Announcing: Slashdot Deals - Explore geek apps, games, gadgets and more. (what is this?)

Thank you!

We are sorry to see you leave - Beta is different and we value the time you took to try it out. Before you decide to go, please take a look at some value-adds for Beta and learn more about it. Thank you for reading Slashdot, and for making the site better!

Batman Discussion

CmdrTaco posted more than 6 years ago | from the because-we-can dept.


I won't be reading it because I haven't been able to go yet, but I suspect a goodly number of you have already partaken in the latest Batman flick that taunts me. Mocks me. And knows that I don't have time today or probably any time this week (unless there is a movie theater near the OSCON venue?) Anyway -- here is the official place to talk about the biggest geek movie out until the X-Files comes out next week, and I have similar frustrations.

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

One Word (2, Informative)

ThePopeLayton (868042) | more than 6 years ago | (#24273083)


Re:One Word (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24273163)

I second that.

Best "Knight" movie Heath Ledger was in! He really did the Joker perfect.

Three Words (5, Funny)

PrescriptionWarning (932687) | more than 6 years ago | (#24273453)

Disappearing Pencil Trick!

Batman in tights (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24273087)

na nananannana BATMAN

I miss old school batman on the black and white. Those were the days.

Indeed they were: (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24273427)

"Those Were The Days"
by Lee Adams and Charles Strouse
Boy, the way Glenn Miller played. Songs that made the Hit Parade.
Guys like us, we had it made. Those were the days.
Didn't need no welfare state. Everybody pulled his weight.
Gee, our old LaSalle ran great. Those were the days.
And you know who you were then. Girls were girls and men were men.
Mister, we could use a man like Herbert Hoover again.
People seemed to be content. Fifty dollars paid the rent.
Freaks were in a circus tent. Those were the days.
Take a little Sunday spin, go to watch the Dodgers win.
Have yourself a dandy day that cost you under a fin.
Hair was short and skirts were long. Kate Smith really sold a song.
I don't know just what went wrong. Those Were The Days.

Shag all that old nonsense. If those days were truly perfect, the sun should not have set upon them. Let's opt for "Change we can believe in" instead. Maybe if we keep changing the change, the robbery shan't be so apparent.

Spoiler (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24273091)

Batman comes out of the closet. Not a big surprise, and probably a big step forward for the gay rights movement.

Oscars. (1)

Hyppy (74366) | more than 6 years ago | (#24273097)

I see some Academy Awards in this movie's future.

Anonymous Coward (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24273101)

Is this the first comment?

Re:Anonymous Coward (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24273575)


Can Oscar's be given posthumously? (5, Insightful)

Amorymeltzer (1213818) | more than 6 years ago | (#24273109)

Because Heath Ledger deserves one.

End of story.

Re:Can Oscar's be given posthumously? (5, Informative)

Hyppy (74366) | more than 6 years ago | (#24273207)

Yes. List of posthumous Academy Award winners. [oscars.org] It's been over 30 years since an actor has won one posthumously, though.

Re:Can Oscar's be given posthumously? (3, Interesting)

quarrel (194077) | more than 6 years ago | (#24273253)

Yes, they can.

Peter Finch [wikipedia.org] (who won Australia's first Acting Oscar?) has got the only posthumous Oscar for Acting (there are others in other categories).

Sadly, another Australian may get one this way..


Re:Can Oscar's be given posthumously? (1)

east coast (590680) | more than 6 years ago | (#24273317)

I know that Spencer Tracy was nominated posthumously, he died before Guess Who's Coming to Dinner? was even released. Sadly he lost out to Rod Steiger for In the Heat of the Night.

Others have pointed out that it was awarded posthumously but I would have to dig further to see if anyone else was ever nominated posthumously. As much as I love both films Spence really should have won it. He was a giant on the silver screen.

Re:Can Oscar's be given posthumously? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24273663)

Yeah but "Oscars" didn't deserve an apostrophe, it is a plural and not a possessive.

Re:Can Oscar's be given posthumously? (5, Interesting)

xtracto (837672) | more than 6 years ago | (#24273689)

Because Heath Ledger deserves one.

This is not a troll, but a legitimate question. I have only seen the trailers of the new Batman movie. I have read in a lot of places that the joker character is is very good.

