To my mind, the relegating of TDK to nominations in just the technical categories (except for Ledger's nomination, of course) is an indication of how out of touch the Oscars are. Time was, the most financially successful film of the year would get nominated for Best Picture simply as a way of acknowledging the public's taste (and it explains why artistically suspect films like The Greatest Show on Earth and Around the World in 80 Days won the award in the 1950s); but now the nomiations tend to go to the films that make the biggest political statement and/or have the most social relevance. I'm not saying this to bash any of this year's nominated films--I actually plan to see them all eventually--but to point out the big disconnect between those who nominate the movies and those who pay to see them. People LOVED The Dark Knight and critics PRAISED it--doesn't the public taste deserve to be validated? Well, as one critic once said, the Oscars aren't so much prizes put out by the film industry anymore as they are the Nobel Prize of Film.
Unfortunately, the Oscars have become the epitome of Hollywood's self-aggrandizement. It is the moment where they see themselves as the most important factor upon the globe (let's see if we can make it through just one Academy Award evening without someone trying to take a stance on a social issue). This is the evening where these clowns are no longer entertainers, but deities, and their stature is measured not by how well they entertained us, but rather by how well they adopted the attributes of emotion, passions, and conflicts of us mere mortals in a 2-dimensional projection on some blank wall somewhere. Without these deities, we would be an aimless and unsophisticated race of animals. Public tastes? We as the public know nothing...that is why we have no say in how the Academy votes. In fact, I think the public shouldn't even know the results. The Oscars should be held behind closed doors, where only the immortals on their grand (and phony) Mt. Olympus stage can revel in their wisdom as to what is 'Best' in their world.
) Very, very well put Darenhat. The Oscars really have become the epitome of self-congratulation and self-indulgence in Hwood with even more attention being given to what they're wearing and who they're with than the forgettable movies they peddle.
As for having them behind closed doors and never releasing the results to us mere mortals, I don't think that's even necessary as it seems fewer and fewer people really care about this pompous charade. Ratings have been in decline for years and the exclusion of commercially successful yet still well-made films like Dark Knight, Iron Man and Wall-E will only disenfranchise more people and keep them from tuning in.
Have to say I disagree with many of the above comments. Having seen most of the nominees from last year and several so far from this year I can tell you I thought they were all very good movies. In most cases, the nominated movies aspire to tell an emotionally compelling story, that require top performances from the actors, directors and writers. When they get it right, the film paints a fascinating story. Not drawing big crowds, does not lessen the impact of the movie. Selecting worthy films that did not draw big crowds is actually one of the things I like. In some cases the Oscar nomination draws some deseved attention to films that perhaps the public missed. An example would be Little Miss Sunshine. A smaller budgeted film that had a truly unique story that was both funny and compelling. When the movie received a nomination many film goers were unfamiliar with it, but after the nomination the public found the film and the box office and DVD sales were significant.
The weakest argument is to say I haven't seen any of the movies or performances but I don't think they deserve to be nominated. You simply can't pass judgement on what you haven't seen. Dan Same thought Meryl Streep's performance in Doubt was not that great, I thought it was wonderful. Dan didn't like Benjamin Button, I did. So those are opinions that can be argued. But to dismiss a movie without having seen it, minimizes your opinion.
As for the award ceremony itself, I like it. Yes it is overblown and yes some of the attenndees are full of themselves. But, not everyone is full of themselves, and at times you get some really special moments. A surprise winner, a young actor winning thier first award, an old actor winning after many great performancers, are all things that can make for great viewing. With the right host, the night can also be full of great laughs. Billy Crystal was always funny, many times humorously jabbing Hollywood for the very things some of the posters have complained about. The political statements have died down, usually it is the documentary filmmakers like Michael Moore that insist on making a political statement. I also enjoy some of the historical montages they present during the Oscars, a nice reminder of all the great films that have been made. One last comment, yes I do like watching the red carpet and passing judgement on everyones outfit.
Mr MartiniThat nice house in the sky.Posts: 2,703MI6 Agent
Just thought I'd mention Heath Ledger won the SAG (Screen Actors Guild) award earlier tonight. Will the Oscar be next?
Some people would complain even if you hang them with a new rope
Have to say I disagree with many of the above comments. Having seen most of the nominees from last year and several so far from this year I can tell you I thought they were all very good movies. In most cases, the nominated movies aspire to tell an emotionally compelling story, that require top performances from the actors, directors and writers. When they get it right, the film paints a fascinating story.
Everything you've said is true Barry, but I do take issue with the academy turning its nose at gerne films simply because they are genre films or because they've been so commercially successful. They've done it for decades, dismissing imaginative efforts like 2001: A Space Odyssey (arguably one of the greatest films ever made) and it shows a real lack of vision on their part.
Just to keep this on topic, lets talk about Dark Knight and other comics films: I thought Heath Ledger did an amazing, Oscar-worthy job as the Joker but lets not kid ourselves, the only reason he was nominated was because he died tragically. Jack Nicholson's performance in the 1989 movie was equally praised, yet he was never nominated. Robert Downey' Jr. performance in Iron Man was also universally praised, yet the academy instead chose to recognize his work in Tropic Thunder. And I found Aaron Eckhart's performance as Harvey Dent quite moving and emotional and his acting was equal to anybody who was nominated. But I guess because he spent part of the film in prosthetic face appliances, and didn't die of a tragic overdose, that lessened its worth?
Also, two movies in particular (The Reader and Benjamin Button) had pretty average Rotten Tomatoes scores (60% and 72% respectively). That's not the great unwashed public, thats an aggregate of professional film critics. Yet they're up for best film and best director while the Dark Knight and Christopher Nolan, which had a rating of 94% and was almost universally praised by those same critics was left out.
There seems to be far more comment this year than most about how disappointing some of the academy's choices were and how they are even more out of touch than usual. There was even an article in the Chicago Tribune about it I believe.
