"The Dark Knight"

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic. Read 23818 times.

ecramer

  • Volunteer
  • Posts: 3121
  • In time whats deserved always get served.
Re: "The Dark Knight"
« Reply #80 on: 25 Jul 2008, 06:39 pm »
Just got back from seeing this. Must say the Heath Ledger owned the part of of the joker, Jack Nicholson is not that good of an actor, i put him on the same skill level as John Wayne they play them self's on the screen  not a bad thing but i haven't seen anything in years  from Jack Nicholson that was a challenge or a stretch for  him IMHO. Very good movie, The movie tone was darker and far less comic then the first which i thought was a plus  :thumb:

ED

ajzepp

Re: "The Dark Knight"
« Reply #81 on: 25 Jul 2008, 11:45 pm »

The second film (and third film, for that matter) in the Matrix trilogy were absolute travesties. They absolutely ruined the magic that was the first film, and in turn made the original film completely irrelevant and meaningless. In short, it sucked. How you can compare that to this film is beyond me...

As for the "Darkness" aspect, it was pretty clear that the way the film ended was grounds for at least one interpretation of the the term.

It might also be beyond you that there are other opinions/impressions that would differ much more or less than yours. To spell it out...I was comparing the fall off (IMO) in quality from the Matrix vs. Matrix 2 being of a similar ratio to Batman Returns vs. Batman/Dark Knight. Its all subjective, kinda like audio.



Not sure why you feel the need to "spell it out"...I knew exactly what ya meant the first time, hence my comment. And yes, I'm at a loss as to how anyone can compare Matrix 2 to DK...that's my opinion :)

ajzepp

Re: "The Dark Knight"
« Reply #82 on: 25 Jul 2008, 11:47 pm »
Saw this today in IMAX ...I think the buzz is way over-hyped, its a good action movie but no where near "epic"... the Batman series seem to be in a parallel trajectory similar to the the Matrix trilogy...first one being outstanding, second much more action but less depth/less satisfaction...does not bode well for the third.
I would give it 3.5/5 stars, and maybe even 4 for the anarchic questions the Joker posed...but I fail to see the "Darkness" in the Batman's character, they made him too politically correct IMO. In fact quite a few of the human events got a p/c spin (read spaded). But hey, its a 'modern' interpretation of old comics.
Now...the preview of "the Watchmen" looks interesting.  aa

IMHO, the "Dark" part of the Batman character is supposed to be balanced with the "Knight" part.  Batman is clearly a crime-fighter, so there needs to be righteousness in his actions.  The "dark" part comes from the fact that he is a vigilante.  One of the key story elements in Batman Begins was Bruce Wayne's overcoming the need for revenge, when he acknowledges Rachel's "Define me not by what I say, but what I do"...so in this film, it's consistent with Batman's character development that there is a line he does not want to cross.  That has been THE key differentiator between Batman and The Joker, and I thought this film showed that pretty well.



Exactly...you said it very well, IMO.

ajzepp

Re: "The Dark Knight"
« Reply #83 on: 25 Jul 2008, 11:49 pm »
Just got back from seeing this. Must say the Heath Ledger owned the part of of the joker, Jack Nicholson is not that good of an actor, i put him on the same skill level as John Wayne they play them self's on the screen  not a bad thing but i haven't seen anything in years  from Jack Nicholson that was a challenge or a stretch for  him IMHO. Very good movie, The movie tone was darker and far less comic then the first which i thought was a plus  :thumb:

ED

As much of a Nicholson fan as I am, it's not even close, IMO...I completely agree with you - Ledger owned this character. I saw it for the second time today, and enjoyed it as much or more than the first viewing. Christopher Nolan is tha shiznit.

gitarretyp

Re: "The Dark Knight"
« Reply #84 on: 26 Jul 2008, 02:44 am »
Since some of you guys were discussing the technical aspects of the film, i thought you might enjoy this link. The Dark Night was filmed in 8K (8192x6144), and the maximum IMAX resolution is 18K (18000 x 13433). For reference, home resolution of 1080p is 1920×1080. At 8K resolution, storage requirements were 200MB/frame and over 100TB for the whole movie.

By the way, i thought the film was excellent 5/5.

satfrat

  • Restricted
  • Posts: 10855
  • Boston Red Sox!! 2004 / 2007 / 2013
Re: "The Dark Knight"
« Reply #85 on: 26 Jul 2008, 03:17 am »
Since some of you guys were discussing the technical aspects of the film, i thought you might enjoy this link. The Dark Night was filmed in 8K (8192x6144), and the maximum IMAX resolution is 18K (18000 x 13433). For reference, home resolution of 1080p is 1920×1080. At 8K resolution, storage requirements were 200MB/frame and over 100TB for the whole movie.

By the way, i thought the film was excellent 5/5.

