The Dark Knight - [spoilers ahead, ye be warned]
 

There have been some early screenings of this one.
There is even talk about Ledger being nominated for an Oscar already.

I am looking forward to seeing this one.

I'm almost geeking out about it.

When do tickets go on sale, anyone know? I want to be at prime opening show full of fans!


(Yes, it transformed Craptacular Indy 4 into one of my favorite movie experiences of the year ... so any chance I have to attend the fan-filled opening of a fanboy film, I take it!)

I must admit I love the voice Ledger is using in the trailers. It seems absolutely perfect. Restrained and yet still unabashedly insane.

The midnight shows at the Arclight Hollywood are already sold out.
Tick tock tick tock...

The Arclight is NOT the fan show. Fans never go there, because of the reserved seat policy that makes it difficult to go with a large group of friends.

I don't want to go to a midnight showing, but I definitely want to go opening weekend, likely on Saturday so Tom can see it with me.

We're in for a first weekend showing - but the midnight one won't work for us either. H can't stay out that late on a school night.

GC:

Say... Saturday afternoon? No? Sigh...

(Boy, Tom's schedule sure makes things wonky. Drasted editing job that pays well and keeps us in the $1400 airline tickets... Drasted airline that makes us pay that much for tickets...)

The opening weekend is the same as San Diego Comic Con so all the "Geeks" will be seeing it down there. :)

I was excited about the last one, Batman Begins - but am very passive about this one from what I've seen. Partly because we've already seen the Joker / Harvey Dent in the first Burton Batman movie (Etc etc, blah blah blah)so this is a remake in its basic form. But mostly because I think Heath Ledger and his untimely death will overshadow the film. I hope it doesnt' but those chances are slim.

What date does it open?

A Saturday afternoon/early evening with dinner after (I'd say the reverse, but this is LoT we're talking about). And maybe something not as far as SO or Hollywood? There's a theater in the shopping center not to far from LAX. I think it's an AMC? Not very swanky but kinda in the center of everyone.

Opens this coming weekend!
Only 15 reviews in at rt.com giving it a 100% so far. Too early to predict what the consensus will be...

Can't wait to see it. Can't wait to see it...

The rating will be high but it looks like David Edelstein (New York, formerly at Slate) will get the first rotten. His review went out today.

And David Ansen (Newsweek) is pretty split.

But I'm avoiding reviews too so I don't know exactly what they say, just seen them mentioned as being less than ecstatic.

89% for TDK

Plotwise? kinda rambling.

Themewise? kinda brilliant.

sigh, i don't like Christian Bale as Batman.


Heath Ledger is a god.

This is the first movie in a long time that I have been willing to battle an opening day crowd for. Seeing it tonight and am looking forward to it.

I loved Bale as Batman in Batman Begins. I hated Clooney, Kilmer, and....um...wow.....drawing a blank on the other....in the other Batman movies. Of course, I hated all of those movies anyway.

Heheh, that was Michael Keaton. Best.Batman.Ever.



CB's 'Batman voice' is just too much. Oh, and i fault the costume designer for this, but the cowl looks silly on him throughout the movie.

The only thing I liked about any of the earlier Batman movies was looking at Nicole Kidman in whichever one she was in. Mmm-mmm-mmm.

Tell the truth, you're wearing your batman underwear today aren't you?

Truthfully? I'm wearing Sponge Bob boxers today.

I think this review really nails it.

No, I think he's probably more of an angel now.

Hahahaha:

To quote the LolCats: "I can haz pikturez pleez?" :evil:

ISM used the word that came to mind as the credits rolled on Dark Knight:

Brilliant!



9 Bornieos

That was spectacular.

Pretty much fantastic. The only quibble is that the Batman growl was just so horrible that it was really distracting. And it probably could have been a bit shorter but I'm not upset by how long it was.

But I can't immediately think of anything else that bothers me about it.

And oh

The Batman growl was my second-biggest complaint.




Minor complaints, though. Overall, I loved the film.

Surprisingly one thing that I bitch about most in these types of movies didn't bother me at all:

$66.4 mil for TDK's opening day.

Another boo for the batgrowl. Otherwise, had a lot of fun. Ledger absolutely NAILED and KILLED. Oldman continues to be amazing, loved Eckhart.

TDK sets opening-weekend box office record of $155.34 mil. - Breaking News on CNN.com.
:eek:

Loved it!

The batgrowl was a bit much towards the end. Didn't bother me until then.

I don't follow the comic book at all, so I have no idea how close it is to it. It was a beautiful movie as well. Our IMAX screen wasn't "typical" but man it was gorgeous to watch.

Had a hard time sleeping last night too.

I think I was also tensed up during most of the movie, which made it hard to relax.

Really? People don't like Gyllenhaal? I think she was 100 times better than Holmes (and, actually 100 times more attractive.)

It's the end of the weekend... we're still using spoiler tags? I don't think any opinions need to go in them anymore - maybe plot twists still do, though.

I really enjoyed the film. I was riveted the whole time. Ledger made interesting and brave choices and further proved that he left us as he was really getting into his performance groove.

Yeah, ditto, Maggie over Katie. Though ...

I very much enjoyed it, but I think it fell short of the lofty heights of the first. It came together at the end, but lacked the cohesiveness that made Begins so brilliant. Plus, I fund myself thinking half way through, "Geez, this is reminding me of the Saw movies. Oh wait, that's right, Nolan's the Saw guy." While his brand of ever-more-complex clever traps certainly work for the character of the Joker, I felt Nolan put just a little too much of himself into it and it became more about how clever HE could be and less about the movies. Took me out of it and added tot he lack of cohesion as huge chunks of the movie felt like they weren't really serving any other purpose than to be clever. Contrasted with Begins where every moment of the movie served the purpose of the movie it was just weak.

But, as I said, it did come together in the end and overall it was great. Ledger ruled, Dent was great, better towards the end imo.

I never understood the Holmes hate in the first movie. It was a small role and she did a perfectly fine job with it. Gyllenhall bugged me quite a bit compared to Holmes.

Where Begins got 9.5 Girthies out of 10, this one comes in somewhere between 7 and 8.5, pending an eventual rewatch.

More than ever, I'm glad I never saw any of the Saw movies.


I had no idea Christopher Nolan had anything to do with those. Hmm.

The thing that bothered me most about the 89 Burton Batman was that the Joker died. If you grasp the 50 plus year history of the characters you know that when Joker dies, so does Batman because they are each other's direct opposite. So, I'm glad he didn't bite it in this film. For Batman to go on, the Joker needs too also in some way.

Two-Face was fairly accurate, though in the comic he was more of a playboy than what we saw in the film and his motivations didn't involve the death of his girlfriend. Originally, he was just another throwaway villian and he really didn't come into his own until the mid 80's, though he first appeared back in the 50's. In the comics he was scarred by acid. I think in Dark Knight they gave him alot more depth than the comics ever did.

:) Batman 101

I've seen the first 3 Saw movies, and didn't see a resemblance until GD mentioned it. I think it's a stretch, and the closest thing would be the .

Psst - GD never saw them either.

They had to recast since Holmes bowed out. And...

Christopher Nolan was involved with the Saw movies? I looked him up on imdb. Didn't see Saw appear under his list of credits...
:confused:

(see saw... lol!)

Oh, embarrassingly enough I haven't seen TDK yet. I'm going tonight. I'll be able to jump into the discussion of the film later this evening.
:blush:

Oops, nevermind. I thought I'd remembered seeing that, guess I was wrong.

Well, incorrect credit on my part notwithstanding, my reaction remains. Too much time spent on overly complex back and forth of "Save this person, which puts that person in danger, and catch this person which only gives them the chance to free these people, putting that first person back in danger..." etc. It got wearisome.