I don't have anything against praising obscure films that may otherwise go unnoticed, but I do take issue with their historical and ongoing refusal to acknowledge successful genre work, especially sci-fi and comics in favor of rewarding "serious" and "relevant" films and their inability to see that even those genres can produce compelling stories and emotional drama. I think its important to recognize audience tastes every once in a while, especially when its for a good movie. Otherwise, they'll just continue to fade into irrelevance.
Having recently saw a couple of really good films, I thought I would rethrow myself into the ring (one of the films was The Wrestler; hence the metaphor):
Not drawing big crowds, does not lessen the impact of the movie. Selecting worthy films that did not draw big crowds is actually one of the things I like.
Indeed. I don't think that the Academy has any obligation to acknowledge a film, simply because it's successful. I would have been disappointed if DK had been nominated. I don't care how much money it made, I don't think it's a particularly good film (if any Batman film should have been nominated, it was IMO Batman Begins.) I'm sorry Rogue, but just because it was your birthday recently, doesn't mean I'm going to pretend that DK was anything special. :v
{[] The Oscars are my favourite awards. {[] every year, I sit down in front of it and write down the winners for history's sake. I really love it, and I'm really looking forward to Hugh Jackman hosting this year (although nobody beats Billy Crystal.)
BTW, as an example of how obsessive I can be over certain things, my second favourite award is an Australian Football award (the Brownlow Medal) where the host reads out votes of 1, 2 and 3 for 22 rounds of 8 games each. Most people are bored by it, but I love it. )
"He’s a man way out there in the blue, riding on a smile and a shoeshine. And when they start not smiling back—that’s an earthquake. and then you get yourself a couple of spots on your hat, and you’re finished. Nobody dast blame this man. A salesman is got to dream, boy. It comes with the territory." Death of a Salesman
Everything you've said is true Barry, but I do take issue with the academy turning its nose at gerne films simply because they are genre films or because they've been so commercially successful. They've done it for decades, dismissing imaginative efforts like 2001: A Space Odyssey (arguably one of the greatest films ever made) and it shows a real lack of vision on their part.
To some degree I agree with you. There have been genre films which have done well, such as The Godfather, The Godfather Part II (my two favourite films) and Casablanca, however it is true that comedies, westerns and sci-fi/fantasy films (with a few exceptions) tend to be overlooked. I was a bit disappointed that Wall-E wasn't nominated, although it was of course nominated for Animated Film.
The Oscars aside, I certainly agree with you Tony that genre films are not treated well, especially comic book films. They are regarded as 'juvenile' which is kind of ironic considering that Greek and Roman mythology was about super heroes (Hercules anyone?) Cinema, however, rolls out the carpet for genre films compared to literature. Why oh why have Arthur Conan Doyle, Agatha Christie, Ray Bradbury and Arthur C. Clarke not been awarded the Nobel Prize, and why isn't Stephen King a future contender? There are a dozen mystery/sci-fi writers who have shaped and revolutionised literature yet are never mentioned for literature's highest honour.
Just to keep this on topic, lets talk about Dark Knight and other comics films: I thought Heath Ledger did an amazing, Oscar-worthy job as the Joker but lets not kid ourselves, the only reason he was nominated was because he died tragically. Jack Nicholson's performance in the 1989 movie was equally praised, yet he was never nominated. Robert Downey' Jr. performance in Iron Man was also universally praised, yet the academy instead chose to recognize his work in Tropic Thunder. And I found Aaron Eckhart's performance as Harvey Dent quite moving and emotional and his acting was equal to anybody who was nominated. But I guess because he spent part of the film in prosthetic face appliances, and didn't die of a tragic overdose, that lessened its worth?
Heath Ledger aside (whom admittedly I do want to rewatch, although I have my doubts about him), it astounds me that Downer Jr. was nominated. He's a fine actor but I think he was vastly superior in IM than in Tropic Thunder, although he wasn't of course as he didn't put on an Australian accent and put on black face. I still wouldn't have nominated him, but that's only because IMO Clint Eastwood's performance in Gran Torino was the most tragic omission of the year, not because Downey Jr. wasn't great in IM.
There seems to be far more comment this year than most about how disappointing some of the academy's choices were and how they are even more out of touch than usual. There was even an article in the Chicago Tribune about it I believe.
Yeh, although I really do l :xve the Oscars, this year is disappointing for me.
The major reason is that Gran Torino, IMO one of the year's very best films with one of cinema's all-time great performances, didn't receive any nominations. Additionally, the awarding of nominations to Benjamin Button (which I acknowledge is a film that Barry loves), Brad Pitt for Benjamin Button (a great actor but undeserving of his nomination IMO), Meryl Streep for Doubt (whom ordinarily I love), the fact that *Kate Winslet could win an Oscar for playing a Nazi (far too obvious), the awarding of a supporting nomination to **Phillip Seymour Hoffman for Doubt for what was IMO a lead performance and the omissions of such people as Kristin Scott-Thomas for I've Loved You So Long, Clint Eastwood for Gran Torino and Pitt for Burn After Reading.
I am yet to see Milk but the 2008 Oscars doesn't excite me as much as previous year's, 2007 for example.
I think its important to recognize audience tastes every once in a while, especially when its for a good movie. Otherwise, they'll just continue to fade into irrelevance.
I probably adressed this already, but it would have been nice if Wall-E had been nominated.
*Kate Winslet is IMO one of the greatest actresses of all time, but that she could win for this role is almost as depressing to me as if Meryl Streep won. I really hope that neither win.
**I love Hoffman, but I don't think he deserves either his Oscar or his other nominations. )
"He’s a man way out there in the blue, riding on a smile and a shoeshine. And when they start not smiling back—that’s an earthquake. and then you get yourself a couple of spots on your hat, and you’re finished. Nobody dast blame this man. A salesman is got to dream, boy. It comes with the territory." Death of a Salesman
I didn't hit the quote button because with mine and Tony's long diatribes it would take up one whole page. )
I would agree that some genre films do seem to be overlooked. In my opinion, nothing is harder to successfully make than a comedy movie, but few if any comedy films are nominated. As for action/superhero movies, you are right they do get dismissed. I am not sure why, my guess would be they see the heavy use of CGI, pyrotechnics and stunt work and say that isn't real down to earth film making. I think a counter argument could be made. I just read an interview with Amy Adams who just wrapped up filming Night at the Museum 2, and she commented how hard it was to work in front of a blue screen reacting to things that aren't there as opposed to sharing a scene with a fellow actor.
