The Dark Knight Sucked

For the record, I was not a fan of Batman Begins, either. But, I had heard great things about Heath Ledger's performance as The Joker. And, for the record, I think Heath did well, with what he was given. It's what he was given that I have an issue with. All things considered, Nicholson was the better Joker. At least Nicholson had fun with the role.

Remember when you were a kid and you used to play Superheros with your friends? Why did you do that? Because you enjoyed the gritty realism of your favorite hero blowing things up, chasing down psychotic muderers and having to recover from injuries? No! Being a superhero is supposed to have SOME level of enjoyment. I don't see that in The Dark Knight at all. And, honestly, after seeing TDK, would YOU want to be Batman?

That's not to say that I would want a complete return to the days of the old Batman TV series. But, at least Romero played the Joker the way he needed to be played. The Clown Prince of Crime delights in humiliating Batman. TDK's Joker delights in killing. In fact, Ledger's character could have been anyone. Aside from the facial make up, there's nothing at all tying him to the character we know as the Joker. He exits simply as a plot device to hinder the Batman. The Joker, in TDK served in a capacity that could have easily been filled by any other member of Batman's rogues gallery.

Now, this may come as a shock to many of you, but: Newsflash. COMICS ARE NOT REAL. Trying to make them more real is pointless and ultimately an exercise in futility. So, why not bring back the fun? Stop trying to force this so-called gritty realism down our throats. Superheros are not supposed to be portrayed that way. Superheros are escapism.

Also, would it kill Nolan to film the fight scenes in such a way that we can tell who is hitting whom?

The success of BB and TDK guarantee a follow up. If we're to continue with Nolan's vision, I would like to see Patrick Stewart portray Mr. Freeze (secondary baddie) and have the Riddler as some kind of Zodiac style serial killer.

And whose site did you steal THIS opinion from?

Another look at me post by "Professor Sexbot"

Your mother's tremendously large ass hole

Oooh so because TDK took in millions of dollars, we must all love it, right? Any dissenting opinion is trolling?

BULLSHIT.

Not everyone thinks TDK was a masterpiece.

Do you wish he would die?

Who? Bear's Mom?

It's not a masterpiece but it is a bloody good film and Heath Ledger did a really good job with his performance and i personally think he should get the best supporting actor Oscar.

So yes i think you just ripped this off from another site and doing it for the attention.

Did I say Ledger did a bad job? No. I said he did good with what he was given. It the material I have an issue with. It's much too dark and it's no fun at all.

And the post is 100% my own thoughts.







And Tony Snow is burning in Hell.

Uh oh! You done talked about his mama!

If Bear was black, he'd be openin up a can o' Whoop Ass on you right about now.

The problem with this is that the only people who think that Batman is in any way supposed to be "fun" are fans of the Adam West series.

The source material is not "fun"....it's more akin to film noir.

Ah..... what a classic.



What? You can't see this doing $155 million on it's first weekend these days?

Don't worry Professor, I've got you covered:

[YT="The Dark Knight"]3Zi22dRlSnQ[/YT]

See, now you're not even trying, SB. What next, a thread about how much "Firefly" sucked?

The Joker delights in getting a reaction, killing is merely a means to an end with that.

As for humiliating Batman, that is what he spent most of the movie trying to do. Batman and Harvey Dent represented a change in Gotham, the people starting to fight back, work together for a greater good.

Joker wanted to prove their faith in mankind wrong and show that people were inherently bad and would do whatever they wanted to survive.

Most of your post seems to amount to "I liked comics when I was a kid so wanted to go see a movie that relived that feeling of being a kid"

Well tough.

Comics are a medium like any other, and saying that comic movies must follow a set style is like saying that all films based off novelsl should have a set uniform style.

I grew up. I'm glad my comic book heroes can, too.

So, which US President was Batman based on?

Teddy Roosevelt. I take it you watched that Batman psych show too.

First faux pas: Batman isn't a super hero. He isn't super. He's a guy with fantastic fighting skills, the means to create top of the line weapons, and an amazing detective.

