Ya umm the movie fucking ruled.

I gotta say I'm an asshole to movies, but that took the cake. Given the limitations of those characters in those situations, that movie was perfect.

My only gripe was Batman's voice sucked.

WHAT IS VALCONI HIDING?
I DON'T KNOW
GROOOOOOOAAAAAAAAAAAAAAANNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN!!!!!!!!1

I did enjoy it. :)

completely agree with the the first two posts in this thread:

you were htere till 2:30? puss! i got out at 4am ;-) it was the 1 o'clock, last, IMAX showing. I got the tickets after work and i got to pick the seats, settled for that one because it wasn't sold out yet at 7pm and i chose seats right in the middle. perfect spots too.

and why must you spoiler two-face? if anyone followed the movie news/media even in the slightest you'd know he'd would show up. And yes, it looked fucking awesome.... i mean wow.. the first reveal when he's in the hospital bed.. and he turns and you can see some charred skin on the pillow.. so gross but i loved the detail. oh and Nurse Joker FTW

The only bad experience i had was that we didnt show up to the theatre until right before the scheduled start time, which i hate doing because even with assigned seats i like to get in there early so i dont have to climb over anyone. Some crazyness happened and i ended up taking a friend to a hospital but everything turned out fine and he let me leave and made it just on time. i wanted to get a soda but it was so late they barely had anyone working and even though the line was short it took forever cuz the people at the counter decided to order every last bit of food they had in the place (fat bastards) so i was on line from 12:50-1:05 and missed the fucking terminator teaser trailer (which i really really wanted to see..) and barely got to see the watchman trailer because i was standing around waiting for an attendant to show me to my seats. Oh and this is after the first employee, some big lazy bitch took my ticket and said to go to the other side of the theatre, then the attendant there takes forever to seat us because she was so busy seating everyone the fat bitch sent her way.. so when she finally gets to us our seats are on the fucking side we came in on! i could of atleast watched one of the previews but now, instead i missed the first minute of the movie (but luckily nothing too important).

Oh and yes, batmans voice sucked. I never saw batman begins (well i did on tv but wasnt paying attention) so i hadn't realized he sounds like  an idiot with a strepthroat when he talks lol.

Fantastic film. Surpasses all others.

"Let me show you a magic trick. I will make this pencil disappear!"

GIVE THIS MAN THE OSCAR

lol shyguy that was the most memorable line. I watched Batman 89 right before i watched the movie
just so i could make a comparison.

and you know who the best joker is
Mark Hamill, however Ledger was great, but i guess this will be the last movie with ledger/gyllenhaal..too bad for evil sleeping pills, i want a sequal w/ joker

I hate this Joker but, I can't wait to see the movie anyway.

mantidor you may wanna watch the movie before you can say you hate this joker, he's not at all like the first impression photos. Those dark shadowed inmate photos don't even begin to represent him. Actually to be honest he's pretty standard joker, not to mention hilarious..if you like morbid black humor


basically he's a cross between the villian on No Country for Old Men, Beetlejuice, and Jack Nicholson's joker, a chaotic anarchistic psychology, with a dark sense of humor. Nicholson's Joker was a mobster who took over for Carl Grisham, and Heath Ledger's more like an outsider thats a force on its own.

He was more in line with The Animated Series Joker. He was a demented mad man (redundancy necessary) who could brain fuck Batman.

I hope we at least get the Joker laughing from a cell in Arkham in the sequel. I also don't think Two Face was dead at the end of the movie, but that they hid him away in the asylum to cover up the tragedy

I get how Batman grunts and growls because he's diguising his voice.... I just didn't understand why he'd still use his Batman-voice around people who knows he's Bruce Wayne.

I think Two-Face is dead. That's kind of the point. They beat the Joker by having Dent die a martyr.

Amazing movie with only trivial flaws. Heath Ledger nailed the role. If they make a 3rd movie, my guess is that they bring back Ra's Al Ghul because I'm not sure any other villain would work. Who's left that could pass under Christopher Nolan's "realistic Batman?" The Riddler? Ehhh.... Well, there's Bane, but I think I'd rather see who I mentioned above.

Actually I was thinking either Hugo Strange or The Ventriloquist. The upcoming Batman as an outlaw would fit well into the "Prey" storyline.

Plus a bit of Anthony Hopkins' Hannibal.

When he's in costume, he's no longer Bruce Wayne.

I was saying this exact same thing yesterday.

They seem to incorporate a lot of politics in this series, so I think The Penguin (sans all the ridiculousness) would be a good fit. If Heath Ledger hadn't died, I would've loved to see a movie about Bane leading the Arkham breakout. But, I think the Joker needs to be there too much.

Mad Hatter might be nice to see.

A movie like that sounds like it would suffer from "Batman and Robin" or "Spider-Man 3" syndrome.  Too many players.