Having just seen Tropic Thunder I agree Robert Downey's performance in Iron Man was the better performance. But, give the Academy credit for giving him a nomination for Thunder, a rather odd role and possibly controversial role.
This is the Dark Knight thread, so let me comment on that. Yes, I would have nominated that for Best Picture (despite what Dan thinks), it was one of the best films I saw last year. Some of the selections for Best Picture are a surprise, The Reader being the biggest surprise, but I don't get a vote.
The Academy Awards are entertainment and I accept it for what it is, in the end, a great movie is in the eye of the beholder.
I was watching Red Eye on the Fox News Network last night--it was a re-run from the day the nominations were announced--and the panelists were kicking around the idea that The Dark Knight was shut out of a Best Picture nod because of its "pro-War-on-Terror" message. Right-wing paranoia, or is there any truth to this? I have to admit, beyond Harvey Dent's speech about "not giving in to this terrorist" (i.e., The Joker), I didn't find a real pro-war message in the film. Heck, you could argue that Harvey's fate shows that a single-minded dedication to fighting terrorism can turn you into a terrorist yourself!
I just read an interview with Amy Adams who just wrapped up filming Night at the Museum 2, and she commented how hard it was to work in front of a blue screen reacting to things that aren't there as opposed to sharing a scene with a fellow actor
You know Barry, that has long been a pet peeve of mine with these critics who dismiss a movie the minute they see an outlandish costume or a spaceship. Oftentimes those actors are standing on an empty green stage, staring at a cardboard placeholder, and reacting to nothing. As far as I'm concerned, that is the definition of acting, distilled to its purest form.
panelists were kicking around the idea that The Dark Knight was shut out of a Best Picture nod because of its "pro-War-on-Terror" message. Right-wing paranoia, or is there any truth to this?
To my way of thinking, the Joker was not a terrorist, he was a nihilist. When it came to causing mayhem, he was very much an equal opportunity villain and was perfectly happy to rain as much chaos down on Gotham's criminals as on the more innocent citizens. So for my money, I think any war on terror message goes out the window.
Major Oscar categories aside, I was also disappointed to see that TDK was snubbed for a screenplay award. Besides having some really good dialog, the film did a lot with its motif of either dying a hero or living long enough to see yourself become the villain. Even the ending is a clever juxtaposition of this credo: in order to preserve hope in Gotham, Harvey Dent, who has become the villain, is turned into a hero and Batman, who really saved the day, must become the villain. Some really clever writing on display there. Too bad it went right over the academy's head.
RogueAgentSpeeding in the Tumbler...Posts: 3,676MI6 Agent
edited January 2009
Well here's some news on the latest for the 3rd film but of course it's just a projection for now. Although it may be the Oscar's milieu to snub any film involving a cape & tights, TDK did well once again at the SAGs this weekend.
Next Batman Movie in 2011?
Source:Courier-Post January 25, 2009
New Jersey's Courier-Post talked to Batman Begins and The Dark Knight executive producer Michael Uslan, who expects the third installment of the Christopher Nolan-directed films, starring Christian Bale, to hit theaters in 2011:
Uslan will be onboard as executive producer for the "Dark Knight" sequel, which he estimates will be theaters by 2011. As for the identity of the next round of Batman's supervillains and love interests, Uslan remains tight-lipped. "It's one of those deals where if I told you, I'd have to kill you," he says with a chuckle.
In related news, while The Dark Knight did not receive the Producer of the Year Award at the Producers Guild of America Awards on Saturday (it went to Slumdog Millionaire), the movie did receive awards at the Screen Actors Guild Awards on Sunday - Heath Ledger won for Best Supporting Actor and The Dark Knight also won Outstanding Performance by a Stunt Ensemble in a Motion Picture.
Mrs. Man Face: "You wouldn't hit a lady? Would you?"
Batman: "The Hammer Of Justice isUNISEX!"
-Batman: The Brave & The Bold -
I was watching Red Eye on the Fox News Network last night--it was a re-run from the day the nominations were asked--and the panelists were kicking around the idea that The Dark Knight was shut out of a Best Picture nod because of its "pro-War-on-Terror" message.
Well their is no denying Hollywood is a pretty far left crowd, so I wouldn't be completly surprised, but I am hoping that is not the case. I did see columnists espousing the pro-war theory, but I don't think too many folks bought into it. Although I do think political correctness may have had something to do with Gran Torino being shut out.
Well it took a while but The Dark Knight finally crossed the billion dollar threshold in box office sales, just in time to thumb its nose at all those overrated movies up for academy awards tomorrow night.
Well it took a while but The Dark Knight finally crossed the billion dollar threshold in box office sales, just in time to thumb its nose at all those overrated movies up for academy awards tomorrow night.
Well it took a while but The Dark Knight finally crossed the billion dollar threshold in box office sales, just in time to thumb its nose at all those overrated movies up for academy awards tomorrow night.
Do I need to remind you that box office does not equal quality? :v
"He’s a man way out there in the blue, riding on a smile and a shoeshine. And when they start not smiling back—that’s an earthquake. and then you get yourself a couple of spots on your hat, and you’re finished. Nobody dast blame this man. A salesman is got to dream, boy. It comes with the territory." Death of a Salesman
YESSSSSSS!!!!!!! Take that, Dan! Where's Aunt May now? Where's Fugly Jane Watson? Where's your teary-eyed Peter Parker? {[] {[] {[] {[]
THE BAT IS KING OF THE MOUNTAIN! B-)
Isn't it interesting? I love the Spider-Man yet I don't know, or care, how much money they make, as long as they make enough to ensure a sequal. You, on the other hand, who claim to love Batman so much are obsessed with the box office gross as if to vindicate your love for this most overrated of genre films.
