Man, it doesn't feel like it's been 10 years. I remember going to see it on opening night like yesterday.

http://ew.com/movies/2018/07/18/the-dark-knight-10th-anniversary-critics-conversation/

It was a great film, for sure. Maybe considered a little better than it actually is/was due to Heath Ledger's death, but still a great film nonetheless.

RolandDeschain wrote:It was a great film, for sure. Maybe considered a little better than it actually is/was due to Heath Ledger's death, but still a great film nonetheless.

Yeah, Christian Bale's bat-voice went into full comical territory in this film, but to me, it was Ledger and Aaron Eckhart who made this film great. BTW, Eckhart's performance gets unfairly dwarfed by Ledger in this movie. I never realized how good an actor he was until he played Harvey Dent. If it weren't for the Joker, Two-Face is easily what everyone would remember from it. Too bad Eckhart picks so much crap (The Core, Paycheck, I, Frankenstein). If you have never seen Thank You for Smoking, do yourself a favor and watch it.

Pretty much the last show where a comic book movie was actually good.

Cyrus12 wrote:Pretty much the last show where a comic book movie was actually good.

I know you'll disagree with anything I post here, but:

The Avengers
Captain America: The Winter Soldier
Guardians of the Galaxy
Captain America: Civil War
Thor: Ragnarok
Black Panther
Avengers: Infinity War
X-Men: Days of Future Past
Deadpool
Logan
Kick-Ass
Kingsman: The Secret Service
Dredd

But whatever. Let's just dismiss them all.

Maulbert wrote:

Cyrus12 wrote:Pretty much the last show where a comic book movie was actually good.

I know you'll disagree with anything I post here, but:

The Avengers
Captain America: The Winter Soldier
Guardians of the Galaxy
Captain America: Civil War
Thor: Ragnarok
Black Panther
Avengers: Infinity War
X-Men: Days of Future Past
Deadpool
Logan
Kick-Ass
Kingsman: The Secret Service
Dredd

But whatever. Let's just dismiss them all.

Virtually all of those movies are pretty good. I'd say one is even great. However, how many of them would you say deserve an Academy Award?

Judging by that metric...it's hard to argue against his proclamation of The Dark Knight.

RolandDeschain wrote:

Maulbert wrote:

Cyrus12 wrote:Pretty much the last show where a comic book movie was actually good.

I know you'll disagree with anything I post here, but:

The Avengers
Captain America: The Winter Soldier
Guardians of the Galaxy
Captain America: Civil War
Thor: Ragnarok
Black Panther
Avengers: Infinity War
X-Men: Days of Future Past
Deadpool
Logan
Kick-Ass
Kingsman: The Secret Service
Dredd

But whatever. Let's just dismiss them all.

Virtually all of those movies are pretty good. I'd say one is even great. However, how many of them would you say deserve an Academy Award?

Judging by that metric...it's hard to argue against his proclamation of The Dark Knight.

He said good, though. I'm not arguing greatness, or that any of them are better than The Dark Knight (though there are a couple I like better, that's just my opinion). I could and would quite easily argue that all of them are good, which his comment implied they weren't.

For me, TDK is the pinnacle of comic book/superhero movies. The pacing in that movie is pretty much perfect, the shots are fantastic, each scene and piece of dialogue feels like it matters, Ledger's and Eckhart's portrayals of the Joker and Harvey Dent are second to none, and I could go on and on. TDK was the perfect storm of great casting, great script and great execution.

I'd be surprised if I enjoyed another superhero movie that much again. I really liked Black Panther and some of the other Marvel movies that have come out in the recent past, but nothing has come close to the viewing experience and quality of film that TDK offers.

Maulbert wrote:He said good, though. I'm not arguing greatness, or that any of them are better than The Dark Knight (though there are a couple I like better, that's just my opinion). I could and would quite easily argue that all of them are good, which his comment implied they weren't.

Yeah, I know he said good; which is not the right word, IMO.

JGfromtheNW wrote:For me, TDK is the pinnacle of comic book/superhero movies. The pacing in that movie is pretty much perfect, the shots are fantastic, each scene and piece of dialogue feels like it matters, Ledger's and Eckhart's portrayals of the Joker and Harvey Dent are second to none, and I could go on and on. TDK was the perfect storm of great casting, great script and great execution.

I'd be surprised if I enjoyed another superhero movie that much again. I really liked Black Panther and some of the other Marvel movies that have come out in the recent past, but nothing has come close to the viewing experience and quality of film that TDK offers.

