The Dark Knight...I didn't like it *Spoilers*

[MasterShake]

well...

it really is a wee bit too late for me to bury this guy in why his "peeves" are not contextually sound....or uh........correct.

heh.

but i will say that all this hype about Ledger getting an Oscar nod is getting ridiculous.

maybe if he was still alive...but the Acadamy just has a hard time with it...sure they've nominated posthumously in the past, but the other factor is that the Acadamy doesn't really recognize "action" or "super-hero" movies that often. and when they do it's hardly ever for acting.

i think people are just so caught up that he's passed, that they think they've seen the greatest performance of all time...but i didn't see Daniel Day Lewis anywhere.

If Lord of the Rings: Return of the King can get best picture and best director, I see no reason The Dark Knight couldn't get a best supporting actor nod for Heath Ledger.

[RealBronco]

If Lord of the Rings: Return of the King can get best picture and best director, I see no reason The Dark Knight couldn't get a best supporting actor nod for Heath Ledger.

it's simple:

LOTR is based off of a timeless classic. also it was easily the best film of that year... Jackson's vision was brilliant.

also note that LOTR didn't earn ANY nominations for acting. and it's not a superhero/comic book movie.

that's it. the acadamy struggles with the genre for some reason. although both Batman '89 and Begins were nominated (not for acting, mind you).

i'm not saying he probably won't deserve it. because i doubt anyone will outperform him for the rest of the year, nor have they prior to.

i'm just saying i think the acadamy won't let him win. i'd be surprised if he even gets nominated.

again, i'm not saying i wouldn't love to see him win...but really...it likely won't happen. i don't understand why everyone thinks it will.

[RealBronco]

In Fact:

Batman (1989) won the Oscar for Best Art and Set Direction.

Batman Begins was nominated for but did not win Best Acheivement in Cinematography.

So...I believe that The Dark Knight will more than likely pull in at least one Oscar nod, if not more (including Cinematography again because Pfister is an amazing artist).

However, I still don't think they'll give Ledger a nod. Wrong? Perhaps.

I thought perhaps Oldman at least deserved a nod for his supporting role in Begins... and everyone's performance in TDK was just oustanding...and indeed they do deserve nods.

Ledger, Oldman and maybe even Eckhart. I was most impressed by Oldman's peformance and how he really dove into Gordon's very forced and very tight situation.

[MasterShake]

it's simple:

LOTR is based off of a timeless classic. also it was easily the best film of that year... Jackson's vision was brilliant.

also note that LOTR didn't earn ANY nominations for acting. and it's not a superhero/comic book movie.

that's it. the acadamy struggles with the genre for some reason. although both Batman '89 and Begins were nominated (not for acting, mind you).

i'm not saying he probably won't deserve it. because i doubt anyone will outperform him for the rest of the year, nor have they prior to.

i'm just saying i think the acadamy won't let him win. i'd be surprised if he even gets nominated.

again, i'm not saying i wouldn't love to see him win...but really...it likely won't happen. i don't understand why everyone thinks it will.

True, but the only other "fantasy" type movie ever given a best picture nod was Star Wars, I guess I just don't understand why you think Ledger will get overlooked for at LEAST a nomination. Its not like we're talking best actor, this is best supporting actor and the Academy would love (IMO) to give a nod to Ledger if for nothing else its the popular consensus. After all, the Academy Awards are basically nothing more than a glorified popularity contest.

And also, LOTR: ROTK of was not the best picture that year, that should have went to Mystic River. ROTK was a bloated movie that didn't know when to stop at the logical ending point. Still a good movie, but the first two were better. Anyway, I digress. I'm just happy we finally got a good version of the Joker on the big screen!

[RealBronco]

True, but the only other "fantasy" type movie ever given a best picture nod was Star Wars, I guess I just don't understand why you think Ledger will get overlooked for at LEAST a nomination. Its not like we're talking best actor, this is best supporting actor and the Academy would love (IMO) to give a nod to Ledger if for nothing else its the popular consensus. After all, the Academy Awards are basically nothing more than a glorified popularity contest.

And also, LOTR: ROTK of was not the best picture that year, that should have went to Mystic River. ROTK was a bloated movie that didn't know when to stop at the logical ending point. Still a good movie, but the first two were better. Anyway, I digress. I'm just happy we finally got a good version of the Joker on the big screen!

I just think that everyone is hyping it up just because he's dead.

I'm not saying I don't agree that he instantly just became the best person to ever portray the Joker on film or television (cartoon or live action).

I just know the Acadamy all too well, and either:

A). the only reason they'll nominate him is because of this hype people have generated.

B.) they'll totally overlook it because it's a superhero movie.

