[jlupine]

I greatly enjoyed Batman Begins, so after hearing the rhapsodic praise for The Dark Knight from both the public and the critics, I had high expectations, and I was very disappointed.   *** SPOILER WARNING *** 

Certainly, the acting was uniformly good, and Heath Ledger was excellent.  I especially liked the Joker's ideas on public morality.  I thought that he might engage in the refreshingly honest treachery that characterized Shakespeare's Richard III, but instead he was a liar and a schemer whose success greatly exceeded his resources and violated plausibility.

Several elements were derivative or far too predictable.  The extraction in Hong Kong by rope, balloon, and plane is similar to one in a James Bond movie.  The Batcycle-cable flipping of the truck reminds us of Shrek.  The exploding prisoner, the switched ferry detonators, and clown-hostage reversal were obvious to much of the audience long before they occurred.   

The Joker's murderous anarchy might attract a few crazy followers, but not the reliable, loyal, skilled type of criminal that he would need to execute his plans.  The demise of the Joker's fellow bank robbers would certainly limit recruiting, and burning money would stop it altogether.

The Joker had no way of knowing about the cell phone/sonar transducer monitoring of Gotham City, so his hostage scenario could easily have gone undiscovered.  After being in a truck crash, the Joker was beaten up by Batman--probably suffering a broken hand-- and just happened to have access to a broken piece of glass allowing him to overpower the angry cop.  To me, playing possum and being maniacal aren't adequate safeguards against the local crime bosses or the $500,000 bounty.  I expected hourly assassination attempts that would be much better planned and more competently staffed than anything that the Joker attempted. 

Morgan Freeman and Michael Caine were underutilized.  The editing, especially during fight scenes, was often way too choppy.  The movie was too long to sustain my interest; eliminating the extortionate accountant scenes, for example, would have tightened up the screenplay a bit. 

I think that Harvey Dent's commitment to the law was strong enough that Rachel Dawes's death and his guilt and disfigurement couldn't turn him to the dark side.  This conversion might have just been a bonus for the Joker; his purpose for the two kidnappings was probably just to give Batman an impossible moral dilemma.

Spiderman's whiny, guilt-ridden, agonized, misunderstood existence always annoys me.  He's sufficiently scientifically and athletically accomplished to make enough money to pay for tuition and take care of Aunt May.  Moreover, no newspaper editor is so influential and persuasive that, with so much everyday information to the contrary, J. Jonah Jameson could mislead the public and the authorities and make Spiderman's life so miserable.  So, now we have Batman volunteering to become the bad guy to preserve Harvey Dent's reputation, symbolism, and (maybe) RICO cases.  This sacrifice sounds like an investment in future plotlines rather than a credible solution to Dent's crimes.  I expect people to recognize Dent when returns as Two Face.  Blaming one of the Joker's minions for kidnapping Lt. Gordon's family, or even Dent's apparent death, makes much more sense than the gratuitous self-sacrificing, self-victimizing adoption of responsibility by Batman, whose symbolic and practical value probably far exceed what Harvey Dent could have achieved under any conditions.

Batman Begins had a much broader scope; the characters evolved more; and there were plausible and interesting explanations of fighting and furtive skills, equipment, and motivation.  There were less predictability and recycling; the plot made more sense, and fewer situations and developments strained my suspension of disbelief.  The Dark Knight jumped from scene to scene with much less continuity:  actions were unmotivated, plot turns were arbitrary, and the Joker was far too lucky.     

[ajzepp]

I greatly enjoyed Batman Begins, so after hearing the rhapsodic praise for The Dark Knight from both the public and the critics, I had high expectations, and I was very disappointed.   *** SPOILER WARNING *** 

Certainly, the acting was uniformly good, and Heath Ledger was excellent.  I especially liked the Joker's ideas on public morality.  I thought that he might engage in the refreshingly honest treachery that characterized Shakespeare's Richard III, but instead he was a liar and a schemer whose success greatly exceeded his resources and violated plausibility.