Great movie.

Disliked the Bat-growl voice as well.

Did not see politics in the movie-not everything is a reflection on politics.

Found it painful to look at Dent's face- incredible effect.

I found Rachel to look haggard, and not at all attractive.

Going again on Tuesday-

GD, I disagree with you completely. There was really no plot to this movie, and instead we got what I found to be a suitable replacement - fantastic attention to the theme of moral dilemma.

And just as Batman's and Dent's dilemma's were crime fighting ethics (and thus naturally veered into Bush territory), the Joker's foisted dilemma's seemed very natural as human-nature experiments with death dealing.


I also don't understand how you can have the "I saw it in Saw" reaction if you've never seen the Saw movies. But your visceral reaction is your own. I might have the same under different circumstances, but I try really hard not to fault any art for doing what's done before, as long as it's done well.

Everything's been done before. If I feel that something has been done before a little too much, it just points up how provincial my experience with art / movies / music really is. It's all been done ad infinitum.




* * * *

I hope that^ was not too spoilerish. I intend to stop using tags completely starting tomorrow. Anyone who's so interested in not being spoiled, but they'd read this thread anyway is responsible for seeing the movie opening weekend or risk being spoiled.

Oh, I get that. I just thought there was just too much of it. Trim out one or two twists and I'd have loved it, but it just seemed to go on and on without adding any depth.

I really, really liked this one. I liked it better than Begins.
Heath Ledger was stunningly good in this. Bornieo may not see an Oscar for Ledger, but I do. Truly.

Christian Bales' "Bat Growl" isn't menacing, it sounds like he's got strep throat.

I liked this one way better than Batman Begins.

For one thing, I liked that it just took place in the real world. There were no signs of the fantasy Gotham from the last film. Just real city streets and locations. There were no MegaManiac plots by the villians or villains with quasi-super-powers.


It may have been implied that the Joker represented some kind of supernatural force of evil, but he was presented as a criminal psychopath operating in the real world.

I really liked the shift towards reality. Batman Begins took place in a world much more real than Burton's Gotham, but The Dark Knight took that four more steps closer to real reality and I liked it!

* * * * *

Um, I'm pretty sure everyone on the LoT who wanted to see this has now done so. I'm done using spoiler tags. If there are "stragglers" who don't want to be spoiled, why would they be reading this thread? No more tags.

I must post that I did not like any of the Batman movies (late 80's, early 90's). I wasn't blown away with the first Batman like everyone else was and I thought Returns was really bad and then they just got worse from there...

Heheh, I still think Batman Returns is the best Batman movie by far.


I'm so relieved Gemini Cricket and I are miles apart on this. At least something is normal tonight.

I'm with you. They were all crap.

Then change the title of the thread. I don't see how it's that hard to discuss a film without giving away major plot points.

I haven't seen the film and won't physically be able to do so for several more weeks.

Ok, yes, please change the title of the thread.


I think it goes without saying that a movie thread will not have spoiler tags forever. Yes, at some point the title should be changed. I hope someone who retains the power to do that ... will.

This after saying that DK's move towards a more realistic world was a good thing? :p

I'm still giving the edge to Begins as a far more well constructed movie. There are elements of DK I like better, but the whole package just wasn't as well executed.

See, and I thought that Begins did a FAR superior job of attending to its theme, fear, than DK AND it had a plot.

I'm not sure that Fantasy Batman is better or worse than Reality Batman. In fact, I'm quite sure that, imo, one style is not better than the other.


But just as I think Burton did Fantasy Batman better in Batman Returns than in Batman, I feel Nolan did Reality Batman better in The Dark Knight than in Batman Begins.


And was Fear the theme of Batman Begins? I honestly wasn't aware of that. So pretty weak theme, in my perception. But, yes, a definite plot. And I appreciated that. It was just way more of a Fantasy Batman plot with Reality Batman trimmings.

I found TDK more cohesive ... just not in the plot department.



I need to see it again.


Next weekend ... IMAX.

For some reason, I have this quote in my head. Partly because of it being in the trailer, partly because I absolutely love the way he delivered his greeting.

I dreamed about Ledger last night. We were in some big city. He was standing in the background in Joker garb while something else I don't remember happened in the foreground. I waved at him.
I told him, "I liked your performance in the movie."
He said in the Joker's voice, "Did you laugh?"
I said, "Yes."
He said, "Good."
Then he walked away skipping with his hands in his pocket.
It was a cool, benign dream.
:)

I felt that way too, but as I've thought about the movie over the weekend I've come around to the conclusion that The Dark Knight may be our first mainstream pro-Bush movie.

Now that you mention it, I see it. I didn't notice it during the movie though.

That's where Anthony Michael Hall was!

You need to see Begins again. It is 100% about fear from beginning to end.

Yeah, that kinda bugged me. "It's okay to invade everyone's privacy by tapping into their phones in this time of crisis because I'm doing it for a good reason." Bleh.

And:

Doing bad things is necessary, but it is important that the hoi polloi maintain their distrust of you for doing them. But doing them is still an important thing.

Am I the only one who didn't read "pro-Bush", "jab at Bush" into this movie?

A little dissent here: The Dark Knight is an OK movie.

As a piece of cinematic escapism - it was great. It had my (mostly) full attention from beginning to end. But when the credits ended and I started to think about it, there were a ton of quibbles that prevented it from being the great movie I hoped it would be.

(Before I present those quibbles, remember that I do like the movie - I'm just being contrary for the sake of this discussion.)

Unlike iSm, I really liked the Gotham City of Batman Begins. Gotham was never just Chicago to me.

The only thing I didn't love about the Batman from Begins was the squished face made by the cowl and... the growl. In this movie, more squish, more growl. I know it's reminiscent of the Frank Miller Batman, but I was always more of a Neal Adams Batman kind of guy.


The plot. Was there one? Or many? I know the film wanted to be "complex", but the fact that there were several "ticking clock" episodes throughout the movie made for a lessening of overall suspense, IMO.

Two-Face. For a classic Batman villain, he really wasn't much of a menace, was he? He bumped off a corrupt cop and a mob guy, and then threatened the life of Gordon's kid. And then he dies. And nobody remembers him.

Which brings me to: The Ending. Does Batman really need to be the fall guy for Dent's criminal actions? Why couldn't they just blame The Joker? Or any other number of scenarios? He's such a hero, that now he gets chased. Whatever.

And lastly (for the moment), what about the sound mixing? There were important lines of dialog that were all but swallowed up my explosions and the booming soundtrack. I didn't really want to have to strain to hear Gordon's final monologue.

In all... it's a good effort that I will undoubtedly revisit when it comes out on blu-ray later in the year. But for now, I think it pales in comparison to Begins. And yes, Hellboy II is a better "comic book movie".

A final note on Heath as The Joker. It was a wonderfully written part - and Ledger did a fine job with it. Crazy villains tend to be the best parts in drama. I'll bet that, as written, it could have been done just as well by a number of other actors. LSPE and Tom mentioned Johnny Depp. I don't disagree.

No, you're [BTD] not the only one. But then we're not the only ones who did.

And when I say "pro-Bush" I don't mean to say the movie intentionally sets out to redeem the actions of Bush but that in exploring the themes of how society responds to terrorism (and seeing echoes of 9/11 in the movie is very common, at least among film critics) the results shown in this movie have the side effect of essentially mirroring many of the policy decisions made by the Bush administration around secrecy, forging ahead despite public disapproval, illegality justified by the nature of the threat, etc.

It is quite possible that ideas of 9/11 or George Bush never entered into the heads of those making the movie. But Isaac Asimov used to tell a story about attending a lecture where the speaker was going on about some hidden meaning in one of his books. At the end Asimov spoke up and said he'd never even considered such things let alone intended them to be in the story. The response from the lecturer was essentially that just because he wrote the story didn't necessarily give him any great insight into its meaning. Asimov agreed with that.