As for villians, Nolan pretty much covered the ones that fit into HIS universe

Scarecrow, Two-Face, Joker, Raz Al-Ghul

the ones left are

Penguin, Riddler, Crock, Poison Ivy, Bane, Mad Hatter, Scarface/Ventriliquist, Clayface, Man Bat, and Mr. Freeze. Most of these are far fetched and unrealistic. The penguin I can imagine as an intelligent crime boss, Riddler is more realistic in the cartoon, Crock is realistic in that he only looks like a crocadile but is in fact a man with a skin disorder who happens to be really big, Bane...please, Mad Hatter could be good..i always imagined robin williams as mad hatter..there is a line between nolan and camp here, Scarface..meh, Clayface..meh, Man Bat too far fetched, mr freeze..a great character with a good tone, but unrealistic. Someone should say something to Nolan about Robin Williams though..they worked together on Insomnia where Robin Williams was a villian..who was really similar to bat villians in that he left clues and stuff. fine line as said above, but i've seen Robin play regular people as well as goofballs.

I wish i was a producer, i'd make a live action tv series. Did anyone ever watch Mantis?

I don't want them to do Mr. Freeze - No one can do him better than TAS did.

Scarface/Ventriloquist would seem to do well, IMHO, simply because the movies seems to focus more on the organized crime aspect of Batman.  Black Mask could be a part of this as well.  They're both realistic, screwed up characters.

Oddly enough, why is everyone avoiding mentioning one of the core characters of the Batman mythos... Catwoman?  Maybe we can get a sequel to that awesome Catwoman movie.

Tier two villains FTW?

Deadshot? Hugo Strange?

Personally, Deadshot looks pretty interesting. Hugo Strange could be built off that guy. Did he have a name? I forgot.

seriously my favorite part of the movie. that and the final "i want my phone call" were really fucking good. god i just want to see this movie again!

Saw this. Movie was great, Heath Ledger was amazing, etc. Favorite scene: malfunctioning detonator.

Plus Andy Richter's voice.

I agree, no one could top The Arnold Schwarzenegger's performance.

I think any of them could be modified to fit into the films. Also, the movies aren't that realistic (See: microwave generator in first film.)

TAS is theanimated series

hehe, i actually don't think Schwarzenegger was bad at all as Mr. freeze, he was in a bad movie with a bad script with a ridiculous budget, with a great director who wanted a flamboyant movie that few would like. However, he did really well in some scenes where theres was some pathos in the character. The movie was on the other night on tnt...i couldn't stand to wath the whole thing, but i remember some parts where he was a sympathetic villian.

and catwomen, i just forgot about catwomen in my list, you can only post 100% on so many forums...she's alright, its just that you can't top Michelle pfeifers catwoman villianess..only if Eartha Kitt is Mama Cat with like 10 catwomen accomplices, but thts campy!

What Perm said (about The Animated Series, not Arnold's performance....)

The only way I want to see a new Mr. Freeze is with a great plot and Patrick Stewart playing him.

patrick stewart would be good....

Seriously when the Joker is on screen, you (at least I didn't) don't ever think - that's Heath Ledger with some makeup under there, you think - that's the fucking Joker playing himself in a movie.

Wow. Amazing. I couldn't wait to find out what Two-Face was going to look like in this film and it didn't disappoint. Awesome and terrifying. My friend's sister couldn't look at his face for the rest of the movie. Everytime he came on screen after, she'd look away. Although I need to see the movie again. I'm a bit confused as to whether Two-Face died or not. I didn't think he did at first but now I'm thinking he did.

As for villians in the next movie, I would like to see Catwoman and or the Riddler. The could fit well in this Batman universe. Catwoman is a villainess that confuses Batman's loyalties. Sometimes she's good, sometimes she's a thief.

The Riddler is best to view him as a man with an ego. He want's to flaunt his intellectual superiority. That's the way I've always viewed the reason he leaves clues behind in his crimes. He's so certain that he can outsmart everyone, he even leaves hints behind to help people because he's sure he can still beat them by giving them a handicap.

Recently in the comics, The Riddler has gone straight and become a rival detective of Batman's. He gets more joy out of solving a crime before Batman can figure it out. That goes back to my belief about him wanting to show off his intellectual superiority. A person like that could work in this "realistic" Batman world. A movie about elitism. I like it.

As for the Mad Hatter, I always thought Martin Short would make the best role for that but I think it would be more suited for a Tim Burton type Batman. Martin Short's smile just seems right for the Mad Hatter and even his short stature and antics seem right for the character. The question is, how do you make the Mad Hatter work in this Batman universe? His crimes are based around hats? He has mind control devices? What is his purpose?

The Ventriloquist could work in the Batman movies because the way I see The Ventriloquist is a man who is too shy or timid to do things on his own, so he's created this character to hide behind, that being the Scarface dummy. Scarface is how he releases everything bottled up inside him. Sort of like an imaginary friend in a way. That's why, when Scarface often gets destroyed, he acts like it's a real person who killed. He's lost that way of avenue of releasing his emotions.

