I personally think they are. People treat these movies like they are some of the greatest films in cinema history when they were mediocre at best.
Talk about an extremely pretentious trilogy about comic book superhero that dresses like a bat, drives a batmobile and fights crime that took the source material WAY TOO SERIOIUSLY.
I think they're a little overrated, but they're far past mediocre.
It's also tipped by film.
The Dark Knight is the most overrated of the three, having been placed in some hallowed hall of cinema, when it's really just a top-grade action/superhero film with a superlative performance by Heath Ledger. I'm not trying to blast this film, but I think it got a "batmania/R.I.P. Ledger" boost which vaulted it beyond its (admittedly, lofty) heights.
Batman Begins might actually be underrated. I remember the excitement while watching this in the theatre and really liking how the plot was put together and it did a deep dive on Batman's origin, evoking Year One several times. This was a special movie, it still is, and I think it might (overall) be the best out of the three. TDK has a bit more of an erratic plot, although it handles its themes of anarchy v. order quite well.
If The Dark Knight isn't the most overrated, The Dark Knight Rises certainly is. TDKR is a hot mess, with some really impressive and great scenes or sequences, bookended by tripe and face-scrunchingly bad moments. It's rife with plot holes and character gaffes (not characters making mistakes, but mistakes of making characters) and it just doesn't work - in my opinion. It's easily the worst of the three and is nowhere near the same league. I like The Matrix more than any of these films, but the quality dropoff from The Matrix to Reloaded is a similar precipice to that of TDK to TDKR. Not only is this film overrated, it's not really a great film.
Just because the films are based on a comic story and not a novel and includes its action and superhero beings does not make it a lesser film. The other elements of what are found in a top film still have to be present. These films also incorporates the latest technology of the day.
You sound like someone who is incapable of judging the best films because of preconceived bias. One can argue how the top films on IMDB got its ratings which we present here, but it should be based on the film itself and not any preconceived prejudices. Even then, the ones with more biases than others can still vote. Are you going to lower your vote to the lowest rating just to feed your preconceived bias? Even if you do, somehow the high ratings still stand haha.
I don't mean that comic book movies are "lesser" films. I meant that I don't think The Dark Knight "rises above" its genre, although it is a top-notch example of superhero films. If you like superhero movies, you'll love The Dark Knight. If you don't like superhero movies, it's not going to give a lot to you (except the - as noted - performance by Ledger).
Excellent films exist in all genres, but the best of the best are the ones that "transcend" their genre. The best examples I have are maybe the Hayao Miyazaki films. Spirited Away is way more than "just another anime movie". Within the superhero genre, I'd say maybe Logan rises above. Even if you don't like superhero movies, I think Logan would have a bunch of stuff that you'd find interesting.
That's all I meant.
I think your assessment of my ability to set aside biases and enjoy movies on their own merits, in and of themselves, is wrong. Obviously, there are certain films that it becomes difficult. For instance, I saw Nanette long after everybody had talked about it, so it was nigh-impossible to ignore the fact that everybody and their mothers were discussing, debating, and screaming about the political ramifications (for or against) of the performance. Nevertheless, in case you're curious, I was able to engage with that film (or "stand up special", technically) for what it was and not for what I had heard about it or thought it would be.
In fact, here I didn't say anything about my preconceived bias of The Dark Knight, Rises, or Begins. I was saying whether I thought each film would live up to their own hype (or lack thereof) and whether or not I thought they were overrated or underrated based on what I have observed the public's perception of these films to be. I think TDK is overrated not because it's a bad film, but because it is heralded as a godlike production, peerless and perfect, by many members of the public. I think it's not as good as they do, so I vote for "overrated".
I should've brought in that this trilogy was based on a four-issue graphic novel which usually means the subject matter is darker and for mature audiences than the ones in comic books. Anyway, we are discussing a live action film based on it and not animation like those of Hayao Miyazaki. You comparing the trilogy to that kind of threw me for a second.
The Dark Knight certainly rises above its genre and superhero films because of the story, acting, and direction as these films makes us believe a grown man going around town in a costume is more real than a movie. In other words, it suceeds in luring us into the movie and how the villains he faces have such a warped and twisted view of the world. It isn't that they just wear clown masks. Weren't you shocked that they were ready to kill each other per instruction of a man who calls himself Joker? If you thought about it, then you would think most people, including criminals, would not go along with such a dastardly, evil, and outlandish crime, wearing clown masks even, but we find the criminal is very convincing and influential. We discover he is a genius in terms of putting a crime into action and having a payoff of millions of dollars. It isn't easy to rob the top bank in the city of Gotham due to the high security. Yet, we believe it from the beginning of the film.