High five, baby. However, I think Batman Begins gets unfairly overshadowed by TDK; in my opinion, TDK wouldn't be as great as it is without the exceptionally strong and damned good origin film that Batman Begins was. If Batman Begins had been "meh", TDK would not be quite as good despite no changes in the TDK film itself, if you get what I mean.

RolandDeschain wrote:High five, baby. However, I think Batman Begins gets unfairly overshadowed by TDK; in my opinion, TDK wouldn't be as great as it is without the exceptionally strong and damned good origin film that Batman Begins was. If Batman Begins had been "meh", TDK would not be quite as good despite no changes in the TDK film itself, if you get what I mean.

IMO most origin stories get a bum rap, because sometimes they get bogged down with the origin story and minutia of that for the first act, or even two acts..........either through flashbacks, or through a linear story line. So can come off disjointed a little, and therefore not as enjoyable/re-watchable.

To me The Dark Knight is almost a perfect movie in story, writing, acting and action set pieces. So while I still thoroughly enjoy Batman Begins, it doesn't quite achieve what TDK did for sheer visceral enjoyment and performance.

Like I said, through no fault of it's own. Sometimes it just takes time to set the table, but did it do a good job of that which helped make TDK and Dark Night Rises so great? Yes, ABSOLUTELY.

Oh I absolutely agree, Batman Begins is not at TDK's level. However, I'd say Batman Begins is a solid 8.0 out of 10, while TDK is probably like a 9.2 out of 10....and would have been an 8.5 out of 10 if Batman Begins had been crap.

Personally prefer Batman Begins, not that I'm dismissing TDK at all...

It's just that when I watch that film, I get depressed because I know that performance killed Heath Ledger... I'm watching a guy literally kill himself on screen by going to such a dark place he never recovered mentally, and that does trouble me to the point where it detracts the movie.

So even though I acknowledge its greatness, I actually like Batman Begins better.


It's a little bit the same way when I watch Who Framed Roger Rabbit? - knowing that Bob Hoskins had himself hypnotized so he could believe he was actually interacting with these characters, and that it did permanent damage, and that he still hallucinates Roger Rabbit to this day, makes the movie slightly creepy...

You watch it, and you laugh, but then you realize..."Jesus, that poor guy still hallucinates that freaky cartoon rabbit at the breakfast table some mornings, 30 years later..."

As a whole, I love the Marvel movies. But as a stand alone, I think Dark Knight is the best super hero movie there is. It probably helps that it was the movie my wife and I went to see on our first date, The only *bad* thing about Dark Knight is that Dark Knight Rises was quite a disappointment. For me, Captain America: Civil War is the best Marvel Movie. The two movies really aren't comparable because the tones are so different. But I left Civil War thinking, "I love this movie." I left Dark Knight thinking, "Whoa!" Just a difference between thoroughly enjoying something and being thoroughly blown away by something.

The_Z_Man wrote:

It's a little bit the same way when I watch Who Framed Roger Rabbit? - knowing that Bob Hoskins had himself hypnotized so he could believe he was actually interacting with these characters, and that it did permanent damage, and that he still hallucinates Roger Rabbit to this day, makes the movie slightly creepy...

Wait, what?

HawkGA wrote:

The_Z_Man wrote:

It's a little bit the same way when I watch Who Framed Roger Rabbit? - knowing that Bob Hoskins had himself hypnotized so he could believe he was actually interacting with these characters, and that it did permanent damage, and that he still hallucinates Roger Rabbit to this day, makes the movie slightly creepy...

Wait, what?

Oh yea, it's not common knowledge, but I read this in a book on method acting and writing. When they were filming Who Framed Roger Rabbit, Hoskins was struggling because he'd have someone reading the toons lines, but his performance was coming out flat because he couldn't envision the characters he was having to react to. He was actually in danger of being fired from the film when the director suggested seeing, I believe, some doctor who could hypnotize people.

So Hoskins took some short films of Roger Rabbit home, and a lot of original art from the set, had himself hypnotized and even did some hallucinogenics, I believe, it was DMT or DXM, so he could visualize Roger being in the room with him.

It totally worked.

Too well....

After filming wrapped, he couldn't get rid of Roger... the damned rabbit went everywhere with him. It wasn't quite Syd Barret (Pink Floyd's original lead) level, but close. It drove him a bit mad, ruined his career, and he never really recovered.