However, from what I have seen on the trailer, the joker does not seems crazy like the one impersonated by Jack Nickolson. Thus my question to the people that have seen the movie would be, Is the Joker character by Ledger better than the one by Nickolson?

And to the compic purists (I am not one of them...) which of the two characterisations is closer to the one in the comics?

"disappering pencil" (1)

halfEvilTech (1171369) | more than 6 years ago | (#24273117)

lets just say the Joker has the best "magic trick" to be played on the bigscreen.

Re:"disappering pencil" (5, Insightful)

Broken scope (973885) | more than 6 years ago | (#24273237)

Never has a simple writing implement, been used to set the tone of a movie so effectively.

Re:"disappering pencil" (1)

tgd (2822) | more than 6 years ago | (#24273475)

The pencil is mightier than the sword, as they say. Sort of.

Re:"disappering pencil" (1)

Jager Dave (1238106) | more than 6 years ago | (#24273331)

Brought new meaning to the term, "Pencil me in for later..."

It's not the latest Batman flick (5, Insightful)

SageinaRage (966293) | more than 6 years ago | (#24273119)

It's the latest Joker flick, Batman is just a secondary character.

Re:It's not the latest Batman flick (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24273197)

Joker did it for the lulz.

Batman shot first (1)

Shakrai (717556) | more than 6 years ago | (#24273601)

Batman shot first.

Me either (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24273121)

I just wanted to let everyone know I won't be reading the discussion any further either. But it's more due to a lack of interest than not being able to see the film. Thanks for the interest.

Re:Me either (2, Funny)

Exitar (809068) | more than 6 years ago | (#24273173)

Oh noes, I've no mod points!
I'd have modded you informative!

Good movie (5, Interesting)

halcyon1234 (834388) | more than 6 years ago | (#24273123)

It didn't disappoint me. I enjoyed the portrayal of The Joker. I'm sure there'll be much debate about Ledger vs. Nicholson (as well as endless Batman/Alternate Universe Joker-on-Joker slashfic).

I also enjoyed that there wasn't any silly microwave/waterborn silliness. I know, I know, comic book movie. But still...

Jack Nicholson != Joker (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24273273)

Tell me you're "joking". The debate should be between Ledger and Mark Hammil, who did the voice of the Joker in the Batman Animated Series. Jack Nicholson should be compared to Tommy Lee Jones as Two Face (The steaming pile known as Batman Forever) for overacting a role. He was awful as the joker, while Ledger was absolutely terrifying. Hammil at least had a hell of a Joker laugh.

Re:Good movie (5, Funny)

Hatta (162192) | more than 6 years ago | (#24273339)

Cesar Romero [wikipedia.org] is the only real Joker.

I hate... (0)

skraps (650379) | more than 6 years ago | (#24273127)

I hate the part where Rachel Dawes DIAF's.

Re:I hate... (1)

halcyon1234 (834388) | more than 6 years ago | (#24273185)

In all fairness, it probably was the explosion that got her, and not the fire.

Re:I hate... (1)

legoman666 (1098377) | more than 6 years ago | (#24273669)

I didn't mind it so much. I much preferred Katie Holmes as Rachel Dawes over Maggie Gyllenhaal.

Or maybe I just don't like it when a character's actor changes between movies (same with Dumbledore in Harry Potter, I liked the first guy better; he has a much better voice).

What no discussion of the Bambi movie? (0, Troll)

baomike (143457) | more than 6 years ago | (#24273131)

Batman is for the birds.
Why not just leave your money at the theatre, then you don't have to sit thru it.

Re:What no discussion of the Bambi movie? (1)

MyLongNickName (822545) | more than 6 years ago | (#24273155)

Bats are mammals not birds.

Intentionally Missing the Point,

Re:What no discussion of the Bambi movie? (4, Funny)

nelsonal (549144) | more than 6 years ago | (#24273271)

Fact #1 Bats=bugs!

Re:What no discussion of the Bambi movie? (1)

baomike (143457) | more than 6 years ago | (#24273513)

True , but likely meaningless to the average batman movie goer.

Who? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24273147)

Who or what is Batman? Some crazy American dream I guess!

Great Movie! (1)

rwATR (1317735) | more than 6 years ago | (#24273151)

Great action scenes, good story, interesting twists. I loved it!