I have a suspicion that everything you have said is a lie. That's right; I don't think you've been telling the truth. I suspect that you are not the Batman fan you claim to be, and that you may very well be a bigger fan of Marvel than DC. You might scoff at this, and point at your various sigs but I know the truth. You are a lover of Marvel heroes; Iron Man, X-Men, and perhaps especially Spider-Man. Protest at this, but just like the little boy who teases the girl whom he actually likes, your insults towards the Spider-Man films proves that you just can't get enough of them!
"He’s a man way out there in the blue, riding on a smile and a shoeshine. And when they start not smiling back—that’s an earthquake. and then you get yourself a couple of spots on your hat, and you’re finished. Nobody dast blame this man. A salesman is got to dream, boy. It comes with the territory." Death of a Salesman
Isn't it interesting? I love the Spider-Man yet I don't know, or care, how much money they make, as long as they make enough to ensure a sequal. You, on the other hand, who claim to love Batman so much are obsessed with the box office gross as if to vindicate your love for this most overrated of genre films.
I have a suspicion that everything you have said is a lie. That's right; I don't think you've been telling the truth. I suspect that you are not the Batman fan you claim to be, and that you may very well be a bigger fan of Marvel than DC. You might scoff at this, and point at your various sigs but I know the truth. You are a lover of Marvel heroes; Iron Man, X-Men, and perhaps especially Spider-Man. Protest at this, but just like the little boy who teases the girl whom he actually likes, your insults towards the Spider-Man films proves that you just can't get enough of them!
Mrs. Man Face: "You wouldn't hit a lady? Would you?"
Batman: "The Hammer Of Justice isUNISEX!"
-Batman: The Brave & The Bold -
RogueAgentSpeeding in the Tumbler...Posts: 3,676MI6 Agent
In a fetal position under his bed, thumb in his mouth. :v
Rogue, wtf? )
) ) ) )
Love the answers. Hey, if TDK hadn't reached this pinacle, I never would've pulled out the celebration sig. ;%
Mrs. Man Face: "You wouldn't hit a lady? Would you?"
Batman: "The Hammer Of Justice isUNISEX!"
-Batman: The Brave & The Bold -
RogueAgentSpeeding in the Tumbler...Posts: 3,676MI6 Agent
Heath Ledger Wins the Oscar!!
Source:Superhero Hype! February 22, 2009
The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences have just awarded Heath Ledger the award for Best Supporting Actor for his amazing performance as The Joker in The Dark Knight! Ledger's family accepted the award on his behalf.
Richard King just received the Oscar for Best Sound Editing for The Dark Knight as well.
I read haters everywhere saying that the Oscar he won was in most part for his demise; that can be argued...but give the man credit where it's due.
He gave a stunning performance. B-)
Mrs. Man Face: "You wouldn't hit a lady? Would you?"
Batman: "The Hammer Of Justice isUNISEX!"
-Batman: The Brave & The Bold -
With regard to the inevitable sequel to The Dark Knight, there's an article over at IGN stating that WB already has a backup plan in place should Christopher Nolan decide to pass on directing. His replacement would be none other than...Bryan Singer!
With regard to the inevitable sequel to The Dark Knight, there's an article over at IGN stating that WB already has a backup plan in place should Christopher Nolan decide to pass on directing. His replacement would be none other than...Bryan Singer!
Well, if it ever came to that, which I don't think it will, I guess Snyder would be okay. Of course I'm not ready to pat him on the back until I see WATCHMEN. You know this guy is feeling the pressure on that one alone.
In Snyder's defense, if he were ever to take over the franchise, I wouldn't worry about the character losing any bite so to speak... His milieu however, sort of goes against the grain of Nolan's theme; he's just more of a fantasy, slo-mo director.
I still would LOVE to see what he could do with re-invigorating the SUPERMAN franchise; that just seems to fit him more like a glove than Nolan's Bats.
Time will tell.
Mrs. Man Face: "You wouldn't hit a lady? Would you?"
Batman: "The Hammer Of Justice isUNISEX!"
-Batman: The Brave & The Bold -
It appears that Christian Bale and Christopher Nolan have agreed to make a third film, with a release date scheduled for 2011. At the moment, though, there isn't a script and negotiations are still being completed between the studio and the cast/crew (particularly Bale) over money.
"He’s a man way out there in the blue, riding on a smile and a shoeshine. And when they start not smiling back—that’s an earthquake. and then you get yourself a couple of spots on your hat, and you’re finished. Nobody dast blame this man. A salesman is got to dream, boy. It comes with the territory." Death of a Salesman
RogueAgentSpeeding in the Tumbler...Posts: 3,676MI6 Agent
It appears that Christian Bale and Christopher Nolan have agreed to make a third film, with a release date scheduled for 2011. At the moment, though, there isn't a script and negotiations re still being completed between the studio and the cast/crew (particularly Bale) over money.
Really? Do you have a link to this information?
Although, you're hardly the lying type, Dan, you're intentions towards Batman aren't remotely the least "loyal"...
How do I know that you're not telling us "porky-pies?" :v
If you're not then it's good news.
Mrs. Man Face: "You wouldn't hit a lady? Would you?"
Batman: "The Hammer Of Justice isUNISEX!"
-Batman: The Brave & The Bold -
I really wanted to like The Dark Knight.After the excellence of Batman Begins,my hopes were set very high--perhaps too high to be completely satisfied.I've been a Batman fan since I was about 5 years old.I learned to read with the aid of the comics published in the 1950s and many of them featured Batman and Superman.I've no doubt that the sometimes sophisticated words used in these stories, like invulnerable,solitude,detection,inexplicable and others helped me in developing my vocabulary at an early age.And I always loved the artwork-particularly that of Dick Sprang, Don Newton,Marshall Rogers,Neal Adams and Jose Luis-Garcia Lopez.Even though it was played for laughs I enjoyed the Batman TV series.And I think the Bruce Timm produced animated Batman series is the greatest dramatic interpretation of The Masked Manhunter.In short, I'm a Batman fan.
