The Dark Knight (GODDAMN SPOILERS)

[Bounty]

TDK isn't a comic book movie. It's a grade A crime thriller. I actually find it degrades the work when people refer to it in the same way one would Spider-man or Hulk.

Then why does it have a dude running around dressed up like a flying rodent?

[Crazedwraith]

TDK isn't a comic book movie. It's a grade A crime thriller. I actually find it degrades the work when people refer to it in the same way one would Spider-man or Hulk.

What pretentious bullshit.

Its a movie based on a comic book. Hence a Comic Book movie. What other definition can there be?

[ray245]

TDK isn't a comic book movie. It's a grade A crime thriller. I actually find it degrades the work when people refer to it in the same way one would Spider-man or Hulk.

What pretentious bullshit.

Its a movie based on a comic book. Hence a Comic Book movie. What other definition can there be?

How about a comic book film AND a good crime drama film? How many superheroes films have even focused on crime drama?

[Rye]

TDK isn't a comic book movie. It's a grade A crime thriller.

Is it the bat-suit, the car that turns into a motorbike when it gets rpg'd or the sonar omniscience-tech that tipped you off on that one? I suppose I should go off to watch Travis Bickle don power armour and take down all the pimps and scum with ninja moves and a grappling hook.

[Admiral Valdemar]

Wow, way to all miss the point. Perhaps you missed the previous statements where I've said it's simply not comparable to previous comic book movies (y'know, hence the comparison with Spidey and Hulk) and how a gadget clad vigilante is nothing like the bullshit that passes for comic book fare. There are plenty of other serious dramas with aspects that could make it a comic book movie in that respect.

The fact that the film has crossed all barriers regarding the audience is a pretty good indicator.

Batman & Robin, on the other hand...

[Rye]

Wow, way to all miss the point. Perhaps you missed the previous statements where I've said it's simply not comparable to previous comic book movies (y'know, hence the comparison with Spidey and Hulk)

Yes it is, due to the fantastic elements. If you'd said this about Road to Perdition, I'd have agreed with you, however TDK is immediately identifiable as a comic book movie by comparison. Secondly, it's part of a trend that started with X-Men that showed modern, plausible-looking films can be adapted from comics.

and how a gadget clad vigilante is nothing like the bullshit that passes for comic book fare.

Yet it's also more comic booky than the Punisher.

There are plenty of other serious dramas with aspects that could make it a comic book movie in that respect.

Not if they're not adapted from comic books. If they are adapted from comic books and you can't tell (see: Road to Perdition) then you can make an argument for them not being comic book films. When they have all that fantastic element in that stereotypifies the genre, yeah, you're just being pretentious when you say it's not a True Comic Book Movie. It would be like saying Blade Runner's not sci-fi.

[Shroom Man 777]

As for the Riddler...

Another food for thought. He releases Two Face, or uses his discovery of the truth on Two Face, plus whatever killings he may do, to psychologically and cerebrally breakdown Batman.

Man, I'm starting to like this! Total psychological warfare! Guilt-tripping! Black-mailing! Murdering! Psychoanalysis!

It would be a very personal affair, with the Riddler's pursuit of Batman being yet another mirror for Bats and Bruce. Awesome.

[Admiral Valdemar]

Actually, funny you mentioned Blade Runner, because I was going to say that it's along the lines of the people I've discussed movies with in the past who correct me when I state that movie is a brilliant piece of film noir by stating it's sci-fi. It may be in the sci-fi genre, but it is not seen as that, so much as a brilliant piece of classic gumshoe cinema that just happens to be set in a future scenario with synthetic humans.

The majority of people I've talked to about TDK who aren't geeks see the film as a detective/crime film more than a comic book piece, which was my whole point. The overriding perception is that this film has far more in common with Heat than it does Spider-man, and is hence more than previous comic book movies, even The Punisher.

Honestly, if you can compare it to the dreck we get from comic books, you'd have a hard time saying it's anywhere near the same. The Punisher still has a guy who survives being shot multiple times, blown up and nearly drowned.

At the end of the day, TDK's success is down to not being a comic book movie in that way. Like I said, it's much more than that, which is why it pisses on any other in that genre from a great height in both critical and economic areas.

[Imperial Overlord]

These aren't exclusive categories. Blade Runner has a noir mood and plot in a sci-fi setting. The Dark Knight is crime thriller with leads that are comic book characters. We don't have issues with Star Wars having all sorts of fantasy elements in its science fiction setting, why should we get upset over The Dark Knight?

Valdermar seems to want to separate it from the generally shitty quality of most comic book movies and I can't blame him for that. Even the good ones aren't as good as The Dark Knight. It's the best crime movie since L.A. Confidential.