In my thinking over the weekend I also came to the idea that rather than fitting in with superhero movies, The Dark Knight might actually be better paired with No Country for Old Men. Where the latter is in many ways an exploration of the individual's response when confronted with evil, The Dark Knight focuses on the macro of society's response.

heh- who says it was a dream?

No- I did not either.

And of course, villians in both films decide the life-or-death fate of victims by coin toss. ;)



mousepod, I don't hate the Gotham of Batman Begins. I just found the more realistic setting and more realistic actions (on the surface*) of the villain a refreshing change for a series that's supposed to be the "gritty" version of Batman. I enjoyed the slightly fantastic Gotham of Batman Begins, but I prefer Burton's fantasy Gotham to that. They're all good, though. And I just like it when a sequel takes on a different tone, rather than simply trying to replicate.







* I liked that Joker didn't have henchmen this time around ... but how did he manage to plant all those bombs everywhere all by himself?

Oh yeah, forgot about that. It's not even realistic vs. fantastic to me, but the fact that it was so blatantly recognizable as Chicago bugged me. It brings to mind the complaints about Transformers using recognizable LA locations. Seeing the river and the Board of Trade building really made it hard for me to think of it as Gotham.

Even when other incarnations have been blatant about Gotham=New York, they've never actually used NY landmarks.

He did have henchmen.

The guys who brought in his "body" -
He told the guys he had room in his "organization"
All the clowns that he kept using

He had loads of henchmen. Disposable- but plenty.

Dur. I can't believe that once I thought of No Country I didn't immediately think of that.

Freddy vs. Jason
Alien vs. Predator
Cigurgh vs. Joker

Another reason why I enjoyed Ledger's performance was that it was a major leap from Ennis Del Mar. Two totally different people.
(Yes, both had the hots for a Gyllenhaal but that's about it.)
I like it when actors can pull that off. Johnny Depp is another one who can do that successfully.

Maybe I wasn't paying attention or something but how did the Joker get another knife to escape from the interrogation room? Was it his From Russia with Love shoe knife?

I think it was a shard of glass from a broken window. Could see them on the ledge behind him when he was cuffed and sitting on the ground.

Got it. That bit of editing was weird. Suddenly he and the cop are out of the cell and in the next room.

The editing in the film sucked.


Did anyone know what was going on in the fight scene with all the copy-cat Batmen? WTF?

The other fight scenes were no better, but at least didn't have 8 men in Batsuits.



I've mentioned it before, but cutting away to the next day while the Joker still has hostages in a ballroom with his intended murder victim simply hiding in a closet was a retarded editorial choice.

Actually, I thought it was a great piece of foreshadowing. I saw the shards of glass there and knew he would be using them to get away.

However, I agree with ISM regarding ballroom hostage situation.

That scene I followed. The scene with sonar-vision I had no clue what was going on and could barely make out what Freeman's character was saying through it.

When he went to the party I don't think he was really looking to kill Dent but rather to begin the process of turning Dent into what he hated. Otherwise he'd have killed Dent the same way as he did the commissioner and judge.

Plus, as he admitted to Batman that he did for a while think that Dent was Batman based on the way he jumped out the window after Gyllenhall. So, the fact that Dent was in a closet is irrelevant if The Joker thinks he just jumped out a window. So yeah, they could have shown him leaving, but I don't think it was really necessary.


As far as Maggie goes, the character was so one dimensional and simply there to provide motivations to others that she could equally well have been played by Eddie from Frasier. Sure on the acting skill scale she was a step up from Holmes, but she wasn't really ever asked to use that skill. All I know is that she better really be dead in the inevitable future movies (and I'd really just prefer that they rest on their laurels now).

Another aside, I think Nolan set up a "Lady and the Tiger" discussion piece with the ferries. If one of the boats really had pressed the trigger, which boat do you think would have gone up? Personally, I love the idea that the switch really would have blown up the boat on which it was pressed, the people on the other boat would all know that they hadn't done it but the rest of the world would forever believe they did.

I was thinking that the detonator was going to blow up their own boat.

I was thinking about that scene. First, sign that convict guy up for the starting rotation on the Gotham Prison baseball team, that was a damned precise throw out the window. Secondly, it would seem to me that tossing the trigger out the window would be a sure-fire way to set the bomb off. Either the switch could be triggered by the impact with the water, or it'd be likely that such a remote trigger is rigged such that any loss of signal would set the bomb off to prevent someone from just smashing the thing.

Just sayin'.

True, and I will say that this is a sign of how a fully engrossing movie forgives a lot of sins.

The same thing in Indiana Jones and I would have been all over it. But since TDK fully grabbed me I didn't care at the time and my first instinct when thinking about it later is to find an excuse for it.

But if I sat down I could find lots of problems. As I mentioned above the level of omniscience evidenced by The Joker is something that otherwise generally pisses me off in movies.

Oh totally. I could spend hours nitpicking things in this movie, but none of those nitpicky things detracted from my enjoyment, so I haven't bothered. Same for Begins, lots of stuff that could be picked apart (most glaring being the "I swear, I'm the DA" scene where Rachel gets across the bridge with no questions asked) but the whole package is good enough to not really care.

My only real complaints are Chicago-as-Gotham, batgrowl, and too much meandering back and forth between traps/misdirections. The good stuff in there more than makes up for any shortcomings in the little details but not those biggies.

I'm glad I've never been to Chicago ... and never saw any Saw movies. ;)

I'm glad I don't see any of that. Didn't see LA in Transformers, didn't see Chicago in DK. I always pictured Gotham as a real city-like city so it totally worked.

Saw 3 of the Saw movies but it was only a passing thought that the ferries remotely resembled something in Saw (and it wouldn't even have played out like that in Saw. They would have been rigged to the other boats, and if directions weren't followed everyone would have died).

I never claimed it was exactly out of Saw, it just reminded me of what I know of the genre, which is an ever increasingly complex series of dilemmas along the lines of, "You can either save this friend or yourself, but if you get out of that, you can either save one friend or the other, and you may think you're saving yourself this way but really that's just setting yourself up for this even more diabolical scenario."

Perhaps I have the wrong impression of Saw (or Hostel or whatever other similar movies I've seen trailers for), so really we should all just forget I made that comparrison as it was based on an incorrect assupmtion anyway.

All I meant to say was that the succession of "ticking clock episodes" as mousepod termed them eventually wore thin and left me wanting the movie to just get on with itself and make its point (which it eventually did and I liked).

Can someone clue me in to the Catwoman reference?

The Saw movies have a really good story line behind them, totally different then Hostel and the other torture porn out there. I'm not big on the psychological thrillers, walked out of the 2nd one and barely slept for 2 weeks. Then again I am well aware that my taste in movies is extremely primitive compared to most of the LoT, and I'd be surprised if anyone here liked them.

I second that....

When Wayne was checking out the new batsuit, he asked if it would be good against dogs and was told maybe cats.

I was not making any judgment statements on any of that genre of movie, I just felt like an element from those movies, or at least an element that appeals to fans of those movies, was present in this movie and I wasn't in love with it in the context of a Batman movie. I haven't seen any of the Saw or Hostel or whatever movies so I have no idea whether they are good or not.

I will say it again, the Saw comparrison is entirely tangential to my feelings towards this movie, born of a factual error I held in my head. I was getting bored with the seemingly endless series of overly complex events. It brought to mind what I perceive as the general M.O. (not any specifics) of a genre of movies I have no interest in which triggered my false memory of Nolan being involved with those, but really my point has nothing to do with those movies, it just would have made a lot of sense had Nolan been involved. He wasn't, but that doesn't change the fact that the story was boring me regardless of any false analogy my mind jumped to.