Second: The comics have gotten darker. The comics have gotten darker because kids don't want to see a pussy-ass Batman anymore. The kids that used to run around in bath towel capes back in the Adam West days are the kids that now play with Sponge Bob stuffed toys and action figures of old cartoons turned remake.

Comics are now graphic novels, and they're for older kids. Because someone realized that they had a great deal of potential in reeling out animalistic emotions to bring a character that seems super human back down to a realistic level.

So you can go tie a cape around your neck and laugh at an eccentric middle-aged man in pajamas searching for his shark repellent spray, and we'll marvel in the most well developed, and tightly adherent comic book movie that's ever been created.

Don't forget that Adam West wasn't the first of Batman. Batman was a comic book hero. So it stands to reason that as the comics change, so will the Batman.

Already knew it from some prior articles, but the show reminded me.

That's probably the only thing I didn't like about the movie, but at least it wasn't in every fight scene. Unfortunately, films in recent years have started doing this more and more often (I'm looking at you, Bourne).

Ooh, that might be interesting.

To each his own. If light hearted superhero movies are your thing then you might want to check out "Fantastic Four." No one could ever accuse that franchise of being too serious. Personally,I say THANK GOD that they're not going back down the road of Joel Shumacher and trying to play to the "Ain't it cool" crowd with gadgets,one liners and cheap laughs. I'm glad that they're staying true to the spirit of the comics and keeping it more dark.There's plenty of light weight fluff out there,so this movie is for the other crowd.

The Caeser Romero Joker was AWESOME! And Frank Gorshin as The Riddler had the coolest laugh in history!

The whole campy look/feel of the show was classic IMO.
I was a little kid when the series first originally aired. I had the Bat Belt with all the pouches too!

BTW Julie Newmar was the best of the three Cat Woman characters.

OOPS! I just noticed that The Riddler is putting on a latex glove for a cavity search! He thinks Bat Man is hiding something in his "Bat Cave" if you get my drift.

Holy "hole" Batman!

No he wouldn't.

When I was a kid I jumped off a high porch holding an umbrella. Hey! The Penguin did it.

It worked for a few feet then I fell fast. Ouch!!!

I identified with it in that vein.


When I saw BB I felt it was getting right down to the drama of what Batman was all about. I felt the story line was on point and the drama I experienced with the visual affectations of the comics.

The art of the comics connected me vicariously to the emotions the characters projected on a piece of paper. It was very exciting to read super hero comics then and even moreso now that the art is being depicted so far out from the norm. I haven't seen TDK, yet, and I'm sure I will like it just as well.

It's the same feeling I got with Superman Returns. I had visions of seeing future Superman movies with his son and the dog, Krypto. Even Bizarro Superman. See hwere I'm going with this?

This thread:

"The story sucked! It was too dark!"

-- "How can you say that?! OMG you are so gay, and a sissy pansy boy for saying so!!"

"But the writing was awful!"

-- "I thought it was perfect! You're completely wrong!! It didn't suck! The writing was perfect! The acting was perfect! Darkness is what it's all about! Feelings!! FEEEELINGS!!"


Gotta love the internet.

There's nothing wrong with the 60's TV show, it has a certain charm to it. And I've gotten a kick out of watching it in reruns. It is what it is, and as long as you don't expect it to be anything else, then it's fine.

The problem begins when people think that the 60's show, and the way that DC superheroes in general were portrayed in the 50's and 60's, should be the template for how superheroes are portrayed in 2008. The comics medium has grown up, and society along with it. That's what Joel Shumacher obviously didn't understand. He didn't take the source material seriously, which is why he slathered on the camp for Batman Forever and Batman & Robin. He seriously miscalculated what audiences wanted.

BTW - what do you think poor Katie Holmes is thinking about all this? Do you think she's happy trading in the chance to be in one of the best and highest grossing movies of the past 20 years for the opportunity to be Mrs. Tom Cruise? And I wonder what her self-esteem is like after virtually every reviewer commented on how much of an improvement Maggie Gyllenhall is over her? Methinks she might be having some regrets. If not, she should.