At first, the press was saying things like "He's an alcoholic" et. and blame his situation on being overworked or drinking too much, but it was a much deeper issue than that. Then when he died they passed it off as the new catch all... these days a lot of mental conditions get thrown under the umbrella of "Parkinson's Disease" but that's just something they can put in a blurb and the consuming public can nod and go "oh yea" because it's recognizable.

But what he really had was a form of dementia, probably brought on by what he went through.

It's like Robin Williams, officially they say "Parkinson's" but it was a rare form of dementia also. His brain was short circuiting and he was seeing and believing things that were not real. He was even having seizures.


Hoskin's struggle is RARELY mentioned, you only hear a blurb about it now and then.

Like in this clip here at 3:30 .... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1O55kFMD_dc&t=394s

It makes it sound like no big deal... but it was a very big deal.

Freaky, huh?

RolandDeschain wrote:...how many of them would you say deserve an Academy Award?

In my opinion, three of the movies listed deserved an academy award. Unless we're talking visual effects, because then the list grows.

The first Avengers movie is better than Argo. Not shitting on Argo, but come on. Does anyone even remember that movie exists? the rest of the nominees that year are solid, but I doubt any will be remembered for close to as long as The Avengers.

Logan deserved consideration for best actor and supporting actor, in my opinion. I don't even like Wolverine or any of the mutants, but this movie was amazing. At the time of its release, it shot into my top three comic book movies of all time, joining The Avengers and The Dark Knight. Infinity War has now jumped into my top three, but I am not sure which movie got bumped. I haven't figured it out yet.

Infinity War is an unparalleled accomplishment in cinematic history. Not saying it's the greatest movie ever, but no other movie has even tried to do what it did. Bringing together so many different casts of characters in such a compelling and cohesive way is really impressive. Josh Brolin was perfect as Thanos and the rest of the cast was at their best as well. It might be my favorite comic movie of all time.

The_Z_Man wrote:

HawkGA wrote:

The_Z_Man wrote:

It's a little bit the same way when I watch Who Framed Roger Rabbit? - knowing that Bob Hoskins had himself hypnotized so he could believe he was actually interacting with these characters, and that it did permanent damage, and that he still hallucinates Roger Rabbit to this day, makes the movie slightly creepy...

Wait, what?

Oh yea, it's not common knowledge, but I read this in a book on method acting and writing. When they were filming Who Framed Roger Rabbit, Hoskins was struggling because he'd have someone reading the toons lines, but his performance was coming out flat because he couldn't envision the characters he was having to react to. He was actually in danger of being fired from the film when the director suggested seeing, I believe, some doctor who could hypnotize people.

So Hoskins took some short films of Roger Rabbit home, and a lot of original art from the set, had himself hypnotized and even did some hallucinogenics, I believe, it was DMT or DXM, so he could visualize Roger being in the room with him.

It totally worked.

Too well....

After filming wrapped, he couldn't get rid of Roger... the damned rabbit went everywhere with him. It wasn't quite Syd Barret (Pink Floyd's original lead) level, but close. It drove him a bit mad, ruined his career, and he never really recovered.

At first, the press was saying things like "He's an alcoholic" et. and blame his situation on being overworked or drinking too much, but it was a much deeper issue than that. Then when he died they passed it off as the new catch all... these days a lot of mental conditions get thrown under the umbrella of "Parkinson's Disease" but that's just something they can put in a blurb and the consuming public can nod and go "oh yea" because it's recognizable.

But what he really had was a form of dementia, probably brought on by what he went through.

It's like Robin Williams, officially they say "Parkinson's" but it was a rare form of dementia also. His brain was short circuiting and he was seeing and believing things that were not real. He was even having seizures.


Hoskin's struggle is RARELY mentioned, you only hear a blurb about it now and then.

Like in this clip here at 3:30 .... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1O55kFMD_dc&t=394s

It makes it sound like no big deal... but it was a very big deal.

Freaky, huh?

Wow, that is seriously messed up.

LargentFan wrote:

RolandDeschain wrote:...how many of them would you say deserve an Academy Award?

In my opinion, three of the movies listed deserved an academy award. Unless we're talking visual effects, because then the list grows.

The first Avengers movie is better than Argo. Not shitting on Argo, but come on. Does anyone even remember that movie exists? the rest of the nominees that year are solid, but I doubt any will be remembered for close to as long as The Avengers.