I like them- for whatever that is worth.

The storyline is consistent throughout-it's a full story arc but told on a movie scale rather than TV where such arcs are common.

4 baffled the heck out of me for a while- once I got it I was psyched for 5- let's hope the quality continues.

Ahhh... Yes. Got it now. Thanks.

Personally, I wasn't bored with the Joker's plots and schemes. He's supposed to be a menace to society, so I like the fact that there were more than one or two elements of his criminal enterprises.

To each his own, though.


But since I dislike Batman and love the Joker, I was all for anything that involved the Joker.

Back to GD's misremembering Nolan's CV. I think the psychological manipulation employed by the Joker hearkens back to Memento, and (even more so) Following.

So if one was to substitute the correct movies into GD's original suppositions, his opinion still wouldn't be too far off.

However, I think that the singular drive by the main characters of those two movies would have been great had the Joker exhibited it more in The Dark Knight. As it stands, I think that Nolan dumbed-down his own style and made it more Saw-like for this film.

The recognizable locations bothered me a bit as well - but not a huge amount. I do like the Burton Gotham City best. The "History" of Gotham City is kind of scattered because of the 60 + year history. Gotham was never really ment to be New York but has many elements. Metropolis, since Superman and Batman are in teh same "universe," is New York City. Gotham City was always across the bay from Metropolis and is kind of positioned where New Jersey would be.

Just fyi. :)

Then it was pretty stupid for the original writers to name it Gotham City, since Gotham was already a long-standing nickname for New York City.

In which case, I say Metropolis should be somewhere else.

Agreed ISM. Unfortunatly, the original writers weren't thinking of building the mithology of Batman - they were just collecting paychecks. Their universe didn't have NY or Chicago or LA, it was Gotham City, Metropolis, Central City, or Keystone City. (THough later Salem and San Francisco appreared)

Anyway...

Marvel had a masterstroke when they decided (for Spider-Man, was it?) to just have New York City be New York City. ;)



Anyway, it was interesting how this latest Batman movie has Gotham City ... and Hong Kong.

Yeah - it's said that Stan Lee wanted the universe to be in his hometown of New York where the artists can look out thier windows and draw the landscape. Marvel was always grounded in "reality" (Hulk, X-Men, Spiderman) while DC was always more "cosmic" (Green Lanter, Batman, Superman, WonderWoman, Flash) - IMHO.

I saw TDK on Saturday at the Americana and enjoyed the film quite a bit, though it was far from the masterpiece the critics have made it out to be, or, perhaps, my expectations were just too high. Either way, the film is a bit too flawed for me to claim it the best for all times, as some reviews have done. Some of the acting was pretty shaky (especially, Maggie Gyllenhaal and Anthony Michael Hall, who had the most meaningless role in the film) and a few of the good ones were given practically nothing to do (poor, Michael Caine!). I enjoyed seeing Dr. Jonathan Crane, even if it was brief, William Fichtner as the seriously pissed off Bank Manager was terrific, and Eric Roberts was as good as he has been in anything since Runaway Train. The story was a little convoluted but I dug the ride, though I think the film could have easily ended after the big-rig chase through Chicago, I mean, Gotham City and it would have been just as satisfying.

Um, has Christian Bale let Batmas go to his head? The actor was arrested for assault.


Ugh, but it was an assault on his mother and sister. Boo, Hiss. Bad Hero.

that makes my heart sad. :(

On a different note, Dark Knight will become part of my DVD collection. For some, that is a given. For me, it's huge. I only own about 20 DVDs, several of which were gifts and several replacing some VHS.

However, it was verbal assault, not physical. So far it sounds a bit like estranged family members crashed his big moment with their hands out and things got heated.

They went home and then told police he threatened them. Apparently Britain's definitions of criminal assault are a bit different than here.

..and you just assume the accusation has merit?

Merit enough to post as a tidbit in a meaningless message board thread? um, yes.

What are you callin' meaningless??? This board is my LIFE!!! :p

On edit-

forget it-

I deleted my other reply. I was wrong.

But I'll still say at the time it sounded like it was actual assault.

If he did do it, then there's some anger management issues he needs to deal with. If he didn't, his mom and sis are pretty messed up to be having the guy arrested when his huge, huge movie just came out.
And if the whole thing is fake, I call shenanigans on his handlers for creating some sort of ill-conceived publicity stunt.
OR maybe he is depressed at the untimely death of Ledger who he had a secret crush on during the filming of The Dark Knight. His wife was jealous of his continued affection for the now dead Ledger and drama ensued. His mom accuses his wife of knowingly getting into a sham marriage to conceal his gayness, wife cries, Bale out of guilt jumps to sham wife's defense...

OR the whole story was written by Rita Skeeter and, well, we know what her stories are like...

We saw TDK finally and Gary and the boy are pumped. It was funny to see Gary so hyped after a movie, usually he is Debbie Downer but he loved TDK. I thought it was good but I wasn't as pumped up as the boys. I really was annoyed by the Batman growl though.

.

Last night, we watched the Gotham Knight animated "movie" that supposedly bridges the two recent Batman flicks. Kind of like The Animatrix. Short review: not good.

My favorite Batman Movie is still Batman: Mask of the Phantasm, with Dark Knight and Batman Returns tied for second.

I saw Mask of the Phantasm in its original theatrical run. As far as I'm concerned, Batman:TAS is still the best non-comic book adaptation of the character.

TAS???


Sorry, not a comic book fan. Hahaha, believe it or not, the thing that turned me onto Batman as a child was the Adam West TV show, which my 9-year old self found hysterical.


When I was The Joker for Halloween a few years back (my best costume EVER, btw), I was more Caesar Romero than Jack Nicholson.


For those who don't know, I don't simply don clothes for Halloween, I don a character and stay in character till the clothes come off (unless they come off for someone wanting sex with my character).

TAS = The Animated Series.

iSm, did you grow a moustache and then cover it in greasepaint to get the full Cesar Romero look?

Saw it again last night-
I agree that the editing of the fund raising party was poor after Rachel and Batman went out the window-

I also question what happened to Gambol- Joker has his knife in his face and says "why so serious"- the Joker does not move and the guy drops like a rock- did he FAINT?

Alas, no. I spent a lot of time planning the costume, but - as usual - really none planning character. I just do what comes spontaneously ... and I was surprised it was more Romero than Nicholson. And then, yeah, I regreted not doing the moustache thing. Hysterical stuff.

I think the implication is that he sliced his mouth open with a flick of the wrist.

Really? I watched his arms and saw nothing-but I suppose it is possible.

However- he just dropped. Not the reaction I would expect from a guy with a cut like that-limp? Just drop to the floor? No hands to the face- no sound?

I remember this bit. She's got a point. DON'TQUOTEME ;)

Did they show the results of the magic trick? I shut my eyes so I saw the joker grab his head then him falling to the ground.

It happens fast and you don't see much other than the fact that the pencil is gone.

Thanks. Maybe I'll keep my eyes open the 2nd time.

Yeah, I think it was earlier in this thread that I said that moment was about one of the most raw and brutal I've ever seen on film without being at all explicit.

That's what I loved about it.


The mouth-slitting, though. That's another story. It's what I assumed happened, but yeah - the victim reaction made little sense.


I'm seeing it again this weekend. Critical eye and all that, I wonder if I'll like it as much. It was a BIG mistake to see Indy again.

During the film I thought I was missing a lot and needed to see it again...but that may be because Begins was so damn good on the second viewing.

I definitely want to see it again, in hopes that knowing where it's going will help it feel less rambling.

