Batman Begins/The Dark Knight vs Casino Royale/Quantum of Solace

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. [/B]

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,

Spoiler:
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.