BUT:

I believe TDK deserves more than one Acadamy nod. Begins got some, and '89 did as well...so.

I agree that Mystic River was pretty amazing and I also agree that we finally can take pride in the film version of The Joker instead of pretending Jack's performance was awesome.

I'm being pessamistic. Also, what would a dead guy do with a naked golden dude anyway?

[MasterShake]

I just think that everyone is hyping it up just because he's dead.

I'm not saying I don't agree that he instantly just became the best person to ever portray the Joker on film or television (cartoon or live action).

I just know the Acadamy all too well, and either:

A). the only reason they'll nominate him is because of this hype people have generated.

B.) they'll totally overlook it because it's a superhero movie.

BUT:

I believe TDK deserves more than one Acadamy nod. Begins got some, and '89 did as well...so.

I agree that Mystic River was pretty amazing and I also agree that we finally can take pride in the film version of The Joker instead of pretending Jack's performance was awesome.

I'm being pessamistic. Also, what would a dead guy do with a naked golden dude anyway?

You see, we agree on this point! Thats why I also added who cares if he wins the Academy award because of the popularity contest aspect of the show. I know that even without the golden naked dude, Ledger was still the best Joker on screen. That being said, I still think they have to bring the Joker back for the next movie. Heath is a good actor, and there are tons of GOOD actors that could emulate the ground rules he laid out for the character. The Joker was a great villain before Ledger took the reigns, and he still could be.

[saltybuggah]

1) great movie

2) a bit too long but with the 15-20 movie trailers at the begining didnt help matters either.... also going to the 9:15 showing didnt help matters

3) ledger did a fantastic job in the movie... he was absolutely what kept you involved into the film...

4) screew the kid kicking my chair thruout the movie.... stupid idiot fell asleep during the film and must of hit my chair 10 times... everytime i turn around he's asleep....

that is all

[RealBronco]

You see, we agree on this point! Thats why I also added who cares if he wins the Academy award because of the popularity contest aspect of the show. I know that even without the golden naked dude, Ledger was still the best Joker on screen. That being said, I still think they have to bring the Joker back for the next movie. Heath is a good actor, and there are tons of GOOD actors that could emulate the ground rules he laid out for the character. The Joker was a great villain before Ledger took the reigns, and he still could be.

they were having a discussion about this on the TDK imdb boards as well.

true Batman fans can see past Ledger's performance and recognize The Joker's importance to Batman.

I think the mistake that Burton and the first 4 films in general made was taking The Joker out of the picture. That's like taking Lex Luthor out of Superman....well then who would Superman go against (sure there are other villains but a Superman movie or even comic without Luthor is few and far between)? Of course there are the random issues or even story arcs of Batman that don't involve The Joker, but that never means he ceased to be part of the universe.

People will say they don't want to see them replace Ledger...well, it's not about Ledger. He did a superb job and blew Nicholson out of the water...but remember about 20 years ago? People kept saying no one would ever be able to portray the Joker better than Jack....oops, they were wrong!

I think bringing Joker back for the third installment is crucial. They were planning to before the accident, so why not still? They replaced Rachel Dawes, who isn't even part of the Batman universe if you really think about it....(when they could've just written her out of it somehow). So why can't they replace Batman's arch-nemesis?

Seems silly to me. I mean, they eve brought back Scarecrow, even though it was one scene....

Also, three is the end of the road for Nolan and Bale, so why not throw the Joker in there again, even if he doesn't play as big of a role because we all know Two-Face was set up to be the main villain for the third.

Time will tell. I can see Warner Bros. caving to popular demand and forcing Nolan and Co. to write Joker out of the third one.

Grr.

[Southstander]

If Robin Williams can be nominated for a Cartoon, Ledger can be nominated for a "comic Book Movie"

Well as everyone I was looking forward to this movie. I was really anxious to see the "new age" joker. I saw the movie today, and walking out of it, I told my friend, "you know what? I didn't like it".

The acting was really good, but the movie...just went nowhere. Kudos to the joker, thats a sick part, but I felt that the movie did a whole lot of nothing for a long time, then alot had to happen in the last 20 min. It was a long movie. I was aware of that during the movie, and when that happens, the film is not grabbing my attention. Batman went to china and everything. I also found it kinda corny.

Batman had alot of weird gadgets. He had a bad ass sniper rifle that shot timers with gak? Meh. And then that whole ballon thing? Him and the chinese guy just stood there while the ballon inflated and nobody shot him? Lol somebodys not earning their pay.

He was holding "the Chineese dude as a human shield, if they shot at Batman, they risked hitting him instead.

The suit was kinda weak too. Batman can take bullets, but not dog bites? So morgan freeman makes the suit stronger and lighter to withstand dogs, but not bullets...I dunno how many enemies are firing pound puppies.