As for the plot holes you mentioned for TDKR, if they can be explained logically, then it isn't really a plot hole. It may well be, but unless it can't be explained by what happens in the script or plot, then it isn't a real plot hole. Anyway, you don't bring up examples of what you are referring to so my answer should be sufficient.
Furthermore, TDN had a main character of Batman's girl friend get killed. Just the sub plot unfolding on the screen draws us in and then we, the audience, and the hero (albeit super hero) has to deal with the aftermath. This kind of story, acting, action, and how it is presented on the screen as a live
action movie cannot be easily replicated. I think this is why the film trilogy isn't overrated and deserves the high ratings it got on IMDB. Again, you can easily go in and rate it a "1," but the overall high rating still stands. TDK is still in the Top 5 at #4 with a "9!"
shareI'm getting the impression that you think I don't like it, which is incorrect. I'm not rating it a 1. I'd put it quite high. But that it is the #4 film of all time? Really? You don't think that's overrated? You think TDK is better than The Good, The Bad, and the Ugly? Or Seven Samurai? Spirit of God? Citizen Kane? I don't put a lot of stock in the IMDB top 250, but by that metric, The Dark Knight is, I think, clearly overrated.
You think it rises above, okay; I don't. I think it hits the action genre fully and completely, and I think it's a cut above most others. You know what, I'll concede some ground: it rises above its genre to some degree, but not the degree of its reputation. That's what I mean by "overrated".
And as for plot holes in TDKR, they do not have a logical explanation.
It's interesting to talk with someone about films for more than a post or two.
I didn't think you thought negatively of TDK, but thought you thought it was overrated by comparing it to other movies, especially the classics which you mentioned (except for Spirit of God which I am not familiar with). It's difficult to discuss different genres when we are discussing top movies in general then. Based on a comic book/graphic novel/superhero/action movie, TDK was one of the best movies of all time. It transcended its genre based on the plot, characters and personalities being shown, cinematography, sound, special effects, and so on. It "Won 2 Oscars. Another 153 wins & 159 nominations." according to IMDB. That's not overrated. I thought it won over the critics from their reviews on Rotten Tomatoes.
I was just saying even if you gave it a '1' because you think TDK is overrated, it still wouldn't change the high position on IMDB. TDK also got a good rating from both critics and the audience on Rotten Tomatoes. They're the two aggregator sites that seem to have the most members or audience. RT has the actual critics who write professionally, so it is another consideration and may have a leg up on IMDB because of it. Thus, RT is another argument for TDK not being "overrated." (Yet, if look at their overall top movies, it is very strange; I don't understand it. https://www.rottentomatoes.com/top/bestofrt/). Thus, I tend to go with IMDB and this forum seems to go with that, too.
Long conversations and getting in deep about films is kinda why I'm here; I appreciate the chats.
Whoops! Should have put "City of God". Yar! That be a typo!
Sure, it is super-difficult to parse genre when talking about "best ever" movies. I agree. All of this is just shots in the dark at best, if not downright impossible.
My point is that I think TDK is overrated because of this hype we're discussing. Since there are these rankings of films like the IMDb Top 250 which do not discriminate for genre, people (general opinion) puts TDK as one of the best films of all-time (number 4 or something?) and I say that that's not working for me. I think it's overrated because people are valuing it at a higher degree than the film itself deserves. I know that's subjective, I know the genre tripwire is there - but overrated or underrated are, to me, completely subjective anyway.
The question might read, "Do you think that the general opinion about this film is bang-on or rated too highly or lowly?" And I'd say, "The latter, and it's too high in the esteem of most people."
Personally, I don't think it transcended its genres (since it's as much a crime-thriller as a "superhero" movie) by a lot. Yes, maybe a little, but not by enough to warrant the over-abundance of love.
A lot of people disagree with me, that's cool. But this thread was asking for opinions and I gave mine.
First, let's get the genre right. You mention crime thriller and it is, but it's not like the norm of crime thrillers when the protagonist and antagonist are wearing a superhero costume and lots of makeup and his own villain costume. It isn't based on a true story. Other elements are there such as gangsters, but usually gangsters do not kill each other during the crime to get more profits.