So would the storage capacity for IMAX version be 1000TB? :o :o :o

ps,,, maybe closer to 240TB?  :oops:

nodiak

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 1083
Re: "The Dark Knight"
« Reply #86 on: 27 Jul 2008, 04:18 am »
Two interesting segments on the History Channel:
Batman Unmasked: The Psychology of the Dark Knight. Goes into the Joker and other villains too.
Batman Tech. Goes into the suit, vehicles and gizmos.
On tonight and tomorrow, check listings.
Don
Excuse my earlier barking at the discussion, my bad.

PhilNYC

Re: "The Dark Knight"
« Reply #87 on: 27 Jul 2008, 10:52 am »
Since, this thread has clearly run forward w/ the assumption that all readers have seen the movie, I have to say the way they came up w/ spinning it so Batman was the bad guy was really contrived.  Basically, since Drake's reputation/memory needed to be protected, we'll have to say Batman killed some of these people???  WhyTF wouldn't you just pin it on the CRAZY GUY???  Its certainly no more of a stretch than saying Batman did it.

Because the crazy guy, no matter how crazy, was still alive and able to able to publically deny and accuse.

Quote
Reminds me of the Spiderman series were they are always trying to spin the story line so the public thinks he's bad.  I know its so the movie(s) follow the comic, but they need to do a better job of making it more convincing (and heart wrenching for the movie goer) and not just concoct something lame in the last 10min. of the movie.

In the comic books, Spidey generally had the public's support...it was J. Jonah Jameson who was always trying to paint him as a vigilante and bad for public safety...and I think they captured that pretty well in the Spidey movies.  Remember in Spidey 1 how New Yorkers tried to help him on the 59th Street Bridge, or in Spidey 2, how they stood between him and Doc Ock on the train...

jonwb

Re: "The Dark Knight"
« Reply #88 on: 27 Jul 2008, 12:56 pm »
Since, this thread has clearly run forward w/ the assumption that all readers have seen the movie, I have to say the way they came up w/ spinning it so Batman was the bad guy was really contrived.  Basically, since Drake's reputation/memory needed to be protected, we'll have to say Batman killed some of these people???  WhyTF wouldn't you just pin it on the CRAZY GUY???  Its certainly no more of a stretch than saying Batman did it.

Because the crazy guy, no matter how crazy, was still alive and able to able to publically deny and accuse.

Quote
Reminds me of the Spiderman series were they are always trying to spin the story line so the public thinks he's bad.  I know its so the movie(s) follow the comic, but they need to do a better job of making it more convincing (and heart wrenching for the movie goer) and not just concoct something lame in the last 10min. of the movie.

In the comic books, Spidey generally had the public's support...it was J. Jonah Jameson who was always trying to paint him as a vigilante and bad for public safety...and I think they captured that pretty well in the Spidey movies.  Remember in Spidey 1 how New Yorkers tried to help him on the 59th Street Bridge, or in Spidey 2, how they stood between him and Doc Ock on the train...

Good points both... especially the re: Spiderman.  re: the Joker still being alive, who'd believe him?  Seems most people would think Batman was good (previous experience) and the Joker was really bad and would think the Joker did it anyway. (everyone knew the Joker was responsible for blowing up the hospital for example)

Cacophonix

Re: "The Dark Knight"
« Reply #89 on: 27 Jul 2008, 02:30 pm »
Guess i'm a bit late to the party, but i finally caught the movie at IMAX yesterday night.

Absolutely brilliant :thumb: :thumb: :thumb: :thumb:!!! This surely will be the benchmark that other comic book movies will be measured against! Leaves other such movies way way behind. Can't wait for batman III!

launche

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 1315
  • ...on being an audiophile...no.
Re: "The Dark Knight"
« Reply #90 on: 27 Jul 2008, 03:33 pm »
Two interesting segments on the History Channel:
Batman Unmasked: The Psychology of the Dark Knight. Goes into the Joker and other villains too.
Batman Tech. Goes into the suit, vehicles and gizmos.
On tonight and tomorrow, check listings.
Don
Excuse my earlier barking at the discussion, my bad.

I saw those, interesting watch while in the mist of the Batman craze.

It was 2am so someone correct me if I'm wrong but very interesting, that they said Bruce Wayne and loosely some of Batman was based off of President Teddy Roosevelt.  I think Roosevelt's mother and sister died of the same day and he went into hiding or something and came back to be a lawman who patrolled the streets after midnight on a horse/bike etc...  Again, someone correct me as needed but I thought that whole spin was very interesting and may be common knowledge to those more versed in the comic series.

nodiak

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 1083
Re: "The Dark Knight"
« Reply #91 on: 27 Jul 2008, 10:41 pm »
Hey Launche, It was Teddy R's wife and mother died in same day, as did Bruce's parents. Both from wealthy, urban, philanthropist families. Other parallels found from a "Teddy Roosevelt Batman" google. Interesting.
The Batman tech segment was interesting in explaining things too. Most of it is possible with current tech, if not actually in use. Ex. - the motorcyle engines are in the wheels, there's a current version of that tech (I didn't google for it, or note it from the show). They noted one engine in one of the wheels would work, but two would need perfect synchronizing.
And they showed the wingsuits too.
Don

BobM

Re: "The Dark Knight"
« Reply #92 on: 29 Jul 2008, 02:19 pm »
So who's going to play Joker in Batman III? I don't think the legacy that Heath left behind will fade soon. They'll probably have to find another villain to use for the next one. Penguin again perhaps (but that would be too comic-booky)? The Riddler (now that could work)?