All that said,I didn't much like The Dark Knight.I wanted to.I wanted it to be one of the greatest comic book movies ever made.I'm old enough to understand that comics characters don't need motion pictures based upon them to validate their existence and alterations always occur whenever a character is dramatised.Sometimes storylines undergo changes as well,and as with EON's version of Goldfinger, they can even improve upon the source material.
But although while I can admire what The Dark Knight is,and respect the film's overall qualities,I never found it to be particularly entertaining.In fact,I shocked myself when I started glancing at my watch and began to wonder when DK would be over.But the worst part happened when I found myself thinking,"why don't I like this?"
I didn't care for the film's overall tone.A sense of gloom and doom works sometimes--but ALL the time?All too often I felt like I was attending a funeral(and no,not because Heath Ledger had died).I don't want Batman to suddenly segue into being the life of the party,but it's difficult to care about an eternally angry vigilante.Bale's attempt at a sotto Batman voice was hilarious-and for all the wrong reasons.It's a good-looking film, but it's also a depressing one.To paraphrase Getrude Stein,"There's no there there."Moreover,I got the feeling that Nolan was trying to make not just a Batman film but also an IMPORTANT film.Trying to make a comment.I'm all for important movies,but c'mon-this is supposed to be a Batman adventure.Where's the excitment?Where's the detection?Even with the unfortunate "real world" stricture dictating DK's style(and Scorcese's Heat influencing part of the film),there was still an opportunity to make DK more entertaining(and by saying this, I don't mean making it lightweight or camping it up).
Anyway,while I'll admit that DK is a good film,I much prefer Iron Man.Unlike Nolan's film,IM doesn't aspire to be more than what it is.And I think Downey gives a more nuanced performance than DK's near continually dour Bale.As a result,I care more about Tony Stark while I care little about this Bruce Wayne.In fact,I actually found Iron Man to be much more entertaining than The Dark Knight--a circumstance that still gives me pause.I say this because I really wanted Dark Knight to be great,and while I can admire certain elements in the film,ultimately I think that it's only okay.That it made a great deal of money at the boxoffice is somewhat reassuring if only because that means WB will want another Batman film to follow it.Hopefully thatone will be a more entertaining motion picture than it's precessor.
If what I've said somehow offends Rogue or Tony or anyone else who loves DK please understand that I'm not trying to belittle DK.I realize that many people love this motion picture.I just wanted to offer my opinion.
If what I've said somehow offends Rogue or Tony or anyone else who loves DK please understand that I'm not trying to belittle DK.I realize that many people love this motion picture.I just wanted to offer my opinion.
I'm not offended at all WG; as for Rogue, he'll be alright once I give him his meds. {:)
Seriously though, I understand your reservations. Oddly enough, I had almost the same reaction as you on my first viewing but the film did grow on me.
I agree that it might be a good idea to lighten things up a bit next time around and that it won't kill Bruce Wayne to crack a smile every now and then. Unfortunately, the movie's runaway success has pretty much led to the mindset at WB that DARK = MONEY. Hopefully it won't adversely affect WB's other properties.
Maybe Paul Dini said it best in a recent issue of Detective Comics when he had Zatanna tease Batman by calling him "anger wrapped in a cape".The grim characterization can only go so far until it threatens to become laughable.Even the animated Batman (of the Timm series) smiled occasionally and over the course of the series we got the impression that while this Dark Knight is incredibly intense and driven,he still manages to find some enjoyment in life.By contrast,Bale's Wayne in DK is almost entirely one-note.Much too dark.There are moments where he's more like a machine than a believable human being.
I guess I wanted DK to be special, and for me it wasn't.I think Gary Oldman does a fantastic job as Gordon and Michael Caine's interpretation of Alfred is terrific--but I didn't care about Bruce Wayne or his girlfriend whatsername or even The Joker.It's hard to become concerned about largely unlikeable characters--and when one of them is the hero,that's a big problem.
I too have read about WB's "Dark trend".The WB beancounters are perfectly happy to know nothing about the comics characters DC Comics publishes,but because Dark Knight made a lot of money they've been talking about a "Dark Superman" .I can see it now:the new Superman will be a bounty hunter from Krypton seeking vengeance on the scientists who intentionally destroyed his planet and then fled to Earth.No Smallville.Just grim destruction of evildoers.Lois Lane will probably swoon over that bad boy Clark Kent who would just as soon beat a criminal to death (or set him on fire with heat vision)as bring him to the police.Costume?What costume?Jon Peters was right--the Superman costume is ridiculous.Put him in a dark suit and big black trenchcoat--and none of that dual identity stuff.Everybody calls Clark Kent "Superman"(especially Lois Lane).And anyway,Clark Kent's the name of the poor guy Kal-El killed after he landed on Earth.
Maybe Paul Dini said it best in a recent issue of Detective Comics when he had Zatanna tease Batman by calling him "anger wrapped in a cape".The grim characterization can only go so far until it threatens to become laughable.Even the animated Batman (of the Timm series) smiled occasionally and over the course of the series we got the impression that while this Dark Knight is incredibly intense and driven,he still manages to find some enjoyment in life.By contrast,Bale's Wayne in DK is almost entirely one-note.Much too dark.There are moments where he's more like a machine than a believable human being.
I guess I wanted DK to be special, and for me it wasn't.I think Gary Oldman does a fantastic job as Gordon and Michael Caine's interpretation of Alfred is terrific--but I didn't care about Bruce Wayne or his girlfriend whatsername or even The Joker.It's hard to become concerned about largely unlikeable characters--and when one of them is the hero,that's a big problem.