Re:Great Movie! (2, Interesting)

Kelbear (870538) | more than 6 years ago | (#24273301)

The movie was great across the board, driven by Heath's terrific acting and superb writing.

However...I don't really get the reasoning Joker used to convert Dent into Two-Face?

Re:Great Movie! (5, Interesting)

nelsonal (549144) | more than 6 years ago | (#24273501)

As best I can tell, he gave him purpose. Dent was crushed by the loss of his love, his loss of control, and his disfigurement. The Joker gave him purpose (revenge on those who gave up Dawes and Dent) combining it with his sense of justice (they were corrupt cops he'd wanted to bust before). Now with nothing left to lose, he could go after them on his own terms. The change (or revealing of his true nature) began with his interrogation of Scarecrow.

Re:Great Movie! (4, Interesting)

Asmor (775910) | more than 6 years ago | (#24273623)

That wasn't his true nature, though (also, I don't think that was Scarecrow, though I could be wrong. I thought it was just some random punk the Joker recruited).

Remember, until it got burnt, his coin was double-headed, so when he said "Heads I don't shoot you, tails I do," it was a total bluff and he never would have actually shot the guy.

Re:Great Movie! (2, Informative)

Stickerboy (61554) | more than 6 years ago | (#24273595)

>However...I don't really get the reasoning Joker used to convert Dent into Two-Face?

I thought the Joker explained it pretty well, although the Bugs Bunny-esque nurse outfit was stealing the scene. The Joker believes everyone is like him deep inside, and he believes the facade of civilization is paper-thin, waiting for the right someone to tear it down. His corruption of Dent is a demonstration of how he's right - all it took was personal leverage followed by tragedy to push Gotham's crusading White Knight to break society's rules and then abandon them altogether.

I wonder who will play Aunt Madge (0)

filesiteguy (695431) | more than 6 years ago | (#24273167)

Brittany Spears?

Paris Hilton?

Lee Meriwether?

I'm curious....

Re:I wonder who will play Aunt Madge (5, Insightful)

pragma_x (644215) | more than 6 years ago | (#24273641)

The Joker simply took advantage of Dent's vulnerability after having lost the love of his life. He explained to Dent that this happened due to the corrupt elements within the police force; that the "good guys" weren't all good.

The Joker also explained himself as little more than a "dog chasing cars" that "wouldn't know what to do once he caught one." He has no motivation for the destruction of Gotham other than sheer nihilism. As others have explained: he is a force of nature.

So, in that moment it was laid out for Harvey. The good weren't all good, and the bad not all bad.

Dent decided that this applied to himself as well. He then went on a vendetta, using his "lucky" coin as judge and jury, since sheer fate was the only form of justice left to him.

For as we all know: money can't buy knives.


east coast (590680) | more than 6 years ago | (#24273171)

Bruce Willis really dead the entire film. That's why the kid can see him and everyone else ignores him!

What? Oh, sorry. Wrong film.


filesiteguy (695431) | more than 6 years ago | (#24273345)

So when he jumps out of the window in Nakatomi plaza he's dead?

I must have missed that one.


east coast (590680) | more than 6 years ago | (#24273471)

No, it was when he was in the train wreck at the beginning of the film.

SPOILER - Really, it is... (1)

chaodyn (1313729) | more than 6 years ago | (#24273181)

I think this movie is going to start a new Holywood curse - if you play a villian in a superhero movie you better make sure they kill your character off at the end, or you'll end up dead in RL. Definitely lives up to the hype. I just wish Bale's batman voice was a little less forced.

Re:SPOILER - Really, it is... (2, Insightful)

RabidMonkey (30447) | more than 6 years ago | (#24273299)

I agree with the voice comment - every time I hear it it just doesn't sound right. He's trying too hard.

Re:SPOILER - Really, it is... (4, Interesting)

jonnythan (79727) | more than 6 years ago | (#24273551)

I think that's totally intentional. Obviously the man is trying to disguise his voice so no one can figure out his true identity.

Re:SPOILER - Really, it is... (2, Informative)

geeknado (1117395) | more than 6 years ago | (#24273543)

Cillian Murphy [imdb.com] (Scarecrow) has survived both modern Batman movies now, both in them and in real life.

