to think about that for a bit. Gordon was the best IMO.

Gordon is the film's most human character, yeah (and probably the best-acted of the 'good guys'. Gary Oldman is freakin' awesome.), and is the least morally corrupted character at the end.

TDK says that heroes are, in many ways, symbols. I agree with that. Harvey Dent's a symbol. Batman's a symbol. Gordon? He's just a police officer doing his job.

Originally posted by Master Crimzon
Again, your expectations for this are slightly ridiculous. It can't all be perfectly realistic; this is an action movie. The parachute scene is also absurd if we look at it from an absolutely realistic point of perspective, but whaddaya gonna do? The point of this movie is to thrill, and it does both that and deliver some surprisingly powerful drama. Admittedly, I didn't quite bother to pay attention to that details, but I don't think that they are so important.

Also, Dominic isn't a good fighter; he simply went batshit crazy with his temper and call. Sometimes that can be far more dangerous than technique- I know from personal experience. There was already info suggesting he had a wild temper, like his story about that girl he presumably killed with the pipe, so it's not all that surprising that he managed to give Bond a good fight. Besides, he had a friggin' axe. That's gotta help.

Why is it so important to you that I didn't like those parts of the movie? I wasn't saying it is a shiit movie, I was pointing out things that I didn't like about it.

Batman is of course the more memorable character, but Bond has obviously been handled better on film most of the time. TDK is better than any Bond film, however. I think Christian Bale deserves just as much, if not more credit than Ledger because Bruce Wayne is a deeper character than The Joker or James Bond.

Originally posted by Master Crimzon
No, Batman does not kill.

Intentionally.



Well, I feel that portraying Harvey's downfall in this movie specifically- and his reign of chaos- is necessary, unless you want to do "TDK Vol. 1" and "TDK Vol. 2".

The message of this movie isn't exactly 'you either die a hero or livelong enough to see yourself become the villain'. Actually, this is part of why it's great; it doesn't have a singular message, rather choosing to display difficult questions without easy answers. Harvey's downfall represents to the triumph of chaos over order and justice. It's bleak and it's dark, and questions the true power of order and the nature of man's morality.

Ultimately, only Batman- who walks the line between hero and villain- is able to remain relatively uncorrupted. Why? We need to think about that for a bit.

The Dark Knight has killed, but dude, you knew what i meant

Yeah, i agree the movie was definitely open ended for interpretation but they definitely made a point at striking home that stupid ass, "you either die a hero or live long enough to see yourself become the villain". I'm sure that Batman's decision was supposed to represent both ends of that equation. His heroic image died while he became the villain that gotham needed. I just felt that hearing it once from Dent was enough

I feel like we're treading close to an argument. However friendly it may be, i don't mean to argue anything with anyone who enjoyed the Dark Knight because i too enjoyed it. Other than trivial gripes, that in no way compromise the integrity of the movie, there isn't much that could have been improved upon. Not that i know what im talking about. I'm still having trouble familiarizing myself with final cut studio

Originally posted by Master Crimzon
Gordon is the film's most human character, yeah (and probably the best-acted of the 'good guys'. Gary Oldman is freakin' awesome.), and is the least morally corrupted character at the end.

TDK says that heroes are, in many ways, symbols. I agree with that. Harvey Dent's a symbol. Batman's a symbol. Gordon? He's just a police officer doing his job.

Yeah. Gary Oldman was amazing. Most of all because, before Begins, I'd have never imagined him as Gordon. I mean, he's played Dracula... the evil Russian bloke in Air Force One... Sirius Black... many, many other roles... and now Jim Gordon. THAT is variety.

I think the Batman franchise is killing the Bond franchise. I didn't like Batman Begins but The Dark Knight more than made up for that. The Dark Knight IMO is almost perfect. It was a little long and I was not pleased with the treatment of Two Face specifically his fate, but overall I found that the movie had everything and still managed to be a Batman movie just the same.

I think Casino Royale was a great reboot, better than Batman Begins was for Batman IMO but Quantum of Solace really dropped the ball and I am waiting for Bond to be...well Bond. I prefer almost all the movies in the old franchise to Quantum of Solace because that movie was just too dark and dispirited and I don't go to Bond movies to see that. Yes I'd even rather watch Die Another Day over that.

And I agree with those who said the action sequences were bad in Batman Begins. The Dark Knight's sequences were so much better it makes Batman Begins sequences look that much worse IMO.

Don't worry, people, not trying to argue. Talking about movies is just a hell lot of fun.

Btw, how good is Air Force One? I actually never watched it...

Originally posted by Master Crimzon
Don't worry, people, not trying to argue. Talking about movies is just a hell lot of fun.

Btw, how good is Air Force One? I actually never watched it... Silly, uber-patriotic, nonsensical drivel.


I actually got hit a few times for pointing out the silliness to a US American once...good times.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Silly, uber-patriotic, nonsensical drivel.


I actually got hit a few times for pointing out the silliness to a US American once...good times.

Lolz, I bet he's one of them dudes who thinks the war on Iraq is 'cool' and that all Muslims are terrorists? I know the type.

By the way, I just caught Cinderella Man on TV (you know, that Russle Crowe movie). Surprisingly good IMO, not just a formulaic sports flick. Outside of its shitty title, of course.

Originally posted by Master Crimzon
Btw, how good is Air Force One? I actually never watched it... It's entertaining to say the least. Harrison Ford is his same grumpy self. But Gary Oldman delivers one of the more memorable villain performances. Worth the watch I'd say.