Yes, I'm hoping for that less rambling feel, too. But I guess if it only feels less rambling when you know what's coming, it still fails in the rambling department.

More than less rambling ... I want to see if I can discern any non-rambliing story structure that's just less apparent to first-time viewers.

I have no problem with the idea of a movie being constructed such that it is only completely appreciable on further viewings. The key thing is that it still be appreciable on first viewing. But I'm perfectly fine with there being things on screen that only make complete sense when combined with the events that follow, and therefore will be of most value on subsequent viewings.

Can't say if that is really the case with TDK but I do know that for the first time in a very long time I am very tempted to see a movie again theatrically.

Sorry, but I disagree with that. Despite that many movies I've not liked the first time have gone on to become some of my favorite films.


But I feel it's a terrible shortcoming if the story of a film is not clear by its end (or after some reflection, but NOT requiring a second viewing). To me, that's a FAIL.

Yes, it has to be clear on its first viewing. But that does not mean that everything has to be fully appreciable on its first viewing. At least not to me.

For me, The Dark Knight was completely clear on its first viewing (though I'll admit that some things may be poorly edited) but I suspect there'll be readings of lines, specific set ups, minor events, that will only carry their fullest weight when rewatching them with full knowledge of the events that follow.

Just a crude example would be The Sixth Sense where everything made perfect sense watching it the first time, but on later viewings a lot of missed things of significance became apparent.

If it's not clear by the end I agree. But what if it's perfectly clear by the end and just contains more depth upon further viewing? By the end of DK, I certainly knew what happened in the story, I didn't feel like I was lost. I just felt like there were large chunks that didn't add anything to the story. If a second pass proves those to actually be bestowing previously missed meaning, I've got no problem with that.

Sixth Sense
The Others
Usual Suspects
The Crying Game

These movies, imho, are ones that should be watched more than once to be completely enjoyed. The second viewing being the "in the know" viewing.

ETA:
What Alex said.

Yes, for a technical viewing of curiosity and film-study appreciation.

But that film is the perfect example of my point. A film that can NEVER be watched twice with anything approaching the effect of the first viewing. If you don't "get" the film on that first viewing, it's over.

It's not about "getting it" vs. "not getting it". It's about catching subtle foreshadowing that, without information from the end of the movie was forgettable filler but with that knowledge becomes meaningful. Not in a way that adds or detracts from understanding the movie, just in a way that can turn an already good movie into an even richer experience the second time around.

Shawn of the Dead is an excellent example but an even better example that fewer people have seen even once, let alone twice, is Hot Fuzz. I really enjoyed Hot Fuzz the first time and was amused by the way they set a few things up and had them come back in the end as a bonus if you remembered them. It was only on a 2nd viewing that I started to realize that everything in the movie did that. There practically wasn't a wasted character, line, movement. Every little quirk had a payoff somewhere down the line. Not seeing this the first time around in no way made the movie un-followable, it did not lead me to miss any significant story point. But having it there as a reward for watching it again definitely increased my appreciation for the movie and I'm hoping DK be able to deliver something similar (though I doubt it will prove to be AS well crafted).

It's like Lost. You can watch the show once and enjoy it, or you can watch it again and see all the things you missed.

I loved Usual Suspects the first time I saw it. And I my love for it grows during each subsequent viewing.

I'm not saying enhanced appreciation can't be gained from second viewings. You also migh enjoy the foreshadowing in most novels if you re-read them.

But the second viewing can't be required to enjoy the film or it's a failure, in my book.

The Dark Knight's plot seemed a rambling mess to me. And I still loved it. But if the plot only becomes concrete to me this weekend when I see it again, it gets a fail from me in the plot department. In fact, it gets a total F from me if there's a concrete plot that cannot be comprehended on the first viewing.

I happen to think it's just a rambling, chaotic story. That's not a disqualifier for me. In this case, the chaos adds to the theme while distracting from the plot. It all comes out a wash.

For a lesser film, the rambling plot would have been a death-knell. For Dark Knight ... not so much. Too many other charms. Heck, I frelling HATE Christian Bale as Batman ... and I still love this movie.

I sort of more or less agree with you. I didn't feel it was plot-less. I just felt the plot lacked depth. In the end I found a coherent point that made sense, but too much of the movie seemed to not serve that point but rather existed purely as filler. Or, the parts that were serving the point were doing so redundantly, rehashing the same thing several times rather than imparting anything new. The question remains for me whether that feeling is the result of an actual lack of depth or a failure to communicate the depth it had. If the latter, it'll go up a notch in my book. Yes, I agree, it will still lose points for failing to communicate its depth the first time around, but the fact that, to me, the plot redeemed itself in the end, plus the existence of Beyond, which I felt did an exemplary job of communicating its point throughout with very little wasted effort, is enough for me to give it somewhat of a chance to redeem itself.

I think the plot was meant to be chaotic. The Joker was chaotic, the movie was Jokercentric. We were experiencing their lives while living with chaos. Poorly edited, maybe - the ballroom scene was the only scene I did a wtf, what about.... in.

I also want to know when the Joker was able to retouch his make-up. In jail it was caking together and you could see bits of flesh on his forehead. After he escaped it was covered up.

Baloney. There's a difference between communicating chaos vs. actually not creating a coherent plot. Again, I didn't feel confused or lost, I just felt unengaged and like nothing meaningful was happening. If that's what was intended I suppose it succeeded.

I wish I hadn't seen Dark Knight again. I was bored.


Yeah, there's no plot. It's just a series of events, admittedly all adversarial between the Joker and the rest of the world. Heath Ledger was still entertaining. Christian Bale's Batman growl still retarded (it annoyed the hell out of my first-time-viewer companion). But the lack of any kind of actual story just left me feeling blah about the whole thing.


Still, it's the darkest, most moody, least comic-ish Batman movie, and i give it props for that. But I hold it in less high regard now that I've seen it again. After the debacle with Indiana Jones, I think I'll adhere to a once-only summer movie policy from now on.

Probably a good policy, but I still contend that if you didn't pick up on the fear theme running through Batman Begins you owe it another viewing.

I've seen it twice. Now, of course, I'm anxious to see it again, and will soon.

Wow.

Do I have this straight?

TDK is at $314,245,000.00 at this moment.

Indiana Jones 4 is at $313,626,000.00 at this moment.

TDK came out last week!
ID4 came out on May 22nd!!!

Indy just got his a$s kicked! And Iron Man is next it seems!

ETA: Okay, TDK didn't exactly come out last week. More like July 18....

Yup. Biggest single day, biggest opening weekend, biggest 2nd weekend, fastest to $300 Million, beating Indiana Jones and the Last Frigidaire by 4 days. At this rate you start wonder if it's time to start talking Titanic. I don't think this is the greatest movie ever, but I sure as hell liked it enough better than Titanic to consider that a good thing.

Hmmm, I had no trouble getting into the prime Saturday night showing at the largest theater in West Los Angeles. Wasn't sold out, just walked up and bought tickets. Hmmmm. Must be playing on a zillion screens.

Irvine Spectrum had it on 5 screens + IMAX. IMAX was sold old yesterday (except for their 1am show).

What were the records for Titanic? I thought they were shattered awhile ago.

Titanic ended up with over 600 million domestic revenue, no one's beaten that. Other movies have beaten most of the short-term records (individual day and weekend records), but Titanic still holds the total gross records. It was #1 for 15 weeks, it's biggest weekend was something like 7 weeks after the release.

Oh wow.

Maybe. I'd love to see this shatter that.

I doubt Titanic has anything to worry about but if next weekend is strong enough, maybe.

Even with a huge second weekend number this was still a 40%+ drop over the previous weekend (and Friday was down 60% from the opening Friday). Do that again and through next weekend and TDK is up to about $387 million. Another week with a similar drop it is at $422 million and slim changes at making it anywhere close to $600 million.