The Dark Knight (5, Insightful)

DocturKnowles (1146091) | more than 6 years ago | (#24273183)

I'll go ahead and comment here but keep it short and sweet. Pros - Heath Ledger was the epitome of psychosis. BRILLIANT acting. In the original Batman movie (think '60s) and later in the Burton films the Joker was more or less a silly villain. He was out for revenge or just doing it for the kicks but he wasn't crazy. He had his fun and went home. The Dark Knight's Joker was fantastically evil. I will see this movie again just to re-watch Ledger's performance. Cons - Some cheesey dialogue. The Bat-Bike was so-so. Scarecrow and Two Face seemed under used. All in all I'd give this movie a nine out of ten. Ten out of ten for acting and sheer awesome. Eight out of ten for cheese and missed opportunities.

Re:The Dark Knight (1)

AjStone (743464) | more than 6 years ago | (#24273351)

I'll agree with the above. Although I am really worried about who they plan to use in Ledger's place in the next film. Nobody will be able to match his excellent ability.

Can't wait for.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24273189)

Can't wait for Batman Returns..... Again!

Joker (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24273191)

I would see it again (this time in Imax) just for the Joker scenes.

Holy editing Batman! (1)

nenya (557317) | more than 6 years ago | (#24273203)

The movie was brilliant overall, and Ledger's performance was particularly noteworthy. But the editing? Yes, we know Batman gets around and appears/disappears suddenly and without warning. But there are ways of communicating that while still enabling the audience to know what the hell is going on. Sometimes I was so confused that I wasn't sure whether or not I was supposed to be confused. Instead of "Oh, I wonder what happened there, they must explain it soon," a lot of the time the experience was more like "Okay, what just happened?"

Did anyone else share this perception?

Re:Holy editing Batman! (5, Insightful)

m93 (684512) | more than 6 years ago | (#24273417)

Yes. This is also a flaw in Batman Begins. However, if you think about it, the pacing and framing of each scene is akin to what you would see in a comic book. In essence, each scene is a frame. Am I the only one who thinks this?

Lloyd Center (2, Informative)

Dunx (23729) | more than 6 years ago | (#24273205)

Obviously Cmdr T won't be reading this, but the Lloyd Center cinemas are very close to the OSCON venue - two stops on the MAX, or about half a mile if he feels like walking.

http://www.fandango.com/regallloydmall8cinema_aaapq/theaterpage [fandango.com]

Re:Lloyd Center (2, Funny)

umStefa (583709) | more than 6 years ago | (#24273477)

or about half a mile if he feels like walking

What kind of true geek walks anywhere? You think we get these perfectly round bodies by doing anything even remotely close to exercise? YOU INSENSITIVE CLOD!

Fear not! (1, Funny)

Snaller (147050) | more than 6 years ago | (#24273215)

I haven't seen it. Two old men living alone trying to groom a younger man who wears tight body fitting latex while he chases after another man who wears makeup - sounds way to gay for me!

I'm watching Mamma Mia instead - it was gurls! ;)

it was good (1)

Neotrantor (597070) | more than 6 years ago | (#24273217)

Seems to follow hollywood's classic "Heros journey" storyline... mostly similar to return of the jedi or the last crusade

there is one part at the end where there was clearly an error in props/makeup... i think people who saw it know what i'm talking about

Re:it was good (1, Troll)

Hyppy (74366) | more than 6 years ago | (#24273287)

Seems to follow hollywood's classic "Heros journey" storyline...

I believe that far predates Hollywood. Or the United States. Or the English language. It was just given the name "Hero's Journey" or "Monomyth" recently.

I thought the movie was an ok treatment I guess (5, Funny)

scourfish (573542) | more than 6 years ago | (#24273227)

I mean, don't get me wrong, Christian Bale is a good actor; but to be honest, when it comes to movies about the Black Knight, I don't really think that anybody can top Martin Lawrence's performance.

Farewell sweet Karma (0)

grumpygrodyguy (603716) | more than 6 years ago | (#24273229)

oblig prayer to bob: Even though I walk through the dark valley of socially immature nerds, because you are with me, I fear no harm.

That being said, I think I'll chime in...and no this isn't a troll, it's how I sincerely felt after seeing it last Thursday. This is a quote from another discussion board...needless to say my opinion wasn't popular, but I stand by it:

"no guys, the movie really did suck.