I too have read about WB's "Dark trend".The WB beancounters are perfectly happy to know nothing about the comics characters DC Comics publishes,but because Dark Knight made a lot of money they've been talking about a "Dark Superman" .I can see it now:the new Superman will be a bounty hunter from Krypton seeking vengeance on the scientists who intentionally destroyed his planet and then fled to Earth.No Smallville.Just grim destruction of evildoers.Lois Lane will probably swoon over that bad boy Clark Kent who would just as soon beat a criminal to death (or set him on fire with heat vision)as bring him to the police.Costume?What costume?Jon Peters was right--the Superman costume is ridiculous.Put him in a dark suit and big black trenchcoat--and none of that dual identity stuff.Everybody calls Clark Kent "Superman"(especially Lois Lane).And anyway,Clark Kent's the name of the poor guy Kal-El killed after he landed on Earth.
) And I thought that I was cynical when it came to these movies. FWIW, I don't think we'll be seeing a Superman movie for a long while - the franchise has been pretty much put on the backburner due to the ongoing wrangling for money between DC and the Estate of Jerry Siegel and I doubt their issues will be settled anytime soon. That's probably the reason other properties like Green Lantern and Jonah Hex are picking up steam.
As for Batman, as long as Nolan is in creative control I would tend to expect more of the same; he clearly likes to explore the dark side to his characters and this goes for his other films as well.
As to the whole "dark" think; I think that's just part and parcel for this generation. In chatting with some younger but still hardcore Batman on another board when Dark Knight first premiered, I brought up some of the same points as WG and was pretty much flamed. They seemed to think the comic captured the character perfectly; and maybe it does...for their generation.
Still, I wonder if general audiences will be as enthusiastic next time around if they are given something as dark as this last entry as I really think that the Heath Ledger factor played a significant part in this movie's success with mainstream audiences.
Comments
As for having them behind closed doors and never releasing the results to us mere mortals, I don't think that's even necessary as it seems fewer and fewer people really care about this pompous charade. Ratings have been in decline for years and the exclusion of commercially successful yet still well-made films like Dark Knight, Iron Man and Wall-E will only disenfranchise more people and keep them from tuning in.
The weakest argument is to say I haven't seen any of the movies or performances but I don't think they deserve to be nominated. You simply can't pass judgement on what you haven't seen. Dan Same thought Meryl Streep's performance in Doubt was not that great, I thought it was wonderful. Dan didn't like Benjamin Button, I did. So those are opinions that can be argued. But to dismiss a movie without having seen it, minimizes your opinion.
As for the award ceremony itself, I like it. Yes it is overblown and yes some of the attenndees are full of themselves. But, not everyone is full of themselves, and at times you get some really special moments. A surprise winner, a young actor winning thier first award, an old actor winning after many great performancers, are all things that can make for great viewing. With the right host, the night can also be full of great laughs. Billy Crystal was always funny, many times humorously jabbing Hollywood for the very things some of the posters have complained about. The political statements have died down, usually it is the documentary filmmakers like Michael Moore that insist on making a political statement. I also enjoy some of the historical montages they present during the Oscars, a nice reminder of all the great films that have been made. One last comment, yes I do like watching the red carpet and passing judgement on everyones outfit.
Everything you've said is true Barry, but I do take issue with the academy turning its nose at gerne films simply because they are genre films or because they've been so commercially successful. They've done it for decades, dismissing imaginative efforts like 2001: A Space Odyssey (arguably one of the greatest films ever made) and it shows a real lack of vision on their part.
Just to keep this on topic, lets talk about Dark Knight and other comics films: I thought Heath Ledger did an amazing, Oscar-worthy job as the Joker but lets not kid ourselves, the only reason he was nominated was because he died tragically. Jack Nicholson's performance in the 1989 movie was equally praised, yet he was never nominated. Robert Downey' Jr. performance in Iron Man was also universally praised, yet the academy instead chose to recognize his work in Tropic Thunder. And I found Aaron Eckhart's performance as Harvey Dent quite moving and emotional and his acting was equal to anybody who was nominated. But I guess because he spent part of the film in prosthetic face appliances, and didn't die of a tragic overdose, that lessened its worth?
Also, two movies in particular (The Reader and Benjamin Button) had pretty average Rotten Tomatoes scores (60% and 72% respectively). That's not the great unwashed public, thats an aggregate of professional film critics. Yet they're up for best film and best director while the Dark Knight and Christopher Nolan, which had a rating of 94% and was almost universally praised by those same critics was left out.
There seems to be far more comment this year than most about how disappointing some of the academy's choices were and how they are even more out of touch than usual. There was even an article in the Chicago Tribune about it I believe.
I don't have anything against praising obscure films that may otherwise go unnoticed, but I do take issue with their historical and ongoing refusal to acknowledge successful genre work, especially sci-fi and comics in favor of rewarding "serious" and "relevant" films and their inability to see that even those genres can produce compelling stories and emotional drama. I think its important to recognize audience tastes every once in a while, especially when its for a good movie. Otherwise, they'll just continue to fade into irrelevance.
Indeed. I don't think that the Academy has any obligation to acknowledge a film, simply because it's successful. I would have been disappointed if DK had been nominated. I don't care how much money it made, I don't think it's a particularly good film (if any Batman film should have been nominated, it was IMO Batman Begins.) I'm sorry Rogue, but just because it was your birthday recently, doesn't mean I'm going to pretend that DK was anything special. :v
{[] The Oscars are my favourite awards. {[] every year, I sit down in front of it and write down the winners for history's sake.
BTW, as an example of how obsessive I can be over certain things, my second favourite award is an Australian Football award (the Brownlow Medal) where the host reads out votes of 1, 2 and 3 for 22 rounds of 8 games each. Most people are bored by it, but I love it.
The Oscars aside, I certainly agree with you Tony that genre films are not treated well, especially comic book films. They are regarded as 'juvenile' which is kind of ironic considering that Greek and Roman mythology was about super heroes (Hercules anyone?) Cinema, however, rolls out the carpet for genre films compared to literature. Why oh why have Arthur Conan Doyle, Agatha Christie, Ray Bradbury and Arthur C. Clarke not been awarded the Nobel Prize, and why isn't Stephen King a future contender?