TDK is bang spot on with its rating because of what I already mentioned and people are comparing it with the other top movies. They can see the other top movies and move the ranking up or down appropriately. Now, where there could be shenanigans, and I agree on this, is when the movie first comes out and fan boys vote more than once for their favorite in order to send it to the top. That is bias and these superhero films based on graphic novels and such are ripe with teenage or less mature fan boys. Anything goes when the movie first comes out and it's a hit. That said, the film is balanced out with the critics opinions and more adult opinions as they come forth. I think TDK has stood the test of time now so that it has adjusted itself to where it belongs. The general public and critics have compared TDK to the other top films and have ranked it accordingly.
Genre is incredibly subjective and seems to endlessly alter and split into new subgenres. What is a "superhero movie" anyway? Batman '89 is a stylized world influenced by German expressionism and horror movies, while Logan draws from Westerns and road trip narratives. Does Dick Tracy count?
I didn't say it was a cut-and-paste crime thriller. It obviously combos some genres (superhero/comic book, crime, thriller, etc.), and it bends rules and breaks others. That doesn't mean it catapults itself outside of its general genre, or "transcends" too far (I'd go with crime-thriller and/or superhero if it needs must be categorised). And I did says "genres", acknowledging the mixture.
Doesn't mean it's a paint by numbers example of a crime thriller, either. And, for what it's worth, I'm pretty sure gangsters kill each other to get more profits a lot, and just doing it slightly earlier (mid-crime) isn't enough to "elevate the film" (and, by the way, is pretty bad planning since each corpse gives more clues as to who was recruited, when, and therefore, by whom).
The fact that TDK is thought of so highly is what makes me say it's overrated. I think most people over-hype it. You and I obviously disagree as to the amount of hype it deserves, but I think most people have elevated it in their minds to a place beyond what it merits. I still love the movie and think it's one of the best superhero films, etc., I just think it's overrated.
Your "crime thriller" would be The Godfather franchise. Those are the movies that TDK is battling with TG1 and TG2 just above TDK in fourth place. I think TDK moved ahead of the both when it first came out. I don't think that's being overrated. What's overrated are the LOTR franchise and Forrest Gump even though Gump was very popular when it came out. I can rewatch FG, but not the LOTR franchise -- https://www.imdb.com/chart/top. How could the ring fail Sauron and then the son within the first few minutes?
shareExactly. The Dark Knight is not the fourth best movie of all time. At least, not by my reckoning.
But, okay, if we compensate the IMDb top 250 for just crime-thriller type films, TDK is behind the Godfather. Sure, but it's ahead of Pulp Fiction, Goodfellas, Fight Club, City of God, Silence of the Lambs, Leon: The Professional, The Usual Suspects, The Departed, Rear Window, Vertigo, Sunset Blvd., Reservoir Dogs, Touch of Evil, and The Maltese Falcon.
I think it's overrated. You think Lord of the Rings is overrated. Okay, we differ. That's fine.
But the reason I think it's overrated is because people are putting it on a pedestal above A Clockwork Orange, North by Northwest, Taxi Driver, Heat, and Yojimbo. Or how about The Third Man?
Forrest Gump was pretty overrated for years, too, although the general public perception has been beating it down for a few years now.
No, they are some of the greatest movies ever created.
shareThat doesn't mean they can't be overrated. Something can be AMAZING but still overrated. People just have to think their more amazing than they are.
Although, to that point: I do think they're overrated, and it's precisely because a lot of people say they are some of the greatest movies ever created. They're great, but not quite that level.
I don't get how you say the dark Knight doesn't transcend it's genre. It's far more than just a good superhero movie. An example of a safe superhero film is something like captain America first avenger or Thor. Those movies meet expectations but do not succeed them. Tdk surpasses expectations and it is what put comic book movies in the conversation of being considered for the best picture nomination. Other film makers such as Sam Mendes take inspiration from tdk and as claimed earlier Ledger is truly a magnificent performance. To this day it's considered the best comic book movie ever. Logan is also a great flick but how does that transcend the genre and tdk does not?
shareThe Dark Knight is a top-grade superhero film, but I didn't find that it "escaped" from the standard conventions of the genre. That's just my opinion. It's certainly a "slider scale". Like, The Dark Knight is more creative and original than Captain America, yes, but I didn't find it brought anything really new to the table. I could be persuaded to say that it transcends slightly, if that makes you sleep better at night. But ultimately it was Heat + Batman, which...okay, that's cool, but it was still mostly resting comfortably in action film territory.