[Admiral Valdemar]

These aren't exclusive categories. Blade Runner has a noir mood and plot in a sci-fi setting. The Dark Knight is crime thriller with leads that are comic book characters. We don't have issues with Star Wars having all sorts of fantasy elements in its science fiction setting, why should we get upset over The Dark Knight?

Valdermar seems to want to separate it from the generally shitty quality of most comic book movies and I can't blame him for that. Even the good ones aren't as good as The Dark Knight. It's the best crime movie since L.A. Confidential.

Thank Zeus, someone gets it and doesn't take everything so literally!

And having read a fair amount of reviews, there are plenty of others stating the exact same thing as I am. If you want to be pedantic, yes, TDK is comic book because, gasp, Batman was from one. But as a movie, Nolan has made it more than that, just as science fiction was made more respectable with Ridley Scott's film noir take on it.

[Rye]

Actually, funny you mentioned Blade Runner, because I was going to say that it's along the lines of the people I've discussed movies with in the past who correct me when I state that movie is a brilliant piece of film noir by stating it's sci-fi. It may be in the sci-fi genre, but it is not seen as that, so much as a brilliant piece of classic gumshoe cinema that just happens to be set in a future scenario with synthetic humans.

Sci-fi is the setting, it is not any particular story told (unlike the western, which can be a setting and a framework for a story). Star Wars is sci-fi, it is also a western, and a great many "crime thrillers" are westerns in disguise. Nolan's Batman is arguably a Western figure. The backdrop is clearly a more-fantastic setting based on a comic book.

The majority of people I've talked to about TDK who aren't geeks see the film as a detective/crime film more than a comic book piece, which was my whole point.

No, your point was that it wasn't a comic book movie because comic book movies are inherently childish, because you're a snob. Your exact attitude is why graphic novels aren't considered "high" literature, no matter the content.

The overriding perception is that this film has far more in common with Heat than it does Spider-man, and is hence more than previous comic book movies, even The Punisher.

Actually, the Punisher is interchangable with any number of action films with a Western antihero archetype. There's nothing really that identifies it as a comic book movie if you don't know the source material. Compare that to TDK and it is clear which is more fantastic.

Honestly, if you can compare it to the dreck we get from comic books, you'd have a hard time saying it's anywhere near the same.

Like V For Vendetta or Road to Perdition?

The Punisher still has a guy who survives being shot multiple times, blown up and nearly drowned.

At the end of the day, TDK's success is down to not being a comic book movie in that way. Like I said, it's much more than that, which is why it pisses on any other in that genre from a great height in both critical and economic areas.

Too bad you said it wasn't a comic book movie then, being as it is actually, well, a load of comic book characters and their origin stories adapted from comic books, hah.

[The Wench]

sorry I have to break up the fairly serious tension on here for this...not sure if anyone watches or keeps up with It's Just Some Random Guy on youtube...but me and hav keep up with this guy's videos and have been for a few years. Marvel vs. DC

really, TDK brings about the second coming of christ with its awesomeness...it's just a buttload of funny...

[Crazedwraith]

I think that's been linked to before at least a couple of times in the thread.

It's still awesome though.

[Admiral Valdemar]

Sci-fi is the setting, it is not any particular story told (unlike the western, which can be a setting and a framework for a story). Star Wars is sci-fi, it is also a western, and a great many "crime thrillers" are westerns in disguise. Nolan's Batman is arguably a Western figure. The backdrop is clearly a more-fantastic setting based on a comic book.

My point.

No, your point was that it wasn't a comic book movie because comic book movies are inherently childish, because you're a snob. Your exact attitude is why graphic novels aren't considered "high" literature, no matter the content.

LOL. Yeah, I'm a snob for pointing out that comic books are inherently ridiculous and lame and only rarely make decent serious drama. Woe is me.

It's too bad I happen to have a great many graphic novels then, else your words would mean something. My exact attitude is why I don't read the shit that is the average comic book, but instead focus on graphic novels.

Actually, the Punisher is interchangable with any number of action films with a Western antihero archetype. There's nothing really that identifies it as a comic book movie if you don't know the source material. Compare that to TDK and it is clear which is more fantastic.

In which case, what defines a comic book movie? I can equally say Die Hard is one because of the nature of the movie. All you're going by is the source material, which has been so completely changed in most successful comic book adaptations as to be hardly anything like what you'd read in print. Probably because comic books are 90% crap once you get past the origin story.

Like V For Vendetta or Road to Perdition?

Congratulations on picking two adult graphic novels. I was talking about comic books though.

Too bad you said it wasn't a comic book movie then, being as it is actually, well, a load of comic book characters and their origin stories adapted from comic books, hah.

Shame you totally flipped out by taking a single remark so literally and had to waste valuable bytes dissecting it like an utter pedant. But please, continue with this philosophical musing on whether TDK is anything like your average comic book movie, despite the newsworthy perception that it is, in actual fact, nothing like such movies of past.