But then it really doesn't have any genre competition coming. Other than The Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor there aren't any new action movies out until Labor Day.

Titanic got where it did with amazing legs. I can't imagine TDK having anything clsoe to that staying power, but then it started with a huge head start over Titanic. Where TDK is the fastest to $300 million, Titanic is the 16th fastest, but only 3 of the 15 films that make it to $300 faster than Titanic made it as far as $400 million, none made it to $500 million. It'll be interesting to watch from a pure horse-race perspective but I think Titanic is safe.

Yeah, odds are low. But hey, I'm willing to help the hype for the greater good, even if it's unlikely greater good.

At the very least, I'll see it in the theater again. Can't hurt.

Why did Titanic do as well as it did. The ending wasn't a surprise, it wasn't anything special in terms of story. Was it the special effects?

Hype and throngs of teenage girls.

Not sure.
It had a love stories for the ladies, the action and the special effects for the dudes and it was linked to a huge historical event that got old people (my grandmother for crying out loud) to go to the theatre. Personally, I thought is was crap.

Don't get me started on the historical inaccuracies....

oh, go ahead and get started, JW. Say what you will about its qualities as cinema, the Cameron Titantic was accurate to a surprising degree ... ya know, considering that its main characters were all fictional.

I wouldn't be surprised if it had some legs, as those that I've talked to who haven't seen it all say "I plan on getting around to it before it leaves theaters, I'd hate to wait for DVD". I bet some who went to regular theaters are going to make time for IMAX (and those that saw it pretend-IMAX might want to see it in real IMAX, ahem).

It's not playing in real IMAX anywhere in the L.A. basin. The only real IMAX screen is at the Science Center in Exposition Park. They show the half hour museum-accompanying IMAX films.


The movie theaters that claim IMAX do indeed use the BIG IMAX film, but they show it on smaller screens than the conventional projection at The Village in Westwood, so there's no point.



Anyway, I was kinda disappointed with it the second time. It's just a bunch of neat stuff strung together. Repeat viewings is what guarantees big box office. That's what did it for Titanic. Sure, fan boys might see TDK multiple times ... but they've got nothing on rabid teen girls.

No, really... You do not want me to go into all the inaccuracies. We'd be here for days.

It may have been more accurate than the average Titanic movie, but it still had many things that made me groan outloud.

Another assist to TDK in beating Titanic in raw domestic box office is the fact that ticket prices are about 50% higher than they were in 1997 ($4.59 to $6.88). Box Office Mojo says the 2008 average ticket price is $7.08, but I don't know where they get their numbers.

So, $600 million in 1997 equals about 130 million buts in seats. For TDK it is only 87.2 million (84.7 million using Box Office Mojo's average ticket price).

Adjusting for Ticket Price Inflation (the number for TDK to beat to surpass Titanic is $908 million, though it is no longer the top film by that method)

And I liked Titanic, by the way. Yes, there were historical inaccuracies but I didn't feel like I was being presented with a historical film so I didn't really care.

But I only saw it once (ever, not even again on DVD) so I didn't particularly contribute to its success.

Ah, but it was! At the time, Cameron claimed he was making an historicaly accurate film.

I don't care what he claimed. I care the expectation it created in me as a viewer. I did not feel like I was watching an attempt to tell history so I do not care if it was not historically accurate.

And conversely, even when the author/director claims to not be offering history I still care about inaccuracies if I feel they are creating the impression of telling it (such as with The Da Vinci Code).

I'm curious- like what?

Not arguing- just curious.

Yeah, me, too. I'm pretty up on my Titanic stuff ... and I'm really not aware of many inaccuracies. What, pray tell, are they?


Hmmm, I appear to be on the LoT all year, perhaps all decade ... so I've got plenty of time. ;)

Just off the top of my head:

The use of Nearer My God To Thee

3rd class being locked below decks

First Officer Murdoch shooting himself

Colonel Gracie depicted as a snobbish Brit, when really he was a nerdish military historian from Georgia.

The dismissal of Lady Duff-Gordon as a maker of naughty ladies underthings; she was, in fact, “Lucille”… one of the most famous, influential (and expensive) fashion designers of the early 20th century.

There are more, I can’t remember them all.

The entire movie was one long diatribe (and a poorly written one, at that) against the upper class. All the 1st Class passengers (with a few exceptions) were depicted as boorish, self centered, snobs; while everyone in 3rd was good. Reality was (and still is) much more complicated than that. Add to that the complete absence of 2nd class! Where were they?

They failed at recreating a believable Edwardian era. Most of the characters were written as if they were 1990’s people plopped down in 1912 – along with their late 20th century attitudes, behavior, and mores. Rose would never have behaved that way.

A movie with beautiful visuals, but an execrable script.

I liked Titanic, saw it twice in theaters. Call me a rabid teenage girl (though I was no longer a teen by then). ;)

Billy Zane's eyebrows were weird.

I liked watching the sinking part. The special effects were cool. I still think that old lady was a stupid a$shole. She could have given her granddaughter the necklace.
:D

I hated Titanic for its unique ability to make me not care in the slightest whether any character in it lived or died.

I hated Titanic cause of that stupid song.

Saw it once in the theater.

Ship hit iceberg, ship sank.

As a side note, HB has a locals night, and one of the things for kids is a giant slide. In the shape of the Titanic sinking.

I agree. I didn't see it until it came out on VHS and I remember getting to the end of the first tape and thinking good lord there's more. Also wishing they'd just sink the damn boat finally so it would be over. And I thought Leo totally sucked.

If I stumble across any Titanic movie on TV, there goes my evening.

Yes. I didn't care for any of the characters in Titanic. I'm not a big fan of Leo D.

Then might I recommend A Night to Remember ... a much more accurate telling of the tale, storywise, from the point of view of the crew involved with, ya know, the mundane ship's business of sinking with 2/3 of the passengers still on board. Not so accurate visually as the Cameron film, as it looks to have been filmed on a ferry boat. But it's based on the Walter Lord novel taken from witness accounts and historical records.

The sinking is not as visually splendid, but a real tearjerker - imo. And I love any film that creates suspence when the outcome is very well known. Cameron was stupid to drop the subplot of The Californian. Even if some of it is based on worst-case conjecture, the suspense is freaking palpable and the horrific irony unbearable.


The use of Nearer My God To Thee
- yes, likely not on the playlist. Many witnesses claimed to hear it. Eyewitness testimony is suspect, but it's all we have. So it's the witnesses vs. the playlist. Yeah, an unlikely number ... but a tearjerker included with legitimate dramatic license in every tale of the sinking.

3rd class being locked below decks
- played up for dramatic effect, but not done as maliciously as depicted. 3rd class was, however, kept below decks too long by the crew. And when they tried to let women and children up, their response to the general panic was to let no one up. Most 3rd class passengers died. Um, not by choice, I would suspect. Picturing them locked below decks was legit. dramatic license, in my view.

First Officer Murdoch shooting himself
- also a great piece of myth that likely didn't happen. Though, of course, no one can really know. Though it's doubtful, I cannot fault any dramatist for including this bit ... He's the moron responsible for hitting the iceberg, and the drama of his remorseful suicide is almost too good to pass up when some witnesses claimed it happened.

Colonel Gracie depicted as a snobbish Brit, when really he was a nerdish military historian from Georgia.
- yes, sloppy depiction in service of a pale story theme.

The dismissal of Lady Duff-Gordon as a maker of naughty ladies underthings; she was, in fact, “Lucille”… one of the most famous, influential (and expensive) fashion designers of the early 20th century
- well, in all fairness, she was barely a character in the movie. That her fame and field were less than accurately described cannot, imo, be considered an historical error.