Bob

Imperial

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 1470
  • Love keeps us in the air, when we ought to fall.
Re: "The Dark Knight"
« Reply #93 on: 30 Jul 2008, 08:18 pm »
After the film, while the credits glide across the screen, everybody was leaving..
It was a very gloomy feeling in the theatre..

Outside it was close to pitch dark, a cloudy night.

Then Thunder and lightning like ... not for a very long time!
This night 20 174 lightning strikes, struck the valley I live in.. 20 174!!

The rods were so powerfull the night sky lit up like daylight!!!  :o

As I walked away from the theatre The lightning was periodically casting stark flashes
of light onto the street.

All of the people I was walking alongside, that had also been in the theatre with me and
seen "the dark knight" had a gleam in their eyes and a most... disturbing grin... a smile...

I was smiling too...  :icon_twisted:

AWESOME!!!!!

Imperial

nathanm

Re: "The Dark Knight"
« Reply #94 on: 30 Jul 2008, 08:32 pm »
The really good movies make it hard to go back to your real life.  I'm not saying "Dark Night" did this to me, but it can happen. 

Mostly "Dark Night" made me glad I didn't have ceiling tiles in my house cause everything that wasn't bolted down was buzzing like hell in that theater from the slamming subs.  Sheesh!  So much for Hi-Fi!  Yes, I did submit a formal complaint.  Whether or not they send a kid up on a ladder with a satchel full of asphalt sheets is anyone's guess, but it's nice to be able to let 'em know.

timothyharnett

  • Jr. Member
  • Posts: 130
Re: "The Dark Knight"
« Reply #95 on: 1 Aug 2008, 12:24 am »
I thought it was well made but a little long - not that I objecto to long films but it felt long.  The moralising was a little unsubtle.  The effects were terrific and for the most part, the direction was excellent.

Yes, Heath Ledger was good in it and probably the high point.

mcullinan

Re: "The Dark Knight"
« Reply #96 on: 1 Aug 2008, 02:49 am »
Saw this last night. I thought the storyline was great. I felt that the movie ended twice though. Once when the Joker was in jail and the girl was killed, and then it continued for another hour until the real ending. I didnt mind watching more since it was packed with action. Heath did a great part, a nice mix of nerd, tranny and insane. This was an epic batman, unbelievable visuals and thoroughly enjoyable.
Mike

satfrat

  • Restricted
  • Posts: 10855
  • Boston Red Sox!! 2004 / 2007 / 2013
Re: "The Dark Knight"
« Reply #97 on: 1 Aug 2008, 02:59 am »
Saw this last night. I thought the storyline was great. I felt that the movie ended twice though. Once when the Joker was in jail and the girl was killed, and then it continued for another hour until the real ending. I didnt mind watching more since it was packed with action. Heath did a great part, a nice mix of nerd, tranny and insane. This was an epic batman, unbelievable visuals and thoroughly enjoyable.
Mike

Actually it was the beginning Mike,,,, the beginning of Two-Face along with the Joker's escape from jail. The only end I saw was at that point was of the girlfriend. :( Infact I didn't see an ending (that I liked) when Batman walks away as the badguy who took the fall for all involved. It left me with an empty feeling in my gut. It was that fact that made me walk away as Nathan stated, "The really good movies make it hard to go back to your real life." It took a Dunkin Donuts Coolatta to bring me back. aa

Cheers,
Robin

kbuzz3

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 1116
Re: "The Dark Knight"
« Reply #98 on: 1 Aug 2008, 04:08 am »
why does it seem that most of the "bigger" movies in recent times are always about 20-30 minutes too long.  Seems like they the studios like to tack on that extra car chase, chase or extraneous action.  I mean, i would think its even economically advantageous to make a slightly shorter picture.  In this case, i submit the "hostages " scenes....which went on way to long and got repetitive and even confusing....took away from a real real quality movie, IMHO....



PhilNYC

Re: "The Dark Knight"
« Reply #99 on: 1 Aug 2008, 01:32 pm »
why does it seem that most of the "bigger" movies in recent times are always about 20-30 minutes too long.  Seems like they the studios like to tack on that extra car chase, chase or extraneous action.  I mean, i would think its even economically advantageous to make a slightly shorter picture.  In this case, i submit the "hostages " scenes....which went on way to long and got repetitive and even confusing....took away from a real real quality movie, IMHO....


In this case, IMHO it was all about setting up for a sequel... to have Batman as a "wanted criminal" and have the people of Gotham be against him....