Several elements were derivative or far too predictable.  The extraction in Hong Kong by rope, balloon, and plane is similar to one in a James Bond movie.  The Batcycle-cable flipping of the truck reminds us of Shrek.  The exploding prisoner, the switched ferry detonators, and clown-hostage reversal were obvious to much of the audience long before they occurred.   

The Joker's murderous anarchy might attract a few crazy followers, but not the reliable, loyal, skilled type of criminal that he would need to execute his plans.  The demise of the Joker's fellow bank robbers would certainly limit recruiting, and burning money would stop it altogether.

The Joker had no way of knowing about the cell phone/sonar transducer monitoring of Gotham City, so his hostage scenario could easily have gone undiscovered.  After being in a truck crash, the Joker was beaten up by Batman--probably suffering a broken hand-- and just happened to have access to a broken piece of glass allowing him to overpower the angry cop.  To me, playing possum and being maniacal aren't adequate safeguards against the local crime bosses or the $500,000 bounty.  I expected hourly assassination attempts that would be much better planned and more competently staffed than anything that the Joker attempted. 

Morgan Freeman and Michael Caine were underutilized.  The editing, especially during fight scenes, was often way too choppy.  The movie was too long to sustain my interest; eliminating the extortionate accountant scenes, for example, would have tightened up the screenplay a bit. 

I think that Harvey Dent's commitment to the law was strong enough that Rachel Dawes's death and his guilt and disfigurement couldn't turn him to the dark side.  This conversion might have just been a bonus for the Joker; his purpose for the two kidnappings was probably just to give Batman an impossible moral dilemma.

Spiderman's whiny, guilt-ridden, agonized, misunderstood existence always annoys me.  He's sufficiently scientifically and athletically accomplished to make enough money to pay for tuition and take care of Aunt May.  Moreover, no newspaper editor is so influential and persuasive that, with so much everyday information to the contrary, J. Jonah Jameson could mislead the public and the authorities and make Spiderman's life so miserable.  So, now we have Batman volunteering to become the bad guy to preserve Harvey Dent's reputation, symbolism, and (maybe) RICO cases.  This sacrifice sounds like an investment in future plotlines rather than a credible solution to Dent's crimes.  I expect people to recognize Dent when returns as Two Face.  Blaming one of the Joker's minions for kidnapping Lt. Gordon's family, or even Dent's apparent death, makes much more sense than the gratuitous self-sacrificing, self-victimizing adoption of responsibility by Batman, whose symbolic and practical value probably far exceed what Harvey Dent could have achieved under any conditions.

Batman Begins had a much broader scope; the characters evolved more; and there were plausible and interesting explanations of fighting and furtive skills, equipment, and motivation.  There were less predictability and recycling; the plot made more sense, and fewer situations and developments strained my suspension of disbelief.  The Dark Knight jumped from scene to scene with much less continuity:  actions were unmotivated, plot turns were arbitrary, and the Joker was far too lucky.     

You know it was a movie, right?

[Folsom]

jlupine I could argue a lot of that.

I think the point that it is a movie is nice. I mean if everything was super believable etc, it would be super fucking boring! With no stretches it would be just like everyday life as we know it now. I want to believe the Joker was that of an amazing organizer with well different sets of skills to do so... etc. Without some extenuating circumstances well it would just be lame. Plus in the first movie the main villain is a continually reincarnated being... heh...

[launche]

I greatly enjoyed Batman Begins, so after hearing the rhapsodic praise for The Dark Knight from both the public and the critics, I had high expectations, and I was very disappointed.  

Exactly the reason I went to see it on the first day and with little outside influence other than a general idea that it was a very good movie.  I can't say enough how one's expectations dramatically influence their assessment of a movie.  I just think many times once you hear and read too much about a film you lose more and more of your ability to enjoy the ride.  Again, you become more of a critic than a willing moviegoer with the capacity (at that time) to be ENTERTAINED.

[Whitese]

I enjoyed the movie a lot and so did my wife...I wish they would have kept some focus on Bruce Wayne a bit more....his character seemed to have faded a bit and Batman just didnt seem as interesting as in Batman begins...Although some of it could have been that I was riveted by The Joker...seemed that it was his movie...