There are more, I can’t remember them all.
Yes, there are plenty more ... amazingly more ways in which the tale was told with fantastic accuracy ... though many important things were left out. Ommissions, however, are not errors.


I deplored the concept of using fictional lovers when there were so many compelling real stories to be told. But once fictionalized, I can't have too big a problem with a story theme rooted in the melodrama of the age featuring characters molded to a modern mode of anachronism (not unlke the proto-feminists of Disney animation.)


Sigh, not the best film. But amazing for its visual accuracy of the ship and the sinking, and rather high marks on the accuracy of the story. A decidely mixed bag. I think Titanic and A Night to Remember make a great double feature that compliment each other with a resulting full picture of the tragedy ... if you've got 6 hours to spare. :p

We saw Titanic in Mazatlan, with spanish subtitles. It was interesting to observe the delayed reaction, between something said on the screen, and it being read and interpreted a few seconds later.

Now I'm all mad at Titanic again. I don't know why the lame class-war, star-crossed lovers was the way they chose to go. They could have got just as much tragic love story by fictionalizing any of the dozen or so actual newlywed girls made widows by the sinking. Maybe it's not right to make up a story and attribute it to real people ... but I would have preferred that to the hokem they came up with ... when there were 2000 or so really sad stories to be told.



Oh, is this thread about Batman??:p

I never new you were a fellow Titanic enthusiast! Girlfriend, we need to talk!


I also heartily recommend A Night to Remember, although it too has it’s inaccuracies.

BTW, Walter Lord’s book was not a novel. It was a work of non-fiction.

Agreed. It’s something that works so well in ANTR.

I hate that It’s always shown as being played just because people expect it.

I disagree. The crew wasn’t actively trying to keep the 3rd class passengers below decks. In fact, there were several stewards who organized groups of 3rd class women and children, and led them up to the boat decks. Many more 3rd class passengers made it up on their own. Many surviving from 3rd class testified that their fellow passengers stayed where they were because they simply did not know what to do! If the crew is guilty of anything, it’s the lack of information distribution; but all 3 classes shared the same treatment in that regards.

Again, I have to disagree. Murdoch was hardly a moron – he couldn’t have gained the position he did if he was – and it’s not his fault the ship hit the iceberg. It’s no one person’s fault, really. A series of events that, if taken separately, would be unremarkable.

Agreed. Where were the Navratil boys? Archy Butt? Lawrence Beesley? Jack Thayer? Edith Russell? William Stead? If they wanted a strong willed woman making her own way in the Edwardian era, how about Helen Churchill Candee? Tragedy? How about The Allisons? Or the newlyweds, Daniel and Mary Marvin? Or the Goodwin family?

I had a friend who was a big muckety-muck on the Queen Mary. She was giving us a private tour, and showed us the below-decks ballroom where the annual meeting of the major Titantic enthusiasts club is held. One year, there was a major plumbing leak that flooded the entire ballroom in a foot of water during their meeting! Hahahah, I'm sure they LOVED it.

Well, perhaps the hastily re-jiggered position he assumed for the sailing had something to do with it (most officers were effectively reduced in rank one notch when a new 1st officer was appointed for the maiden voyage at the last minute) ... but all the top officers were trained during the Titanic's shake-down cruise on her insanely wide turning radius. Hard a'starbord and full reverse engines was a combination contrary to a successful turn to avoid the berg. Murdock killed them all with his incompetence, and I love the idea of him shooting himself ... even if he likely suicided by the more practical means of simply drowning.




That never would have happened if Batman had been on the bridge!

:::SLAP:::::





:p

Again, I disagree. Many officers at the time said they would have done the same thing.

Guess this guy didn't make it to Comic-con.

They washed off his make up!

How come the Gotham jail didn't make the Joker take off his make up?

On a related note, we saw a guy dressed up as the Joker at the Spectrum. He did a fine job of recreating the costume, hair and make up. It was impressive.

Seeing that one quick shot of Ledger without the make up in TDK was creepier to me than his regular Joker look. The scar is grooooss.

I missed that! Where was it?

Titanic, as Tom puts it – and I rather agree – is a "big dumb movie." It did what big dumb movies do, and did it well. Like CP, I was the target audience when it came out, and it spoke to me at the time.

That aside, I don't believe that any film will ever have complete historical accuracy.

Period films are retellings, and, by their very nature as art, can't ever capture exactly the essence of the time or event. As iSm has been saying lately, if two people are in the same room, their perspectives on that room and what happens in it will be different. A period filmmaker must take a number of different perspectives meld them together, making assumptions and filling in the gaps with their own fictions.

Real life and film are very different monsters. Real life has all kinds of boring stretches and inconsistencies. So much of our daily lives would deserve to be left on the cutting-room floor. And when an aspect of a story can be fudged in order to create a more compelling narrative, most storytellers choose to fudge it up every time. The majority of the audience won't know, and the majority of them are probably more moved/surprised/intrigued by whatever chocolate-walnut or maple-flavored additions or subtractions the filmmakers make. And often, especially if you're not intimate with the subject, this makes for a better movie experience.

Not to mention that they must appease the executives or hit the road. Donning my industry-cynic hat for a moment, I'll admit that a lot of their choices are informed by what they imagine will play in Peoria.

Take, for instance, the Oscar-winning A Beautiful Mind. It made major historical compromises for the sake of unified, compelling storytelling, How do you show a schizophrenic's aural hallucinations in a compelling way? You make them visual, because film's a visual medium.

And it made further compromises for the sake of its presumed dumb-downer audience. How do you tell a story of a man whose varied actions (illegitimate children, possible homosexual affairs etc) might vilify him in the eyes of paying customers who will be telling their blue-haired friends whether or not it's worth $12 of their social security checks? You change the facts, Max. You display a strong, supportive marriage between John and Alicia Nash, chop out anything that might be presumed a "standard deviation" and avoid alienating your audience. Until they read the book, that is.

Funeral scene. He was dressed as a cop.

Oh ya! I did see that.

In other words, print the legend.

Aw, he's an adorable little thief!

That's all well and good when you're not claiming your film is going to be historically accurate. Cameron stated over and over that his film was going to be as historically accurate as possible. It wasn’t. And what’s more, he knew he it wasn’t. He even acknowledged, after the fact, that he deliberately altered facts for the sake of the story, while at the same time touting how accurate it would be to the press.

Anyway… I’m done hijacking this thread. (I warned you… don’t get me started!) If anyone wants to further the Titanic discussion (ship or movie), start a new thread. I’ll be there.

We've all got our peeves for such things, but at least in this case, as far as historical inaccuracies in "historically accurate" films go, the list you gave barely blips on my radar.

I'm not done hijacking. Things like Murdock's suicide and Nearer My God to Thee are NOT things Cameron made up. There's more chance they're legend as opposed to fact ... but the real facts are NO ONE WHO KNOWS MADE IT OUT ALIVE. So these are things shrouded in the mist of history. It was perfectly legit for Cameron to use the more dramatic possibilities of the possible events, reported by witnesses (though perhaps lacking credibility).

Fudging the exact nationality and career paths of a couple of below-minor characters is also not historical sacrelige.


For that matter, no one knows the Strauss's really died in bed-enbrace together. No one was there. No one knows the captain met his doom alone on the bridge. He just disappeared at one point (and various legends have him doing various things), but it's widely assumed ... and only assumed he died alone on the bridge when it went down.

Can you fault Cameron for using these two elements? They are more likely, but no more "confirmed" than Murdoch not shooting himself, and the band playing Autumn as their final number.