The directing was abysmal, the writing was amateur at best, and the editing...was probably done by a college intern.

It's a shame too because they had some great actors in that cast. Christian Bale, Heath Ledger, Gary Oldman, Morgan Freeman, etc.

'Batman Begins' was good, it was simple and focused. 'The Dark Knight' was a mess of loose ends. This film was 3 hours of discordant noise, gimmicks, and tedium...a giant wasted opportunity. A Deus ex machine gun blasting the audience into stupified dazed submission. Utter Shock n' Awe MTV sweatshop excrement.

Tell us how you really feel.
OK I will, Keaton/Nicholson will be remembered 50 years from now as the definitive Batman film. 'The Dark Knight' won't even be rentable."

Re:Farewell sweet Karma (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24273523)

While I believe everyone's entitled to an opinion of the film...comments such as those come off as trollish because there's less speciifc discussion and more just blanket statements.

"Poor writing", "poor editing"...where was this most obvious? Care to pinpoint issues rather than blanketing them across the entire movie?

It's the same thing as with Spider-Man 3. Personally I agree it was "rushed", but I can be more specific than that generic complaint. For example:

Peter confronting Sand-Man - "You killed Uncle Ben." "No I didn't." "Okay bye." Or the contrived amnesia that made the 2nd Green Goblin an awkwardly good guy for a while.

Can you provide some examples like that vs. throwing a common complaint at the entire film? It makes it tough to open up a discussion about potential issues.

Lloyd Center Cinemas (1)

questionlp (58365) | more than 6 years ago | (#24273231)

If I remember correctly, the Lloyd Center Cinema is not to far away from the Oregon Convention Center (maybe a couple of blocks).

It was pretty good (3, Interesting)

Daniel Dvorkin (106857) | more than 6 years ago | (#24273247)

That's about the reaction I had, which seems to be unusual -- most people I know thought it was fantastically amazingly wonderful, with a small minority who thought it sucked. Very much like Batman Begins: I may be the only person I know who thought it was ... well, pretty good. Not bad, not great, a decent way to spend a couple of hours and munch some popcorn.

The editing was better than in BB, which pleased me; the abrupt jumps of that movie really irritated me. Bale is, as before, good but not great. Ledger's Joker performance deserves all the praise that's been heaped on it -- it's not just the glamor of a Star Tragically Dead Before His Time(tm). He's genuinely scary, and he pretty much owns every scene he's in. (As opposed to whatsisname who played the Scarecrow in BB, and makes a brief cameo appearance in TDK, who I thought was one of the least interesting and charismatic bat-antagonists of all time.) Everyone else is, again, pretty good.

[shrug] The 1989 version remains the definitive Batman film adaptation for me, but this will do for now. If they keep the franchise going, Bond-style, maybe they can bring Bale back in a generation or so to do TDK Returns. That would be cool.

too racy (1)

ragged_rahul (1012535) | more than 6 years ago | (#24273259)

I think in the end the pace of the movie became so fast it was almost impossible for me to absorb what was going on. I also think it was kind of difficult for me to figure out the cause-and-effect relationship between all the things that were happenings out there.Still trying to figure out how one thing led to another.

Re:too racy (4, Funny)

Hyppy (74366) | more than 6 years ago | (#24273491)

Racy [thefreedictionary.com] ... I do not think that word means what you think it means.

Re:too racy (1)

AskFirefly (757114) | more than 6 years ago | (#24273505)

For me, that's why the film worked. Usually, the lack of a coherent story throughout is tne kiss of death, especially for a Batman film. But here it worked. Why? Largely because of the way the Joker character was written and performed. During the film, you didn't have a good sense of where this all started, where it was going, what it meant. It kept me from being comfortable, from relaxing into the story. And that, I think, was the point. What made the Joker character and the film work was the randomness. The audience didn't know what was coming next, just as the characters in the film didn't, and we often didn't know how to react, much like the characters in the film didn't. In a way, it served to put us in the movie. Of course, with all of the attention paid, deservingly, to Ledger's Joker, it is easy to overlook Two-Face. That is a shame. I thought that, for once, a filmmaker and actor combined to really get that character right. Usually in these films, two villans muddles the storyline; here, the two villans worked well together. Nice to know it can be done. One nitpick (though I could do several): Can DC and Marvel force filmmakers to sign a contract stipulating that major characters will not be killed off? I know there are times in a story where it is necessary, but it is becoming so trite. It is no longer the shock to the audience it once was. Please, can we really surprise the audience and keep the characters alive, even if only once?