Wasnt there a short preview at some time where one of the ferry's blows up?

[Folsom]

I enjoyed the movie a lot and so did my wife...I wish they would have kept some focus on Bruce Wayne a bit more....his character seemed to have faded a bit and Batman just didnt seem as interesting as in Batman begins...Although some of it could have been that I was riveted by The Joker...seemed that it was his movie...

Wasnt there a short preview at some time where one of the ferry's blows up?

I kind of liked that.... Batman not stealing the show entirely.

[PhilNYC]

jlupine I could argue a lot of that.

I think the point that it is a movie is nice. I mean if everything was super believable etc, it would be super fucking boring! With no stretches it would be just like everyday life as we know it now. I want to believe the Joker was that of an amazing organizer with well different sets of skills to do so... etc. Without some extenuating circumstances well it would just be lame. Plus in the first movie the main villain is a continually reincarnated being... heh...

I have never liked the "it's a movie" point.  IMHO, a great movie is one that makes the fantastic *believeable*.  To me, Batman Begins was a movie that made me believe everything...everything from the physical action to the characters and the decisions they made to the storyline as a whole.  In The Dark Knight, I did not believe the characters' decisions or the storyline. 

[launche]

Many keep mentioning "Batman Begins" and referencing to more believable and developed characters etc...  IMO, that was the premise, to go back lay a foundation and explore the basic psychology, motivations etc... of Bruce Wayne/Batman. That was the intent of the movie and it did that very well.  But "The Dark Knight" is a different film with a different intent etc...  If they had gone the same route, people would be complaining or finding fault along those lines.  For instance if they had done the character back story and development for the Joker like they did for Bruce Wayne in "Batman Begins" it could and made for a better understanding of some things and maybe a better film.  But again, people would be complaining this is movie about Batman not the Joker etc..., they took way too long examining the life of the Joker etc..., They could have cut the scene(s) showing how the Joker set up XYZ scenario.  BTW, who knows what got left on the cutting room floor to already trim the film.

I personally don't want to go back and watch "Batman Begins" now as I feel I would not have as much of an unbiased perspective as I did the first two viewings.  Let's also not forget "the first taste" effect, that initial positive or negative experience reaches far and wide. 

[PhilNYC]

Many keep mentioning "Batman Begins" and referencing to more believable and developed characters etc...  IMO, that was the premise, to go back lay a foundation and explore the basic psychology, motivations etc... of Bruce Wayne/Batman. That was the intent of the movie and it did that very well.  But "The Dark Knight" is a different film with a different intent etc...  If they had gone the same route, people would be complaining or finding fault along those lines.  For instance if they had done the character back story and development for the Joker like they did for Bruce Wayne in "Batman Begins" it could and made for a better understanding of some things and maybe a better film.  But again, people would be complaining this is movie about Batman not the Joker etc..., they took way too long examining the life of the Joker etc..., They could have cut the scene(s) showing how the Joker set up XYZ scenario.  BTW, who knows what got left on the cutting room floor to already trim the film.

I personally don't want to go back and watch "Batman Begins" now as I feel I would not have as much of an unbiased perspective as I did the first two viewings.  Let's also not forget "the first taste" effect, that initial positive or negative experience reaches far and wide. 

I don't think it's the issue of doing things like back-stories.  IMHO, the best part of The Dark Knight was the acting and character development, especially the Joker and Harvey Dent.  My issue with the film is focused mostly on its predictability and lack-of-believability in the story.  Example of predictability: in the whole hostage scenario, as soon as I saw the guys with guns in Joker masks, my first thought was "those guys are hostages wearing Joker masks"...it was obvious and predictable.  Example of lack-of-believability: the ferry-boat scene lacked believability that the people on the boats (convicts and citizens) would behave the way they did (although I admit that I absolutely loved when the convict threw the detonator out the window).

So for me, it wasn't really a specific desire for the film to be "more like Batman Begins" in terms of storyline and structure...but moreso that Batman Begins was simply a better-written story...