Wow, quite the smack down, as you're an Honored Fellow of the Film Nit Pickers Assn., correct?





annnnd myyyyy heaaaart wiiiiillllllll.....goooo AAAAAHHHHHNNNN and AAAAAAAAAAUUUUUUUHHHHHHNNNNNNNNN

You suck :p

I don't think so. Or rather, not in this case.

For the most part when I nitpick a movie it is because of issues with internal consistency.

Yes, if a real-world historical plot point is somehow important to the success or message of a movie then it is a point I'll care about if it is wrong. But the fact that the lake where Jack went fishing wasn't build until five years after the Titanic sank isn't vital to the story's impact or internal consistency.

If, however, a movie is exploring the real origins of the U.S. Civil War (through a fictional tale) and it says there was no slavery in Florida and thus plot points X, Y, and Z then I'll have issues.


But like I said, everybody has their pain points. And when it comes to movies you generally tend to be most sensitive to the areas you are most familiar with. I don't really know anything of the deep details of the Titanic (historically it isn't that important of an event and it was never more than a footnote in any of my classes and reading) so I'm not bothered.

Set a movie in the Boeing Machinists' Union during the 1970s and perhaps a similar level of historical squishiness will drive me nuts.

My response is here.

ok, fine. What other film besides Batman can we talk about here now?

The Women? :evil:

We really need a swank viewing of "The Women" at JWBear's place when I'm there... :evil:

You're on!

Or we could buy a portable TV and watch it on a train to Reno :D

On the train to Reno...

Drink up, dearie!

Oh no, not the quotathon again!!!



I just noticed I don't have any Batman movies on DVD, while I do have The Women. That must be fixed. As soon at TDK comes out, I'm gonna get Burton's Batman and Batman Returns, plus Nolans Batman Begins and The Dark Knight. All films with flaws, but fun Batman flix.

GC started it!

TDK is getting close to the Top 10 (Domestic).

I don't know why I get a kick out of watching how much movies make, but I do.
:)

It's showing good mid-week legs. They week-to-week is closer to 50% than 60%.

I'm hearing that The Mummy is just absolutely godawful so that may not be much threat.

I care how well movies do, too. But box office not adjusted for inflation means nothing. Not even how much money a film made, since the money is the thing that's worth more or less depending on time ... and if there's one thing that exists solely for what it's worth, it's money.


So, GC ... is there a similar chart showing how much films made adjusted for inflation or, better yet, a comparison by how many tickets sold?

I just want something, anything to beat Titanic

And I just want something to show that Star Wars can't be beat ...ever.






unless, of course, i'm wrong. But i've a feeling that if it's coming in 2nd to a film released 2 decades later, it might really be on top ... where it belongs.

Yes, I referenced it above. You can find a similar list here. It adjusts for ticket price inflation rather than dollar inflation. And by this count not only has Star Wars been beaten, it was never even ahead (that goes to Gone With the Wind).

Ok, I can accept that. I'm not a huge fan of Gone With the Wind, but I understand it's the most famous film of all time, just as I understand Citizen Kane is the most critically acclaimed film of all time (and I don't agree with that one either).

When these charts "adjust for inflation" do they go by # of tickets sold, standard inflation rates, or value of the dollar. I claim to know a little bit about economics, but not being actually trained in that area I lack the vocabulary necessary to explain what I'm about to write. So let's see if I can illustrate.

When Star Wars came out was the ticket price easier to afford or about the same as it is today? Or what about Gone With the Wind? I think affordability really factors into such comparisons. I know that's one major factor when I'm trying to decide if I want to see a movie in the theater or wait for it on DVD. I want to go see Hellboy 2, but since I just spent $20 to go see The Dark Knight, it's asking too much of my wallet to turn around and do it again immediately. Was that such a factor 30 years ago?

I know that when I was in college and had a $1 theater very close by, we'd see movies just about every weekend. Sometimes just to see a movie with no concern about whether it was a movie we really wanted to see. And even though our budget was tighter then than it is now, $2 to see any movie was more affordable.

That, plus with DVD and other video distribution there's much less of a chance for multiple theater viewings making it nearly impossible for modern movies to compete with the classics on number of tickets sold. Most people just wait for it to come out on DVD or cable to watch it a second time.

There are various methods used by various sites in trying to create an "adjusted for inflation" index on box office grosses and they all have their flaws.

For what you're describing you'd essentially want to create an index that combines ticket price inflation relative to raw dollar inflation (for example, if ticket prices doubles during a period of 20% dollar inflation then tickets have become more expensive relative to the dollar). And maybe taking into account the overall proportion of entertainment expenses in the average person's accounts.

But generally I'd say that attempting such precision generally isn't worth the amount of time ti would take to do because the of the uncertainties built into the variables. For movies much older than the 1980s we don't really have anything like detailed accounting of box office. Up until WWII movie pricing was much more variable so it is harder to estimate how many tickets a given gross (even if it is well established) would mean. Plus, prior to the wide adoption of VHS significant rereleases of movies were common (particularly by Disney) making these calculations necessary for subsections of the totals.

Which is probably one of the big reasons when people talk box office records they don't usually worry about it too much. Any number will have their flaws.

And yeah, the general decline in gross ticket sales is well established. But that makes a modern anomaly all the more interesting. Based on Box Office Mojos estimates of total ticket sales, only one movie from the last 25 years (1/4 of cinematic history) is in the top 18.

Although the weird thing on that list is that it says the average ticket price in 2008 is $7.08?? Is this true? I haven't paid $7 for a movie since I was a kid.

The biggest difference, imo, would be the DVD (or VHS) factor. There are tons of movies I don't see in theaters now because I can see them at home in a few months.


Fortunately, that does nothing to affect the comparison of Gone With the Wind vs. Star Wars, or I'd cry Shenanigans.

But for every movie before and after, say, 1981 - I'd say the comparison is not quite accurate for how popular a movie may be. But it still says how many people paid to see it in theaters. I think that's about the best that can be done.




ETA: Ticket prices in Metro Los Angeles don't reflect the average American ticket price.

Also keep in mind that the average ticket price would include childrens admissions, second run theaters, senior discounts, matinees, etc.

wow. I can finally come into this thread and you guys are off on a Titanic tangent? :rolleyes:

anyway...finally saw the latest Batman.

A coworker saw it first standard, then again in (true) IMAX. She said she saw no discernable difference. I wouldn't say she's a movie buff but still...

I'd like to see it in real IMAX, but that means going to Irvine. Sigh.


I would think the aspect ratio changing from widescreen to Imax would be distracting. I kinda want to see for myself, but I wasn't as impressed with the film the second time around and am leery of a third.

Yup me too.....

Over all it was fun but I have no desire to see it again.

I liked the simplicity theme... Look what you can do with some oil drums and a few bullets. :D

I liked showing terror for what it is, more of a mind game than a real physical threat.

OK, I'll admit I was slow to pick up on "Two Face". It was not until I saw his face burning that I said to myself "LUCKY COIN!!!"

As soon as Joker said "Bridge and Tunnel crowd" I knew there was no way I'd take a ferry. Yes, I believe each ferry held it's own detonator.

Perhaps the best line of the movie was from Lucius/Freeman: "This is the man you want to blackmail?"

3rd after Star Wars and Titanic.
:eek:

Finally saw this last night.

It was entirely too long. I got annoyed with it after a while, which was a pity because some of the better acting (Ledger's) was in the last bit.

Iron Man was clearly the best super hero movie of the summer.

I have it on good authority that the Orange County bus system is designed perfectly for a couple of stoners who want to catch a Sunday matinee of a stoner movie without having to worry about driving.

Oh, and Dark Knight was back on top last weekend, over said stoner movie, but Tropic Thunder beat it this weekend.

TDK just passed $500 mil.
Wow.
The movie was #3 this weekend.
Amazing!