Logan, on the other hand, felt like it was never focused on the superheroics as much as it was focused on Logan's personal journey. It was telling a family story, blending in other genres (drama, road trip, family picture in a weird way, and western), and using meta stuff to cool effect (when Logan acknowledges comics and films and says that they're exaggerated, that's *interesting*). Logan did a lot that was really on another level.
Ledger's performance is magnificent. Other filmmakers should take note of The Dark Knight. Just because it wasn't one of the rare transcendent films doesn't mean it wasn't amazing.
A lot of people say it's the best comic book movie ever, and they think it should have been nominated for the Best Picture Award at the Academy. And that's exactly why I think it's overrated. I don't think it deserves the nomination, I prefer both Burton bat-flicks over this one, not to mention other comic book films like Logan. So, that's exactly why I say it's overrated: its reputation is grander than it is in and of itself.
The Dark Knight was the first superhero film to actually have the guts to kill off the love interest. Showcasing tragic failure. I am not talking about someone making a sacrifice for the hero but a tragic failure for the hero. No other superhero film prior to that had the guts to ever do anything like that. Second Heat was the inspiration of the film that does not mean it completely ripped it off. The overall look and aesthetic is similar but in the end the villain actually wins honestly.
Logan is children of men with Wolverine. It mixed in lots of genres but it still if you want to call TDK derivative of Heat then Logan is derivative of Children of Men. It was a very good film I loved it but in the end to let Logan get a pass where TDK does not is silly.
This is usually used to undermine TDK.
The Burton Batman films I find overrated personally. I think they get more credit for being the first dark comic book film rather than how they work as films themselves. Thing is people will always use the excuse of Ledger's death being the reason people give the edge to TDK in ratings. Well this point has been debunked. Batman Begins creams any Burton film critically. Check Rottentomatoes or metacritic. Also it creams it by not just critics but by audience score. This was before TDK was even thought of. Then the excuse well the Burton Batman films are older therefore they will not score as high critically excuse. Superman the movie scores higher than Batman Begins critically. Audience wise Superman the movie also scores higher than any Burton Batman film.
I personally grew up on Burton's Batman films and was never that impressed. Style over substance. Not to mention the side characters such as commissioner Gordon are literally card board cut outs. The side characters in the Nolan films mainly commissioner Gordon actually have an arc. I never understood why Nolan gets flak for changing the course material but Burton gets a free pass. Joker being Bruce's parents killer was such a Hollywood forced cliche.
I disagree with you. I think Logan had a lot more depth and power than The Dark Knight did.
I must repeat myself now: yes, I know that Nolan's films are highly rated, particularly The Dark Knight. I think they are rated more highly than they deserve.
The original question here is: are these movies overrated?
I think they are rated more highly than they deserve. So, I said "yes". What are you trying to prove? The fact that they have such high ratings was my point to begin with.
You love these movies? Great. That's cool. You don't think they're overrated. Are you trying to talk me into agreeing with you? My personal taste is that Logan is, in my opinion, the best comic book movie to date, and that Burton's Batman films are better than Nolan's - great though they may be.
I have no issue with you taking Logan over TDK but to call TDK derivative of Heat while not calling out Logan for being derivative of Children of Men is silly.
I completely disagree with you there. Batman Begins is the prime example of how to do a reboot correctly. In an era of Superman Returns, Amazing Spider-man, Man of Steel, and Star Wars the Force Awakens. Batman Begins does not clone the past films and does something completely new and original with it's character. Unlike the films I listed before. It does not play it safe and took many risks. Is it flawed? Sure but in the end it is a very solid film.
Overrated I have an issue with in general because it usually equates to someone not enjoying a film everyone else loves. For instance I do not like Pulp Fiction but I do not call it overrated simply because I do not enjoy it.
No one can take your personal taste away from you. I am calling out criticism that is hypocritical. You may like the Burton films better but in the end the Nolan films are seen as better films. I like Kill Bill better than Pulp Fiction but Pulp Fiction is seen as the better film.
I don't think Logan is as derivative of CoM as TDK is of Heat, and I think it affects my thoughts of the film more negatively because the borrowed aesthetic elements of Heat don't mesh as well with Batman as Children of Men does with Logan.
From my original post: "Batman Begins might actually be underrated." As a trilogy, I think they're overrated, but Begins is pretty great and disappeared while all the love goes to TDK and Rises.
My criticism isn't hypocritical and I resent you calling me a hypocrite. I'm not sure what other rubric you would use to define it other than personal taste. I'm also confused as to what your definition of "overrated" means if not something highly regarded and undeserving of that level of regard. "Overrated" is my personal taste and opinion because it - by definition - means I think the majority's hype isn't accurate.