Logan deserved consideration for best actor and supporting actor, in my opinion. I don't even like Wolverine or any of the mutants, but this movie was amazing. At the time of its release, it shot into my top three comic book movies of all time, joining The Avengers and The Dark Knight. Infinity War has now jumped into my top three, but I am not sure which movie got bumped. I haven't figured it out yet.

Infinity War is an unparalleled accomplishment in cinematic history. Not saying it's the greatest movie ever, but no other movie has even tried to do what it did. Bringing together so many different casts of characters in such a compelling and cohesive way is really impressive. Josh Brolin was perfect as Thanos and the rest of the cast was at their best as well. It might be my favorite comic movie of all time.

Couldn’t disagree more honestly.. I really liked Argo. On the other hand I thought avengers, from a story standpoint, kind of sucked. People just wanked themselves off to avengers because it was all the superheroes in one place.. but it was so damn forumilaic and boring imo. Meanwhile the third avengers was super good because it actually had an interesting story and a big twist at the end

Wally Pfister and Hans Zimmer really did the Lord's work in that film.

Nolan is without a doubt one of my favorite directors. I would be interested to see what he could do with a Star Wars trilogy.

MontanaHawk05 wrote:Wally Pfister and Hans Zimmer really did the Lord's work in that film.

I disagree on Hans Zimmer. He ruined film scores with the Dark Knight Trilogy and Inception. Now everything sounds just like his stuff, and themes and motifs have disappeared. The only newer Hollywood composer that has rejected his style is Michael Giacchino. I'm glad Alan Sylvestri is still working, too, especially with John Williams retiring after Episode IX. I'm not a huge fan of Danny Elfman's style, but I will say at least it is unique, as well.

Maulbert wrote:I disagree on Hans Zimmer. He ruined film scores with the Dark Knight Trilogy and Inception. Now everything sounds just like his stuff, and themes and motifs have disappeared.

So you're blaming Hans Zimmer for people ripping off his style?

RolandDeschain wrote:

Maulbert wrote:I disagree on Hans Zimmer. He ruined film scores with the Dark Knight Trilogy and Inception. Now everything sounds just like his stuff, and themes and motifs have disappeared.

So you're blaming Hans Zimmer for people ripping off his style?

I don't really like his style to begin with. His stuff sounds too incedental and samey, with no distinction between his scores. However, I will admit the popularity of Chris Nolan's films is what's making so many composers ape his style, and that specifically is not his fault.

I think great movie scores have gone the way of great films... few and far between.

Really, video games and television shows in the last decade or so have had more iconic soundtracks than movies....

Maulbert wrote:I don't really like his style to begin with. His stuff sounds too incedental and samey, with no distinction between his scores. However, I will admit the popularity of Chris Nolan's films is what's making so many composers ape his style, and that specifically is not his fault.

Not a fan of the soundtracks from Gladiator, Hannibal, or The Rock either, then?

RolandDeschain wrote:

Maulbert wrote:I don't really like his style to begin with. His stuff sounds too incedental and samey, with no distinction between his scores. However, I will admit the popularity of Chris Nolan's films is what's making so many composers ape his style, and that specifically is not his fault.

Not a fan of the soundtracks from Gladiator, Hannibal, or The Rock either, then?

First, I will say I've never seen Hannibal. I saw Silence of the Lambs when I watched the AFI 100, and I don't feel any desire to watch the continuing saga of Hannibal Lector. I respect Silence, but I did not like it. Second, The Rock and Gladiator were both collaborative efforts, and if you've ever heard the Metal Gear Solid theme, you can hear Harry Gregson-Williams's fingerprints all over The Rock score. Very militaristic and patriotic in style. And putting that aside, I find neither score terribly distinct or memorable. They don't even come close to the film classics composed by John Williams, Bernard Herrmann, Max Steiner, or Henry Mancini. Heck, I don't even think they're as good as what Jerry Goldsmith and James Horner did.

The_Z_Man wrote:I think great movie scores have gone the way of great films... few and far between.

Really, video games and television shows in the last decade or so have had more iconic soundtracks than movies....

This

fenderbender123 wrote:

The_Z_Man wrote:I think great movie scores have gone the way of great films... few and far between.

Really, video games and television shows in the last decade or so have had more iconic soundtracks than movies....

This

I'd say the last new truly iconic film scores were from The Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter. Although Alan Silvestri did his damnedest for The Avengers.