Biggest geek movie until X-Files? (0, Troll)

Xest (935314) | more than 6 years ago | (#24273267)

Not that that's saying much but can anyone elaborate as to why this is a big geek movie? Does it have lots of computing/IT stuff in it giving it more geek appeal and more reason to have it's very own uncategorized Slashdot article than any other similar film?

Or is it just the same, tired old Batman/Spiderman/Superman/Whateverman set of stories reiterated over and over, hyped to hell because that's what Hollywood does but isn't actually very good but with a bit of extra hype because it has a now dead actor in it?

Re:Biggest geek movie until X-Files? (1)

moosesocks (264553) | more than 6 years ago | (#24273563)

Have you actually seen it?

You don't need to call it a "geek" movie. It's easily the best comic-book adaptation thus far, though that might not be saying much. This movie aspires to be something more than that.

Even if it's a rehash of an old story, it's a rehash of an old story that was performed abysmally the first time around. Plenty of artistic license was used by Christopher Nolan, when he "rebooted" the Batman series, and I think that most will agree that it was overwhelmingly for the better that he did so.

Heath Ledger would also very very likely have been given the same praise for his character, were he still alive today. I went into the movie with rather low expectations, given the ridiculous hype that surrounded it. Needless to say, the hype was justified, especially that which surrounded Ledger's part. Simply put, he's the best movie villain I've come across.

The movie's excellent, but not perfect. Ledger's role, however, was flawless.

i was going to say (1)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 6 years ago | (#24273579)

that you are being insulting by asserting your completely arbitrary and subjective standards of what constitutes being a geek as canon and law

but then it occured to me that it is entirely geeky to be so emotionally caustic on such a trivial and pointless matter

(like arguing about whether batman would beat superman or visa versa? hint hint, wink wink)

so carry on then, oh self-appointed geek adequacy arbiter. its very geeky of you

Re:Biggest geek movie until X-Files? (1)

Software (179033) | more than 6 years ago | (#24273627)

What makes it a big geek movie is that Batman attains (some of) his powers through use of technology. He doesn't have any super-powers like Superman or Spider-Man; he uses way cool kit to beat the bad guys. Plus a healthy dose of martial-arts training. Oh, and lets not forget the anger - lots of anger. But it's a geek movie in a way that Spider-Man will never be because of the gear.

Re:Biggest geek movie until X-Files? (5, Insightful)

jonnythan (79727) | more than 6 years ago | (#24273667)

"Geek" doesn't mean being into the latest gadgets and computers.

Comic books and tabletop gaming are, and always have bee, geek.

Re:Biggest geek movie until X-Files? (1)

Analog_Manner (1326359) | more than 6 years ago | (#24273681)

Maybe it's the supercomputer that Bruce builds that hacks every mobile phone in Gotham. Then he uses the data to make a sonar image of the entire city and track down the Joker.

Thanks for sharing your plans with us, CmdrTaco, (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24273277)

but this is Slashdot, we discuss cool stuff like computers, rockets and other technology, not typically movies about manbats in latex.

Re:Thanks for sharing your plans with us, CmdrTaco (1)

Bromskloss (750445) | more than 6 years ago | (#24273295)

He must be new here, this CmdrTaco.

Anonymous Coward (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24273285)

I'm not a Heath Ledger fan by any stretch of the imagination. However, I wouldn't be able to tell you that it was Heath Ledger under the make-up if I didn't know that going into the movie. He did an excellent job abandoning all personal characteristics to take on his role.

Beyond that, it was an awesome high action movie.

Re:Anonymous Coward (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24273493)

The part where Heath Ledger sticks his naked ass up in the air and screams, "Fill me with your hot Batjuice, Big Fella!" should have been a dead giveaway.

Oh well... (1)

toocoded (1327695) | more than 6 years ago | (#24273297)

I have to see this Movie! XD

Since when (-1, Flamebait)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 6 years ago | (#24273361)

Cry me a fucking river.