How do the aesthetics of Heat not mesh with TDK? Batman is by nature a crime drama. That fits his comic book roots, check out the Long Halloween or Dark Victory. I disagree I think Logan is just as derivative of Children of Men as TDK is of Heat.
Also not true. Batman Begins is higher rated by audience over TDKR on Rotttentomatoes, and metacritic. The only area TDKR wins by audience is on imdb. This shows there is still is love for Batman Begins.
I think your criticism is hypocritical. I said why I hate the term overrated. I hate it because most of the time it translates to people not enjoying something everyone else does. Like I said I do not like Pulp Fiction but I do not call it overrated. I am honestly not trying to antagonize but let me ask a question. Why is Batman begins rated higher than any Burton Batman film?
I don't know what overrated could possibly mean other than somebody thinking that the general love or hate towards a property or work of art was greater or lesser than deserved. You might not like it, but there it is.
If you're not trying to antagonise, then may I suggest not calling people hypocrites? I don't care for it, as I've said, and if that's the tone this conversation is going to take, I'd just as soon not have it.
Then any film I do not enjoy that gets high rating I will call overrated.
Okay my bad. Care to answer my questions or you done?
Sure:
I think Batman is a gothic world, with brick and stone and "New York". Heat's aesthetic is glass, steel, a little concrete, and it's a lot slicker and shinier and more "Los Angeles". The Dark Knight squelched a lot of Batman's aesthetics and traded in Heat's look and "vibe". Batman Begins had more of the Bat-atmosphere because of stuff like The Narrows and actually having a Batcave. That's why I think Heat's "vibe" is more wrong here.
Batman Begins is rated higher than the Burton films because, in general, audiences, critics, etc., gave it a higher rating. That I disagree with this is the whole crux of why I've been calling it overrated.
I asked a question as well: if overrated doesn't mean "I disagree with the general rating of a film", what does it mean?
See I do not follow that logic. You have in your mind what Batman should be therefore if it does not fit that it is wrong. Just because you disagree with something doesn't make it wrong. I enjoy the Gothic stuff as much as the next guy. Batman has too many interpretations to just fit one description though. Burton's vision was gothic, Then we went to the Joel Schumacher aesthetic which was bright, neon, colorful and campy very reminiscent of Adam West, then to Nolan which was modern and realistic.
Right so this debunks the Nolan films having an edge because of Ledger's death like many try to claim. Sorry I know this is annoying but I am used to people using that excuse as a means to demean the Nolan films and prop up Burton's films. Tell me how did you like Burton's take on Gordon? I thought Nolan waxed him in that department.
Overrated means to me that you honestly do not think the film deserves it's praise, not simply that you do not enjoy it. I do not enjoy Pulp Fiction but I can totally see why it gets it's praise and it deserves it. Most of the time if someone doesn't enjoy something it does not deserve praise. I just get sick of that. Tell me do you have the ability to admit a film is better than a film you love? Or can you not separate your bias?
I think it's possible to do something antithetical to source material and have it work, but it's rare. I think Batman works better with a Gothic/New York style than a Los Angeles style - as with Heat/The Dark Knight. I don't think all versions of Batman are created equal and some arrive at the, shall we say, Platonian ideal of the character. For instance, you *could* do a remake of Godzilla where the eponymous monster was a weird dinosaur-iguana thing, but it doesn't bring out the themes and ideas of the character as well as other versions. I particularly think this of TDK since Batman Begins gave us locations like The Narrows which establish that more Gothic aesthetic, so for the same series to switch looks so drastically is a bit jarring. I'm not saying it can't be done, I'm saying it wasn't optimal here.
I have never and would never attribute the love of TDK to Ledger's death alone, although it certainly did receive a higher profile because of that tragedy.
I would agree that Nolan (or, perhaps Oldman...) got Gordon really well. But surely a frumpier, dumpier police chief isn't "wrong" just because we prefer it the other way...right...?
We strangely seem to agree on overrated, which baffles me because I've been taking flak this whole time because you're saying it's my subjective opinion, when that is, intrinsically, the nature of thinking something is over/underrated.
I have my guilty pleasures. I know when films I love or prefer aren't as good as some others. But that's not what I'm saying here. I'm saying that I think TDK is being treated as a transcendent film experience which gets rated on IMDb, for instance, as being better than Seven Samurai. On the basis of the data of its quality vs. how lauded it has become, I would posit that it has received a kind of reverence that is over and beyond what it "deserves" in terms of praise.