The new suit was made out of kevlar plates, so they can stop bullets. Two Face Shot Batman and he survived. The danger in the new suit and bullets was a "lucky shot" the hit in between the plates. For record the suit was made lighter so Batman would be able to move more freely, and be able to turn his head.

Bruce wayne must have been on roids or something, that deep rough batman voice. And somehow bruce wayne can throw his lambourgini into an oncoming truck and come out unscratched? Somebodys been working out.

Lambourgini's are very well built. Most of them can be taking straight the racetrack with no safety modifacations. So it is possable that he could have taken that direct shot, and walked away. [/QUOTE]

Just some corny details, but they add up. My biggest peeve was with the sonor thing at the end. What was up with that? Swat team above, clowns below, then he found the joker who was right infront of him, but still used the sonor to try to find him. Yeah...

Two face didn't show till the last part of the movie. Then he had to turn evil, kill people, get caught, then get killed. All that took like 10 min. The whole ferry thing was funny, big strong black buy throwing the switch out the window, and the weak white guy acting all hard. lol.

The movie wasn't bad, I just didn't like it. Acting was good though, as was two faces', two faces. lol no pun intended. Thoughts?

In Batman Begins, the vilan Rah Al Ghoul did not show up till the end either.


As Snap said did you watch the movie?

[RealBronco]

If Robin Williams can be nominated for a Cartoon, Ledger can be nominated for a "comic Book Movie"



He was holding "the Chineese dude as a human shield, if they shot at Batman, they risked hitting him instead.



The new suit was made out of kevlar plates, so they can stop bullets. Two Face Shot Batman and he survived. The danger in the new suit and bullets was a "lucky shot" the hit in between the plates. For record the suit was made lighter so Batman would be able to move more freely, and be able to turn his head.


Lambourgini's are very well built. Most of them can be taking straight the racetrack with no safety modifacations. So it is possable that he could have taken that direct shot, and walked away.

In Batman Begins, the vilan Rah Al Ghoul did not show up till the end either.


As Snap said did you watch the movie?[/QUOTE]

Well, I'm glad you pointed out all the obvious stuff so I didn't have to.

[RedRaptor]

they were having a discussion about this on the TDK imdb boards as well.

true Batman fans can see past Ledger's performance and recognize The Joker's importance to Batman.

I think the mistake that Burton and the first 4 films in general made was taking The Joker out of the picture. That's like taking Lex Luthor out of Superman....well then who would Superman go against (sure there are other villains but a Superman movie or even comic without Luthor is few and far between)? Of course there are the random issues or even story arcs of Batman that don't involve The Joker, but that never means he ceased to be part of the universe.

People will say they don't want to see them replace Ledger...well, it's not about Ledger. He did a superb job and blew Nicholson out of the water...but remember about 20 years ago? People kept saying no one would ever be able to portray the Joker better than Jack....oops, they were wrong!

I think bringing Joker back for the third installment is crucial. They were planning to before the accident, so why not still? They replaced Rachel Dawes, who isn't even part of the Batman universe if you really think about it....(when they could've just written her out of it somehow). So why can't they replace Batman's arch-nemesis?

Seems silly to me. I mean, they eve brought back Scarecrow, even though it was one scene....

Also, three is the end of the road for Nolan and Bale, so why not throw the Joker in there again, even if he doesn't play as big of a role because we all know Two-Face was set up to be the main villain for the third.

Time will tell. I can see Warner Bros. caving to popular demand and forcing Nolan and Co. to write Joker out of the third one.

Grr.

I full-heartedly agree with all of this. While they always managed to bring in people to Batman movies in the 90's by throwing in a bunch of big names (Robert DeNiro, George Clooney, Uma Thurman, Arnold Swartzenager, Jim Carrey, Jack Nickelson, etc etc..) they felt increasingly empty because it was always about the rise and fall of the next guy. I don't see why they can't make sequels to these movies and have the hero continue to fight his arch-nemisis...Spiderman shouldn't kill off the Green Goblin in the first movie...that's just annoying! When the hero always gets justice on the villians, then what's the point when you know that the hero is basically impervious and that no single villian can continuously challenge him? I'm desperately hoping that the Joker plays a vital part in the next movie, sort of like bringing a new villian to light like he did Two-Face (Btw, where did you hear about them making Two-Face the villian in the next one? Was it before they made Dark Knight how they did, or are they going to somehow trying to bring him back?).

[Snk16]

I personally enjoyed the movie a lot.

It definetly made the top 5 movies of all time for me.