Since when did slashdot turn into a site where assholes whine about not seeing the latest over-hyped hollywood trash?

If you're a real nerd, download it and quit your whining.

Re:Since when (4, Funny)

tgd (2822) | more than 6 years ago | (#24273435)

If you think seeing Batman on some shitty ass laptop is even remotely comparable to seeing it on a giant IMAX screen, I have a pencil trick I'd like to show you ...

One Question (5, Interesting)

kellyb9 (954229) | more than 6 years ago | (#24273379)

Loved the movie, loved the portrayal of the Joker, just one question. Who is the next Batman Villian? Since Ledger presumably rendered the Joker unportrayable (literally, I can't imagine anyone being able to even come close), I imagine they'll use someone else from the Batman universe, but who? My guess is the Riddler.

Re:One Question (0)

.Bruce Perens (150539) | more than 6 years ago | (#24273583)

Edward Norton could pull it off.

Boats (5, Insightful)

Amorymeltzer (1213818) | more than 6 years ago | (#24273405)

The ethical dilemma on the two ferries toward the end of the flick was excellent. The Joker's rants are enough to make you think (if you haven't already) but that one line was really, truly excellent:

"Well, we're still here, which means they haven't pushed the button."

Above all else, the best thing about this movie was the trip into the different aspects of the human condition. Whether it's the chaotic Joker, fair Two-Face, pure Fox, kind Alfred, or incorruptible Batman, or any of the others, we get, as The New Yorker paraphrased, a rare glimpse into the abyss.

Re:Boats (3, Insightful)

DarrenBaker (322210) | more than 6 years ago | (#24273599)

Tiny Lister had a great role in that scene, convincing the warden (or whomever he was) to give him the detonator. What great writing.

Slashdot or Message Board? (1, Insightful)

Daryen (1138567) | more than 6 years ago | (#24273407)

Feel free to mod me down, but at what point did Slashdot become a run of the mill message board where we discuss the latest movies and TV?

I'll admit I was slightly frustrated when we received two headline articles that were slightly masked advertisement for this movie. However, this article doesn't even attempt to well... be an article, or create a veneer of providing useful information.

Yes, I'm sure the movie is amazing, but is it really necessary to have a few articles about it followed by a straight-out discussion?

Oh, and get off my lawn.

But first... (-1, Redundant)

RyoShin (610051) | more than 6 years ago | (#24273463)

I'd like to show you a magic trick. Watch as I make this pencil disappear!

And then (1)

RyoShin (610051) | more than 6 years ago | (#24273611)

To be sure, Heath Ledger stole the show. I still enjoyed Christian Bale's Batman (though he needs a throat lozenge while in the suit) and thought the rest of the cast did a bang-up job, but Ledger perfectly captured both the madness and the "hilarity" of the Joker. Nicholson doesn't hold a candle to this.

I say with the utmost sincerity that his was a performance to die for.

The movie was well written, too. I kept expecting things to happen, and they didn't; what did far surpassed what I expected. The dialog was witty, nicely worded, and delivered well. There were two or three points during the movie that I was sure it was over, that they would just wrap things up and do something in the next film. But they never let that happen.

I don't believe that any minute of the two-and-a-half hour film was wasted. I thought Batman Begins was good, and was expecting a lot from The Dark Knight, but I had no idea that this is what I would be watching.

If I had to sum it up in a word? Epic.

"Why so serious?"

Basically 9/11 Imperial Propeganda (0, Troll)

digitalextremist (818027) | more than 6 years ago | (#24273473)

This is from Scribbalative Agincourting:

"New York's alter ego, Gotham City, is under attack. Bombs kill civilians indiscriminately. Panic spreads like wildfire. The perpetrator, a mysterious self-styled 'agent of chaos', has no apparent motive. Holy terror! Has the new Batman flick plundered its plot from 9/11? The imagery here is blatant: firefighters framed in tableau against the smouldering rubble of Downtown; politicians cashing in on the paranoia; bound hostages used to relay demands on television; the extraordinary rendition of a foreign suspect; a crusade against an 'evildoer' that turns more personal vendetta than reasoned response. Then there is the film's poster, which shows a flaming, wing-shaped hole punched through a smoking office tower. You can't disavow gratuity here - there is no such scene in the actual film." - Jeff Dawson, "Has the New Batman Plundered Its Plot from 9/11?" The Sunday Times

Also: the "terrorist" demolishes a building; Batman justifies invasive "supertaps" on all cellular phones to catch the terrorist; there's a cover-up of an elected official to preserve peace, and more.