So, in a nutshell: yes, I think I can separate out my biases and understand when something I prefer isn't necessarily "better".
Godzilla from 1998 was a bad movie for many reasons. What matters is execution. You simply have a preference of the new york gothic look for Batman. I like the Gothic stuff to but that does not mean it is required in order for it to work in a film. Logan nor any X-men movies have Wolverine in his yellow spandex, nor are anyof the characters as colorful as their comic book counterparts in the X-men films. See this is where I have issues with people. What matters more the themes or the aesthetic? Second very rarely do films follow the comic book to the letter. Sin City is one of the few examples of translating a comic book verbatim on the big screen. That was not an adaption but a translation. That typically does not occur. When it comes to Burton people let the themes slide simply because he got their preferred aesthetic. I could take that mentality the other way and say since they have my preferred theme I do not care about the aesthetic. You can have stuff from comics or be comic book accurate and it still be bad. BVS throws in constant comic book references and fumbles miserably.
Okay then answer this how highly would TDK be rated if you take away ledger's death?
It is not the fact that Gordon is frumpy and dumpy, it is the fact he literally has no effect on the plot at all. Even if you take my preference away one is a character the other is a cardboard cutout. No one calls Burton's vision on this. See I am willing to call out weaknesses and strengths to both visions. I rarely see people who are objective when it comes to their preferred vison.
Something being overrated means more than you just do not personally enjoy it. For most though it is as simple as that.
That is why I look outside of imdb. If you look at audience score outside of imdb Batman Begins edges out TDKR. Which is why when you said Begins is forgotten about I disagreed with that statement.
I will be honest it does not seem that way to me. Tell me some films you do not enjoy that are highly regarded that you would not call overrated.
Theme is more important, but aesthetic and visuals are an integral part of film. So it matters to me. I'm not asking for Sin City (or Dick Tracy, which I prefer personally for "living comic book film") every time. I'm saying that when Gotham reflects Batman's psyche, it visually presents information and conveys theme without speaking a word.
I think TDK would be similarly rated. It might take a slight hit (1 or 2% off of its rating), and I think it wouldn't have received the same level of hype (again, reduced by a similarly small amount). I would guess Ledger wouldn't have won the Academy Award if he hadn't died, but that's not reflective of the movie, but the Academy's political machinations.
You're implying that Nolan's film is superior because of stuff like the treatment of Gordon, but the focus isn't on Gordon. You are just as guilty of personally prioritizing elements of the work.
I'm not going to start naming films and getting deeper into this. I know who I am and that I'm telling the truth on this point. Quite frankly, I don't care whether you believe me or not.
It is a preference. You prefer Batman in a Gothic setting. That is not a requirement.
I think Ledger still would have won the Oscar. Phoenix won the Oscar for Joker. Thing is a bad guy that is iconic winning an Oscar is not unheard of. Now for a comic book film it is but the mold was going to be broken sooner or later. So while I can agree it would not have been as hyped I disagree I think Ledger would have won still. Thing is this is all speculation. There is no way to prove this one way or the other.
Nope I said that is an aspect he did better than Burton. Not once did I say his version is better simply because of that. Just because the focus is not on Gordon does not mean he is not a pivotal character in the mythos. Nolan made him an actual character Burton made him a cardboard cut out.
Which proves my point. I am not asking for a list a mile long. Even just one would suffice. Suit yourself though.
Again: it's about evoking the essence of the character using visuals, which is a staple of film. I think TDK was bland and brought nothing with aesthetics one way or the other, and so does not succeed in that way.
It's possible he would have won, but impossible to say for certain. But, yeah, Ledger's death was a boost in profile (brought more ink to the lead up to the film, hyped it, etc., and predisposed audiences to hop on-board), but Ledger's performance was so good it would have worked anyway. Side note: a truly lost talent with his death.
Which essence of the character dude? You know how many interpetations of Batman there are? You think TDK was bland. I personally think it has great cinematography and is well edited. Let me ask why does Logan not get this flak when the muted tone of the X-men films does not capture the aesthetic at all of the comic book x-men?
I can agree with you on this point actually. Yeah it sucks his career was just getting started. I honestly think he would have been the lead in Inception had he not passed. Not that Leo was bad or anything I just think Ledger would have been in more Nolan films had he not passed.
I don't think TDK was bland, I think the aesthetic was ho-hum. It doesn't have to match the comics, any of them, but it didn't even match the Gothic atmosphere of stuff like the Narrows in its own series.