[Bigfish]

Guys:

I heard on the radio this morning that this movie was still number one at the box office this past weekend with ticket sales of $43 million.  It has now grossed over $400 million and is expected to unseed Titantic as the top grossing movie of all time which had ticket sales of $600 million.

In the previous threads it is clear that some of you liked the movie a lot and some thought it was just okay.  I for one did not try to over analyze what was taking place during the movie and yes there were quite a few events that questioned the imagination but in all it was great entertainment.  I left the movie not feeling ripped-off for spending the $25.00 (movie, popcorn and soda).

Ken

[zako]

Ive been reading the Batman v Joker story for 60 yrs,,,, Its really about the JOKER,, The villins are the center of the story,, The Joker or the Penguin never die,,, But try to drive Batman over the edge.  But one of the ROBINS (3) does die at the hands of the JOKER.

[bkatbamna]

I greatly enjoyed Batman Begins, so after hearing the rhapsodic praise for The Dark Knight from both the public and the critics, I had high expectations, and I was very disappointed.   *** SPOILER WARNING *** 

Certainly, the acting was uniformly good, and Heath Ledger was excellent.  I especially liked the Joker's ideas on public morality.  I thought that he might engage in the refreshingly honest treachery that characterized Shakespeare's Richard III, but instead he was a liar and a schemer whose success greatly exceeded his resources and violated plausibility.

Several elements were derivative or far too predictable.  The extraction in Hong Kong by rope, balloon, and plane is similar to one in a James Bond movie.  The Batcycle-cable flipping of the truck reminds us of Shrek.  The exploding prisoner, the switched ferry detonators, and clown-hostage reversal were obvious to much of the audience long before they occurred.   

The Joker's murderous anarchy might attract a few crazy followers, but not the reliable, loyal, skilled type of criminal that he would need to execute his plans.  The demise of the Joker's fellow bank robbers would certainly limit recruiting, and burning money would stop it altogether.

The Joker had no way of knowing about the cell phone/sonar transducer monitoring of Gotham City, so his hostage scenario could easily have gone undiscovered.  After being in a truck crash, the Joker was beaten up by Batman--probably suffering a broken hand-- and just happened to have access to a broken piece of glass allowing him to overpower the angry cop.  To me, playing possum and being maniacal aren't adequate safeguards against the local crime bosses or the $500,000 bounty.  I expected hourly assassination attempts that would be much better planned and more competently staffed than anything that the Joker attempted. 

Morgan Freeman and Michael Caine were underutilized.  The editing, especially during fight scenes, was often way too choppy.  The movie was too long to sustain my interest; eliminating the extortionate accountant scenes, for example, would have tightened up the screenplay a bit. 

I think that Harvey Dent's commitment to the law was strong enough that Rachel Dawes's death and his guilt and disfigurement couldn't turn him to the dark side.  This conversion might have just been a bonus for the Joker; his purpose for the two kidnappings was probably just to give Batman an impossible moral dilemma.

Spiderman's whiny, guilt-ridden, agonized, misunderstood existence always annoys me.  He's sufficiently scientifically and athletically accomplished to make enough money to pay for tuition and take care of Aunt May.  Moreover, no newspaper editor is so influential and persuasive that, with so much everyday information to the contrary, J. Jonah Jameson could mislead the public and the authorities and make Spiderman's life so miserable.  So, now we have Batman volunteering to become the bad guy to preserve Harvey Dent's reputation, symbolism, and (maybe) RICO cases.  This sacrifice sounds like an investment in future plotlines rather than a credible solution to Dent's crimes.  I expect people to recognize Dent when returns as Two Face.  Blaming one of the Joker's minions for kidnapping Lt. Gordon's family, or even Dent's apparent death, makes much more sense than the gratuitous self-sacrificing, self-victimizing adoption of responsibility by Batman, whose symbolic and practical value probably far exceed what Harvey Dent could have achieved under any conditions.

Batman Begins had a much broader scope; the characters evolved more; and there were plausible and interesting explanations of fighting and furtive skills, equipment, and motivation.  There were less predictability and recycling; the plot made more sense, and fewer situations and developments strained my suspension of disbelief.  The Dark Knight jumped from scene to scene with much less continuity:  actions were unmotivated, plot turns were arbitrary, and the Joker was far too lucky.     