Heath Ledger aside (whom admittedly I do want to rewatch, although I have my doubts about him), it astounds me that Downer Jr. was nominated. He's a fine actor but I think he was vastly superior in IM than in Tropic Thunder, although he wasn't of course as he didn't put on an Australian accent and put on black face. I still wouldn't have nominated him, but that's only because IMO Clint Eastwood's performance in Gran Torino was the most tragic omission of the year, not because Downey Jr. wasn't great in IM.
Yeh, although I really do l :xve the Oscars, this year is disappointing for me.
The major reason is that Gran Torino, IMO one of the year's very best films with one of cinema's all-time great performances, didn't receive any nominations. Additionally, the awarding of nominations to Benjamin Button (which I acknowledge is a film that Barry loves), Brad Pitt for Benjamin Button (a great actor but undeserving of his nomination IMO), Meryl Streep for Doubt (whom ordinarily I love), the fact that *Kate Winslet could win an Oscar for playing a Nazi (far too obvious), the awarding of a supporting nomination to **Phillip Seymour Hoffman for Doubt for what was IMO a lead performance and the omissions of such people as Kristin Scott-Thomas for I've Loved You So Long, Clint Eastwood for Gran Torino and Pitt for Burn After Reading.
I am yet to see Milk but the 2008 Oscars doesn't excite me as much as previous year's, 2007 for example.
I probably adressed this already, but it would have been nice if Wall-E had been nominated.
*Kate Winslet is IMO one of the greatest actresses of all time, but that she could win for this role is almost as depressing to me as if Meryl Streep won.
**I love Hoffman, but I don't think he deserves either his Oscar or his other nominations.
I would agree that some genre films do seem to be overlooked. In my opinion, nothing is harder to successfully make than a comedy movie, but few if any comedy films are nominated. As for action/superhero movies, you are right they do get dismissed. I am not sure why, my guess would be they see the heavy use of CGI, pyrotechnics and stunt work and say that isn't real down to earth film making. I think a counter argument could be made. I just read an interview with Amy Adams who just wrapped up filming Night at the Museum 2, and she commented how hard it was to work in front of a blue screen reacting to things that aren't there as opposed to sharing a scene with a fellow actor.
Having just seen Tropic Thunder I agree Robert Downey's performance in Iron Man was the better performance. But, give the Academy credit for giving him a nomination for Thunder, a rather odd role and possibly controversial role.
This is the Dark Knight thread, so let me comment on that. Yes, I would have nominated that for Best Picture (despite what Dan thinks), it was one of the best films I saw last year. Some of the selections for Best Picture are a surprise, The Reader being the biggest surprise, but I don't get a vote.
The Academy Awards are entertainment and I accept it for what it is, in the end, a great movie is in the eye of the beholder.
You know Barry, that has long been a pet peeve of mine with these critics who dismiss a movie the minute they see an outlandish costume or a spaceship. Oftentimes those actors are standing on an empty green stage, staring at a cardboard placeholder, and reacting to nothing. As far as I'm concerned, that is the definition of acting, distilled to its purest form.
To my way of thinking, the Joker was not a terrorist, he was a nihilist. When it came to causing mayhem, he was very much an equal opportunity villain and was perfectly happy to rain as much chaos down on Gotham's criminals as on the more innocent citizens. So for my money, I think any war on terror message goes out the window.
Major Oscar categories aside, I was also disappointed to see that TDK was snubbed for a screenplay award. Besides having some really good dialog, the film did a lot with its motif of either dying a hero or living long enough to see yourself become the villain. Even the ending is a clever juxtaposition of this credo: in order to preserve hope in Gotham, Harvey Dent, who has become the villain, is turned into a hero and Batman, who really saved the day, must become the villain. Some really clever writing on display there. Too bad it went right over the academy's head.
Next Batman Movie in 2011?
Source:Courier-Post January 25, 2009
New Jersey's Courier-Post talked to Batman Begins and The Dark Knight executive producer Michael Uslan, who expects the third installment of the Christopher Nolan-directed films, starring Christian Bale, to hit theaters in 2011:
Uslan will be onboard as executive producer for the "Dark Knight" sequel, which he estimates will be theaters by 2011. As for the identity of the next round of Batman's supervillains and love interests, Uslan remains tight-lipped. "It's one of those deals where if I told you, I'd have to kill you," he says with a chuckle.
In related news, while The Dark Knight did not receive the Producer of the Year Award at the Producers Guild of America Awards on Saturday (it went to Slumdog Millionaire), the movie did receive awards at the Screen Actors Guild Awards on Sunday - Heath Ledger won for Best Supporting Actor and The Dark Knight also won Outstanding Performance by a Stunt Ensemble in a Motion Picture.
Batman: "The Hammer Of Justice is UNISEX!"
-Batman: The Brave & The Bold -
Well their is no denying Hollywood is a pretty far left crowd, so I wouldn't be completly surprised, but I am hoping that is not the case. I did see columnists espousing the pro-war theory, but I don't think too many folks bought into it. Although I do think political correctness may have had something to do with Gran Torino being shut out.
One Billion Dollars
YESSSSSSS!!!!!!! Take that, Dan! Where's Aunt May now? Where's Fugly Jane Watson? Where's your teary-eyed Peter Parker? {[] {[] {[] {[]
THE BAT IS KING OF THE MOUNTAIN! B-)
Batman: "The Hammer Of Justice is UNISEX!"
-Batman: The Brave & The Bold -
I have a suspicion that everything you have said is a lie. That's right; I don't think you've been telling the truth. I suspect that you are not the Batman fan you claim to be, and that you may very well be a bigger fan of Marvel than DC. You might scoff at this, and point at your various sigs but I know the truth. You are a lover of Marvel heroes; Iron Man, X-Men, and perhaps especially Spider-Man. Protest at this, but just like the little boy who teases the girl whom he actually likes, your insults towards the Spider-Man films proves that you just can't get enough of them!
You're right, the Spiderman movies and all those overrated James Cameron tear-jerkers sure proved that. {:)
At the home :v
In bed with Bruce Wayne :v (I always thought she was kinda cute, vampire canines and all).