Logan's internal themes match its aesthetic.
Ledger would certainly have gotten more play in Nolan's films. Nolan's got his favourites and Ledger couldn't possibly have been anything but reused. Unless Nolan hated working with him, which I highly doubt.
The Dark Knight Rises, I think, would have been vastly different if Ledger had survived. My best guess is that Bane would have released The Joker at some point, either early on to torment and weaken Batman's body and spirit (in place of the stock market crash stuff perhaps), or later as he "takes" Gotham, possibly even intending to capture or kill the Joker to confuse the loyalties of Gotham's citizens.
However he was used, I have a feeling that the plan was to bring him back. I also think the storyline might have worked better with the Joker involved, since my suspicion is that they had to alter plans to fit with the shift in cast.
So because of a switch in tone slightly we are marking it down? I thought we measured films individually?
By your logic though since Logan does not match the previous aesthetic of the series it needs to be marked down for that.
Yep Nolan reuses actors constantly. Bale, Caine, Hardy, Murphy etc.
I do agree I think TDKR had to be retooled because Ledger's death threw a wrench in the cog. If you look at Joker and the league of shadows they are polar opposites. Joker is an agent of chaos and Ras al Ghul/Bane are about perfect order. The reason why Bane and Ras believe society is too far gone is because of criminals like the Joker. Which is why they want to destroy society and start from the ground up. Honestly I think this had lots of potential.
I might argue that a trilogy of films should have some continuity.
Logan identifies the old stories (comics, films) as being lies based on truth, so it doesn't have to exactly mimic the aesthetic there. It's pretty standalone.
So much potential, yeah. My vote for the third film, though, was always Black Mask. First film: gangsters, second film: masked crazy, third film: masked crazy gangster. Bane makes sense because of what he means for the Bat-mythos (he broke the Bat!), and the League of Shadows brought it full-circle, but I didn't need the League back since they were absent in the second film, and Bane I think needs a couple movies to tell the story properly. As over-stuffed/lengthy as TDKR wound up being, it still feels rushed from "crippled paralytic Bruce" to "fully healed Batman who can crush the guy who beat him pre-crippling".
Then how do you prefer the trilogy of the Burton Batman linked with Batman Forever? Batman Forever is a drastic change in tone and aesthetic. Also no I disagree that does not have to happen. It is nice for continuity but also not a requirement. The only thing that shifts is the aesthetic slightly everything else remains intact. With Batman forever not only does the tone change, the aesthetic changes drastically, and so does the theme. To me it is like Terminator and Terminator 2. Terminator has more of a horror. indie, apocalyptic vibe, the second is more of a big budget action blockbuster. Similar to Alien. The first is a basic haunted house film. where as the second is action blockbuster with horror elements. Both still manage greatness. Same goes for TDK.
No actually Logan is a continuation of everything that came before. The only way that movie truly works is knowing everything Charles and Logan went through. I completely disagree with that. Logan even acknowledges the characters that came before and what they went through in previous films.
I have no issue with Bane being the villain. Problem with black mask is you have to make it an origin story about him. Nolan's films if you noticed were not origin stories about how the villains came to be, they were that way from the start and you got maybe tiny bits of their stories. Joker had no background story, Ras had a slight one and so did Bane. There stories are only alluded to by flashbacks not delved into. Burton's films are more origin stories for the villains where as Nolan's is not.
It doesn't have to happen, but it helps. It's a slight dock against The Dark Knight that is one of the factors contributing to why I think it's overrated.
As to why I prefer the Burton films plus Forever, I like Batman and Batman Returns more than BB/ TDK, and although I don't like Batman Forever very much, I really thought TDKR was a letdown. That's just my personal taste, though, obviously.
I don't disagree with your assessment of changing tones in Alien and Terminator franchises either. I also very much prefer Alien to Aliens, and I would squeak Terminator over T2.
Logan acknowledges what went before, but the tonal shift is explained by the time gap, the world itself shifting. Furthermore, as I mentioned, the film itself goes slightly meta with this line, "Oh yeah, Charles, We have ourselves an X-Man fan. You do know they are all bullshit, right? Maybe a quarter of it happens, and not like this." To me, that's the movie saying, "The reason this movie has a different vibe is because we're saying those other movies' stories might have happened, but you watched the fiction; this is bedrock truth." So that's why the tonal shift worked for me.
I didn't have an issue with Bane as the villain, although I was a bit let down when he was just another League of Shadows henchman.