[The Wench]

I think that's been linked to before at least a couple of times in the thread.

It's still awesome though.

that's what i get for not keeping up...

[Rye]

My point.

Then why try to redefine genres? Fuck.

LOL. Yeah, I'm a snob for pointing out that comic books are inherently ridiculous and lame and only rarely make decent serious drama. Woe is me.

Yeah, you are a snob for saying that a film about a comic book character that dresses up like a giant bat while driving around in his batmobile fighting criminals with ninjitsu is not a comic book movie because it's actually a decent story. The quality of the story is nothing to do with genre.

It's too bad I happen to have a great many graphic novels then, else your words would mean something.

No, your words were wrong, your argument relies on a strawman of genre and stupid false dilemmas as well as pretentious snobbery.

In which case, what defines a comic book movie? I can equally say Die Hard is one because of the nature of the movie.

Being a comic book adaptation is a sane prerequisite, which Die Hard is not. Die Hard is one of the defining titles of the action genre.

All you're going by is the source material, which has been so completely changed in most successful comic book adaptations as to be hardly anything like what you'd read in print. Probably because comic books are 90% crap once you get past the origin story.

Unless it removes the parts that actually identify it as an adaptation of the host story (Nolanverse bats definitely does not) or has no identifiable aspects from what you would associate with the genre (fantastic gadgets, vehicles or events for instance) to the point it would not be identifiable as from a comic, one could forgive people for not being able to recognise it.

Congratulations on picking two adult graphic novels. I was talking about comic books though.

V was a comic, when it was compiled it was a graphic novel. The creative medium is the same.

Shame you totally flipped out by taking a single remark so literally and had to waste valuable bytes dissecting it like an utter pedant. But please, continue with this philosophical musing on whether TDK is anything like your average comic book movie, despite the newsworthy perception that it is, in actual fact, nothing like such movies of past.

Just don't say stupid shit like "this is not a comic book movie because it is a stridently good example of such" and you won't raise ire from people.

[JME2]

Finally saw it for a second time yesterday with one of my aunts (If I'm going to see a film for a second time while in theaters, I like to wait at least a month). She hadn't seen Batman Begins and was able to follow it for the most part, but she's not the biggest fan of the action genre (actually, even less than I am). As for me, I liked it even more the second time around.

[Ziggy Stardust]

Your exact attitude is why graphic novels aren't considered "high" literature, no matter the content.

I think it's funny that you accuse someone else of being snob in the same breath as arguing that graphic novels should be 'high' literature. It is incredibly pretentious to even use the term 'graphic novel,' which is just a transparent semantic hand-wave to make the work seem less "childish" than comic books. As Daniel Raeburn once said, it is the literary equivalent of calling a garbage man a 'sanitation engineer.'

[Broomstick]

Speaking as someone who actually helped produce a graphic novel, and worked in the industry, it actually isn't exactly the same as a comic book. The more "adult" stories, at least when I was working in the industry, were often steered to graphic novels partly because it was believed that they would appeal to a slightly older or even adult reader with more money to spend on the higher cost relative to a comic book. Higher quality paper and printing techniques were used. In many instances, there's a notably higher quality of artwork, too. The comic book industry WAS trying to make them a "higher" literary and artistic work. They didn't think they'd hit the level of Shakespeare and DaVinci with them, but they were aiming higher than usual.

Of course, this distinction has been shot to hell since they started re-issuing comic book runs as graphic novels. Then again, as the cost of nice printing has come done and comic books are being seen as more respectable, the quality of the comic books in general have risen significantly over the past 30 years.

[Rye]

Your exact attitude is why graphic novels aren't considered "high" literature, no matter the content.

I think it's funny that you accuse someone else of being snob in the same breath as arguing that graphic novels should be 'high' literature.

I didn't say I even accepted "high" culture as legitimate, fuckface. I said graphic novels aren't considered high literature no matter the content and that is absurd since high literature is meant to be better.

It is incredibly pretentious to even use the term 'graphic novel,' which is just a transparent semantic hand-wave to make the work seem less "childish" than comic books.

Graphic novels are interchangeable with comics as far as I'm concerned. If you want to refer to the V For Vendetta segments as comics, that's fine. I also have no problem with the compiled story being referred to as a graphic novel.

As Daniel Raeburn once said, it is the literary equivalent of calling a garbage man a 'sanitation engineer.'

I have no idea who that is or why I should care.

[Galvatron]

I'm not keen on the Riddler bit, but if it's going to be done, either with the Zodiac-like character or the Profilers, you'd need some talent in there to pull it off. John Malcovich would rule at that.

I can see Jake Gyllenhaal doing it. Hell, they could keep the Riddler off-screen for most of the movie, like they did with John Doe in Seven. And make his murders truly grizzly.