In a fetal position under his bed, thumb in his mouth. :v
Rogue, wtf?
Batman: "The Hammer Of Justice is UNISEX!"
-Batman: The Brave & The Bold -
Love the answers. Hey, if TDK hadn't reached this pinacle, I never would've pulled out the celebration sig. ;%
Batman: "The Hammer Of Justice is UNISEX!"
-Batman: The Brave & The Bold -
Source:Superhero Hype! February 22, 2009
The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences have just awarded Heath Ledger the award for Best Supporting Actor for his amazing performance as The Joker in The Dark Knight! Ledger's family accepted the award on his behalf.
Richard King just received the Oscar for Best Sound Editing for The Dark Knight as well.
I read haters everywhere saying that the Oscar he won was in most part for his demise; that can be argued...but give the man credit where it's due.
He gave a stunning performance. B-)
Batman: "The Hammer Of Justice is UNISEX!"
-Batman: The Brave & The Bold -
Actually, its Zack Snyder. Here's the full article: WB's Batman Backup Director
Well, if it ever came to that, which I don't think it will, I guess Snyder would be okay. Of course I'm not ready to pat him on the back until I see WATCHMEN. You know this guy is feeling the pressure on that one alone.
In Snyder's defense, if he were ever to take over the franchise, I wouldn't worry about the character losing any bite so to speak... His milieu however, sort of goes against the grain of Nolan's theme; he's just more of a fantasy, slo-mo director.
I still would LOVE to see what he could do with re-invigorating the SUPERMAN franchise; that just seems to fit him more like a glove than Nolan's Bats.
Time will tell.
Batman: "The Hammer Of Justice is UNISEX!"
-Batman: The Brave & The Bold -
Really? Do you have a link to this information?
Although, you're hardly the lying type, Dan, you're intentions towards Batman aren't remotely the least "loyal"...
How do I know that you're not telling us "porky-pies?" :v
If you're not then it's good news.
Batman: "The Hammer Of Justice is UNISEX!"
-Batman: The Brave & The Bold -
All that said,I didn't much like The Dark Knight.I wanted to.I wanted it to be one of the greatest comic book movies ever made.I'm old enough to understand that comics characters don't need motion pictures based upon them to validate their existence and alterations always occur whenever a character is dramatised.Sometimes storylines undergo changes as well,and as with EON's version of Goldfinger, they can even improve upon the source material.
But although while I can admire what The Dark Knight is,and respect the film's overall qualities,I never found it to be particularly entertaining.In fact,I shocked myself when I started glancing at my watch and began to wonder when DK would be over.But the worst part happened when I found myself thinking,"why don't I like this?"
I didn't care for the film's overall tone.A sense of gloom and doom works sometimes--but ALL the time?All too often I felt like I was attending a funeral(and no,not because Heath Ledger had died).I don't want Batman to suddenly segue into being the life of the party,but it's difficult to care about an eternally angry vigilante.Bale's attempt at a sotto Batman voice was hilarious-and for all the wrong reasons.It's a good-looking film, but it's also a depressing one.To paraphrase Getrude Stein,"There's no there there."Moreover,I got the feeling that Nolan was trying to make not just a Batman film but also an IMPORTANT film.Trying to make a comment.I'm all for important movies,but c'mon-this is supposed to be a Batman adventure.Where's the excitment?Where's the detection?Even with the unfortunate "real world" stricture dictating DK's style(and Scorcese's Heat influencing part of the film),there was still an opportunity to make DK more entertaining(and by saying this, I don't mean making it lightweight or camping it up).
Anyway,while I'll admit that DK is a good film,I much prefer Iron Man.Unlike Nolan's film,IM doesn't aspire to be more than what it is.And I think Downey gives a more nuanced performance than DK's near continually dour Bale.As a result,I care more about Tony Stark while I care little about this Bruce Wayne.In fact,I actually found Iron Man to be much more entertaining than The Dark Knight--a circumstance that still gives me pause.I say this because I really wanted Dark Knight to be great,and while I can admire certain elements in the film,ultimately I think that it's only okay.That it made a great deal of money at the boxoffice is somewhat reassuring if only because that means WB will want another Batman film to follow it.Hopefully thatone will be a more entertaining motion picture than it's precessor.
If what I've said somehow offends Rogue or Tony or anyone else who loves DK please understand that I'm not trying to belittle DK.I realize that many people love this motion picture.I just wanted to offer my opinion.
I'm not offended at all WG; as for Rogue, he'll be alright once I give him his meds. {:)
Seriously though, I understand your reservations. Oddly enough, I had almost the same reaction as you on my first viewing but the film did grow on me.
I agree that it might be a good idea to lighten things up a bit next time around and that it won't kill Bruce Wayne to crack a smile every now and then. Unfortunately, the movie's runaway success has pretty much led to the mindset at WB that DARK = MONEY. Hopefully it won't adversely affect WB's other properties.
I guess I wanted DK to be special, and for me it wasn't.I think Gary Oldman does a fantastic job as Gordon and Michael Caine's interpretation of Alfred is terrific--but I didn't care about Bruce Wayne or his girlfriend whatsername or even The Joker.It's hard to become concerned about largely unlikeable characters--and when one of them is the hero,that's a big problem.
I too have read about WB's "Dark trend".The WB beancounters are perfectly happy to know nothing about the comics characters DC Comics publishes,but because Dark Knight made a lot of money they've been talking about a "Dark Superman"
As for Batman, as long as Nolan is in creative control I would tend to expect more of the same; he clearly likes to explore the dark side to his characters and this goes for his other films as well.
As to the whole "dark" think; I think that's just part and parcel for this generation. In chatting with some younger but still hardcore Batman on another board when Dark Knight first premiered, I brought up some of the same points as WG and was pretty much flamed. They seemed to think the comic captured the character perfectly; and maybe it does...for their generation.
Still, I wonder if general audiences will be as enthusiastic next time around if they are given something as dark as this last entry as I really think that the Heath Ledger factor played a significant part in this movie's success with mainstream audiences.