Batman is first-rate, imperial propaganda. It soothes our conscience. It makes us feel good about the dark work of empire. We are so misunderstood. We must be hated for righteousness' sake. Our virtue is hidden. We're the real victim. Augustus would be so proud of us.

Harvey to Two Face felt forced (5, Insightful)

SirLurksAlot (1169039) | more than 6 years ago | (#24273483)

First I want to say I loved it, easily the best movie I've seen this year. Nolan did a great job at keeping it dark and gritty, and I can be satisfied with that alone. Some of the aspects of the movie really did seem forced though. For one thing it seemed like Harvey made the transition to Two Face very quickly. Yes, there he went through a lot, but his character never gave off a sense that it affected him all that much until the end. There was only one scene to really show that he might've been unhinged somewhat before becoming Two Face, and even then he seemed to be very much in control. It just seemed like there wasn't enough foreshadowing that he was capable of being a true monster. Aaron Eckhart gave a great performance, but I think if Harvey had been given more a backstory (such as how they introduced him in Batman: TAS, talking to a shrink) the overall effect would've been more profound.

Re:Harvey to Two Face felt forced (5, Interesting)

tgd (2822) | more than 6 years ago | (#24273539)

I think that was the point -- the Joker even commented that the descent to madness takes just a little push. That's what the hospital scene was -- Harvey was holding it together even through everything that happened until a little push, then his whole personality crumbled around him.

Doing the right thing doesn't make you popular... (3, Insightful)

stankulp (69949) | more than 6 years ago | (#24273503)

Anybody else catch that?

Anybody else think of Bush when they caught it?

Re:Doing the right thing doesn't make you popular. (1)

AskFirefly (757114) | more than 6 years ago | (#24273547)

Now that you mention it -- no. Be very careful about getting your phiolosophy and history from fictional sources. Sometimes a movie is just a movie.

Re:Doing the right thing doesn't make you popular. (2)

nelsonal (549144) | more than 6 years ago | (#24273657)

Yes, I thought it was an interesting parallel. I appreciated the ending to the story about the jewel thief, as well.

Best Joker (1)

gubers33 (1302099) | more than 6 years ago | (#24273511)

Heath Ledger has been by far the best Joker he lived up to the comic book character. Jack Nickelson was good in Batman, but he was Jack Nickelson playing the Joker. However Heath Ledger wasn't the Heath Ledger playing the Joker he was the Joker.

S-laughter is the best medicine (1)

shma (863063) | more than 6 years ago | (#24273521)

Since discussion without debate is boring, and I think the vast majority of us agree that 'Dark Knight' was a great movie, I'll throw this out there:
It's good, but it's not even close to this [imdb.com] good. Feel free to respond with a fist to the face [pvponline.com] .

Ledger doesn't deserve it for this. (3, Insightful)

DarrenBaker (322210) | more than 6 years ago | (#24273555)

Don't get me wrong, he's good - very good - but it's not Academy Award level acting. If he had lived, nobody would be discussing an award.

Certainly, it will get nominations for cinematography for Pfister (who will win), writing for the brothers Nolan, and production design for Crowley (who will also win), but that's it.

If the Academy chose to recognise the efforts of the only people who actually knowingly risk their lives for film, stunt people, then this would win as well. But, the Academy is blind to this irony, so they won't.

Two-Face's face (5, Interesting)

Samurai Cat! (15315) | more than 6 years ago | (#24273593)

One thing I noticed, and liked, was the fairly obvious nod to the old comics when it came to how they handled Two-Face's disfigurement.

The bit with the back side of the mouth, looking like he's going "grrrr!", and the eyeball floating in the socket - that look is pretty much lifted straight from some of the old Batman comics, as far as how Two-Face looked.

It kinda sent a chill up my back - when he first turns his head, I had a flashback to my youth when I was big into comics, remembering how Two-Face was illustrated back then.

RIAA - DMCA funder Time Warner (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24273643)

Remember - your only vote that matters anymore is where you spend your money.

So - why vote FOR the actions of Time Warner?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?