Great acting, action, special effects. Heath Ledger was so creepy and ridiculous. Overall was a great film. 9.5/10

[RealBronco]

I full-heartedly agree with all of this. While they always managed to bring in people to Batman movies in the 90's by throwing in a bunch of big names (Robert DeNiro, George Clooney, Uma Thurman, Arnold Swartzenager, Jim Carrey, Jack Nickelson, etc etc..) they felt increasingly empty because it was always about the rise and fall of the next guy. I don't see why they can't make sequels to these movies and have the hero continue to fight his arch-nemisis...Spiderman shouldn't kill off the Green Goblin in the first movie...that's just annoying! When the hero always gets justice on the villians, then what's the point when you know that the hero is basically impervious and that no single villian can continuously challenge him? I'm desperately hoping that the Joker plays a vital part in the next movie, sort of like bringing a new villian to light like he did Two-Face (Btw, where did you hear about them making Two-Face the villian in the next one? Was it before they made Dark Knight how they did, or are they going to somehow trying to bring him back?).

i'm guessin' you meant Danny DeVito? or are you talkin' about Jack Nicholson? Cuz Robert DeNiro isn't in any Batman movies.

Anyway, they've said it from early on (Nolan that is) that TDK was going to be the beginning of Two-Face, and set him up for the third movie.

TDK was just the beginning, showing how Harvey Dent rose to the Gotham spotlight and then got drug down by The Joker and the mob and became Two-Face.

Really, the fall wasn't that far, and Batman survived (obviously). I suppose you could make the argument that Batman has protective clothing on, etc... but the whole situation was very similar to the comics.

Gordon and Batman agree that Gotham cannot know what Harvey has become, or that he's been killing people or else all that he worked for and all that they'd accomplished while he was D.A.

The funeral in the movie was for Harvey Dent. It was for the public to see, so that they would believe Harvey was dead.

As far as a studio standpoint goes, the ending of TDK really does give them the option not to bring Two-Face or even The Joker back. I suppose if they changed their minds, they could do that...but really, I'm pretty sure Two-Face will be back.

Harvey Dent died....and Two-Face was born.

[Javalon]

Well, I'm a bit late to the party as I just today saw the movie.


Personally, I loved it. There were a few parts that were a bit over the top but that's true of every super hero / action movie. For the most part, I thought it stayed on pretty firm ground.

The movie was obviously setting up future confrontations with the Joker and I wonder what they'll do now that Ledger is gone: Replace him with another actor as the Joker or avoid him altogether in homage to Heath?

Anyway, I think it's a good sign when a long movie doesn't feel like a long movie. I was really surprised when I looked at my watch when the flick was over because I never felt bogged down by anything. I also love the darker feel of the new Batman movies, kind of like the grittier feel of the new James Bond, more serious and not so kiddie.

Looking forward to the next one!

[RealBronco]

The movie was obviously setting up future confrontations with the Joker and I wonder what they'll do now that Ledger is gone: Replace him with another actor as the Joker or avoid him altogether in homage to Heath?

I'm really really hoping Nolan and Co. don't give into popular demand and leave him out.

Just replace him and keep Batman's nemesis in the story. Since you didn't kill him off like Burton did (thank God), you should definitely just replace the actor because the character is more important to the universe and story.

I don't think Heath would be as selfish as Jack (by the way Jack, your reign is over)...

There are a few or plenty of talented guys out there that could take over as The Joker.

Let's think of it this way: Let's say Heath was still alive and decided he didn't want to return.

Heath: "Listen, Chris...uh...you know, I kinda got a little messed up the last time around, too stressed out and didn't get much sleep because of shooting multiple movies (involving two icons, one real and one fictional) that...I just don't think I'm up for another go at The Joker."

Chris: "Sheesh, Heath...I understand. I mean, I really wish I could sit here and buy you a beer and change your mind. Heck, I'll even offer you whatever you need... you could take off and spend as much time with your daughter as you need... I hate to have to recast you... I mean, you destroyed. Jack Nicholson would be a pompous jerk to think his version is still better than yours..."

Heath: "Oh, I dunno... I mean, talk to uh... some of your other choices you know? I'm sure they could do just as good a job as me. Now that they've got something to work off of. They could even give me a call if they wanted some advice. Heck, see if Daniel will do it. He is superb. Did you see There Will Be Blood? I mean...come on. And Gangs of New York? Tell me he couldn't play The Joker."

Chris: "Well, yeah...I don't think he'd do it though. Plus he's a little old for our Joker."

Heath: "Well, call some guys up.... see what they say. Just make sure they know I'm all for them taking over the role. No hard feelings..."

Chris: "I sure wish you'd re-consider. You were just really terrific..."

Heath: "Terror-ific.... *pause* Why so serious Chris? AHahahAHAHAHahahahahahAHAHAHAHahahaha."

Chris: "Uh..... I... yup."