Point well-taken, Black Mask would need an explanation. But I think they could cover it fast, having Roman Sionis show up to a mobster meeting and don the skull mask to show how hardcore he is, or how he's declaring war on the Bat or whatever. It wouldn't have to be a big thing. I mean, it's pure speculation, so it could have been great, dreadful, or anywhere in-between. I just thought that a mask/mob connection would have sewn all the loose ends together.
See but I do not see that way. I judge a film individually not by something so slight as a little change in aesthetic. To me this sounds like a preference. Basically if something changes aesthetic slightly it does not matter how good it is it will get docked a point simply because it does not carry the exact continuity aesthetic down to a letter. You may judge films like that I do not.
TDKR being a letdown I get but again Batman Forever violates your rule book far more than TDK and TDKR do. As a trilogy TDK trilogy runs circles around that one when judging tone consistency as well as aesthetic consistency. If it were just Batman begins and TDK vs the Burton Batman films that would one thing but throw in Forever and that drags it down far worse than TDKR.
Then would you call Terminator 2, and Aliens overrated? Terminator 2 edges out Terminator one by users and critically it is a toss up. Alien and Alien again are very close and it is debatable on which one is better. So close to call it. What I am getting at it is you are apparently in the minority with having this problem.
See that reminds me of when people give Deadpool 2 a slide for being cliche simply because it is self aware and acknowledged it through a line of dialogue. Okay you are self aware and acknowledged it, that does not make the cliche go away simply because you addressed it. I do not need to be told why the aesthetic changed slightly, what matters to me is if the film is good or not. Even with Batman and Batman Returns you can tell there was a very slight change. You can tell Burton had more creative control over Returns than he did Batman 1989. Returns you can tell had more of Burton's fingerprints on it and it is for better or for worse.
I have no issue with him belonging to the league of shadows it ties into the first one nicely. Continuity remember?
The problem with Black Mask is you need him to tie into Bruce when he was young. I do not want him to be a throwaway mobster esque villain I feel he has more depth than that.
Okay, I was typing up a multi-paragraph response trying to explain myself and how I think you're misunderstanding what I'm saying and clarifying a dozen points that didn't come across, and I realised that I've gotten really bored with this conversation.
It feels like I'm constantly being baited into saying something you will say is dumb and it just feels like I'm trying to sort my way through a minefield and nothing feels in "good faith", and I asked myself: "For what? To what end?"
I don't have good answers to those questions.
Thus, respectfully, I'm done with this conversation. It just feels unpleasant and I don't want to continue with it. I'm happy to converse elsewhere here on other topics, but not this one (and not if it's going to be a rehash of this). This is taking up too much of my time and it clearly isn't going anywhere. It's a bad conversation and that's the antithesis of why I come here; I'm done.
Okay but I find it interesting you still carry on conversations with moviechatuser497. That is the definition of a blind Nolan fanboy. Anyway later.
shareI think Batman Begins and The Dark Knight are two of the best action movies in the last 20 years. I think Rises is a cash grab that was thrown together and feels like it.
shareWith Rises, I think they might have had a plan in 2008 where to go with the Joker storyline and they wound up needing to re-write and re-shape the film and it never quite "worked", but they threw in a bunch of stuff and went with it.
It also felt to me a bit like they wanted a trilogy, but they realised there was so much Bat-mythos that was left out, so they were going, "Oh, how do we get Catwoman in here? Should we have Robin? Yes/No...?" and wound up cramming it full of stuff.
Batman the animated series is the best non comic book portrayal of Batman. These movies were just not that great.
shareI'll never forget some of those episodes. The introduction of the Mad Hatter has an ending that's just bleak and awful for basically everyone. Almost every character in the episode is unhappy, their dreams and happy illusions marred or broken, and Batman is just standing there, an aloof spectre of justice and judgement. He plays the role of dream-shatterer as much as anyone else, and it's grim business - he doesn't like it necessarily - but it has to be done.
They did that in a "kids'" cartoon.
Of course, there are many, many brilliant episodes. They re-wrote Mr. Freeze with a backstory 100x greater than the one he was created with, and they brought Harley Quinn to life; she is now one of the most beloved Batman characters of all-time.
The voice cast are more-or-less impeccable, and they even pulled off Robin (in small doses) without sacrificing the grim and sombre tone.
Yeah, hard to argue with that...
Not the best in cinema history. I liked them all except the "The Dark Knight Rises"
shareA troll out for lunch.
share