Your points are right on and I agree with you that Batman Begins was a better movie.  Also, MG's character wasn't pretty enough or smart enough to die/kill/go crazy for.  Women like her character are a dime-a-dozen in every major metropolitan city.

[launche]

Bigfish, I was reading the same thing.  It woudl really be interesting to see if it does break the record.  I don;t see why it won't especially if the studio gives it one more marketing push around the $500 mil mark and theaters carry it for another month or so.  I too left the theater very entertained,  I really didn't think about breaking it down or comparing it etc...  I drank my sprite, ate my popcorn and enjoyed myself.  Yeah, I saw some things coming and questioned a tad here or there but quickly said "go with the flow." 

It would be interesting to know if the Ferry scene (and some others) were lifted from the comics themselves.  The Ferry scene while some may find it unrealistic, it what I saw as it would be in the comic book and even just to get to a moral point that wouldn't have happened if everyone just freaked out.  There's a very obvious message in the Ferry scene that sails under the radar because some didn't see it as realistic, panic and choas seem to be what some people may see as the natural reaction in that situation.  What the director asking the audience to do a little work here or to assume some things.  Or maybe enough variables weren't eliminated to give the audience less to find issue with in term of plausibility.  Who knows, I barely put my black socks on right this morning.

[jmichael]

You guy's need to lighten up! That's why they call it a Hollywood movie. Unbelievable and very entertaining. I own Batman Begins on DVD and have watched it many times without tiring. When I went to see the Dark Knight, I came out of the theater wanting more and thought it was the best action movie on the big screen that I've ever seen and asked myself, how were they ever going to top that with the next installment? Remember, movies are made to entertain us. It's okay to have critisism but bring an open mind.

[launche]

These links give some insight as to what possible plot lines they could explore next, though unlikey that they would introduce some of the "Superfriends etc..." but Robin seems a likely addition.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Knight_Returns

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Batman:_The_Dark_Knight_Strikes_Again

[AliG]

Hate it or love it.... the curtain is down, but Batman has certainly made history, check this link 
http://movies.yahoo.com/mv/boxoffice/alltime/

[launche]

I was just about to reference that link.

Yes, it's done very, very well.  I think I will actually give it the nod for highest grossing film, with this economy and all the other somber things going on right now.  In more prosperous and good natured times it probably would have broken the record.  The box office is just bleeding right now, movies are barely holding up it seems, thank goodness for The Dark Knight this year.  Tropic Thunder should also be doing much better than it is IMO but again we are hurtin' right now (then again all the more reason to catch a laugh.) 

Shoot me if you must but please people lets start doing right by our fine nation(U.S.), I can honestly say I feel so sad and troubled about how things are, it scares me.   

Sorry fellas forgive me.

[PhilNYC]

Hate it or love it.... the curtain is down, but Batman has certainly made history, check this link 
http://movies.yahoo.com/mv/boxoffice/alltime/

Where's Aquaman? 
 

[nathanm]

http://movies.yahoo.com/mv/boxoffice/alltime/

Wow…that's rather telling.  It would seem that human culture loves movies for, well, children.  We're all a bunch of fantasy-obsessed little kids! Ahhh!

Jlupine, great analysis!

[doug s.]

I was just about to reference that link.

Yes, it's done very, very well.  I think I will actually give it the nod for highest grossing film, with this economy and all the other somber things going on right now.  In more prosperous and good natured times it probably would have broken the record.  The box office is just bleeding right now, movies are barely holding up it seems, thank goodness for The Dark Knight this year.  Tropic Thunder should also be doing much better than it is IMO but again we are hurtin' right now (then again all the more reason to catch a laugh.) 

Shoot me if you must but please people lets start doing right by our fine nation(U.S.), I can honestly say I feel so sad and troubled about how things are, it scares me.   

Sorry fellas forgive me.

tropic thunder should be doing better?  you're kidding, right?  what a total waste of time.  even my thirteen year old son thought it was totally stupid & unfunny...

doug s.