Just saw it tonight. WOW what a great movie. Easily the best "super hero movie" I've ever seen.

One question though:

Where the hell is the Gotham city I saw in the first movie? It didn't even feel like the same place to me. And why is Wayne Tower now super bland instead of the "unofficial center of Gotham city"? Did anyone else feel this way?

the last two movies were in Chicago

i get sort of a dirty harry vibe out of nolan's movies

as for riddler..i was thinking...I watched the last 2 seasons of dexter religiously, and the ice truck killer was one who left little clues as to who he was, i imagine riddler as leaving dead bodies all around with little clues, little does batman know he works for wayne enterprises.

for mad hatter Wayne is dating some girl hatter is obsessed with, he becomes a stalker but bruce abuses his batman power and hatter figures it out, batman is captured, and sent down the rabit hole, some psychotic set of traps wityh an alice and wonderland theme, and now that iv mentioned it..it will never happen

Some people are speculating we had the Riddler in this movie. Or at least the character pre-Riddler.

Movie was awesome. I've heard they never intend to bring Robin into it, though.

Also, I don't think hatter and the ventriloquist could work because they're a bit too hard to swallow. The hatter has a better chance, but the moviegoing audience can only be asked to suspend so much disbelief and I think that would kick in once they saw goons taking orders from a dummy. I think that would be the point where the franchise nukes the fridge, as it were.

This has already happened to the X-men movie series, as in the killing off of characters just doesn't work in movies like it can work in comic books. Once death becomes inconsequential, the audience can't fear for the hero and the movie loses them.

They're never going to bring Robin in?  I was kind of looking forward to them doing the whole sidekick thing right. 

In a way, it makes sense.

To me, Nolan's Batman movies are more about Batman than it is about the other characters.

Batman Begins was pretty much a psychological view of the comic book character. As in, why, how, and when did he become the caped crusader.

I haven't seen Dark Knight yet, but I take it the film will heavily focus on Batman's actions, how the Joker affects his hero persona and such.

Bring Robin into the mix would probably take away from that, especially since Batman is viewed as a solo hero.

Not to mention that Robin has never been seen as seriously as he should. Pardon my ignorance, but it seems that whenever Robin is introduced people don't take him seriously.

Even in Teen Titans, where he is the LEADER, the writers just can't help but bug him around.

So maybe they fear that adding Robin would take away the edge off of Batman.

oh yeah Mr. Reese, the man who knows Bruce Wayne's identity

Will Mr. Reese reveal Batman's true identity?, will he go by his other alias Edward Nygma?, Will Reese get laid off due to company wide layoff's and not be able to find a job and fuel his hate for wayne/batman? Find out same bat time, same bat channel.

I think there's a lot of potential there for the "adopted son" version of Robin in Nolan's universe.  They just have not make him "comic relief" and treat him as a serious character.  I never despised Robin, just thought he was always too much of a goof ball.  It would be nice to see him treated as a serious character.  (And by "serious character", I don't mean a bunch of annoying teen angst or something like that.)

i dont see how robin would work at all. This series is supposed to be realistic, Realism with a capital R. First imagine if you were a vigilante would you even think to adopt someone? Seriously, your a super risk case, why would you adopt someone? Second if you were a vigilante would you let some kid tag along? Why would you put them at risk. Bruce Wayne is crazy, but i don't think he would be that crazy untill he's in his late 40s.

both Nolan and Bale said they'd jet if they had to put Robin in. Seriously? I could see Joker having some kid sidekick, but he's a douche-bag and would want the kid to get hurt.

I don't know if a Robin would work, but I could see the Dick Grayson origin story working. Batman adopts an 11 year old Dick after the circus murder, and then trains him to get vengeance on Zucco, sans costume. Make the story more of a one shot like they did with Two-face rather than make him a recurring character.

That sucks.

I would be far more interested in Harley Quinn myself.  That is definitely something I would like to see adapted to film.

Saw the movie last night . . .

it wasn't "The Best movie EVER" as some of my co-workers had described it, but it was good.

Ledger was, for lack of a better word, phenomenal. In fact, he was the movie. It makes me wish there was just a movie about the Joker, he was that damned good. Probably one of the best villains in a movie I have ever seen. Truly brilliant.

Things I didn't like:

- Batman's voice
- It didn't feel much like Gothan City to me
- Lack of any sort of *get ready for this in the next movie* scenes. The tank-bat-car thing was destroyed and I was so hoping for some sort of hints at future batmobile designs throughout the film. Also, no build up for the next villain.
- It felt a bit lengthy

Also, in terms of the films next villain, my friend pointed out a very subtle statement made in the movie. When Batman gets his new suit and is hearing about it's trade off of mobility for less protection, he asks if it can stand up to dogs, to which Fox says something about small dogs and maybe cats. I didn't even think of Catwoman but the whole cats line would make some sense. Just a thought.

i didnt think of it that way... but i dont think its a hint at anything. he was attacked by dogs prior to that scene remember? i think it was more of a joking reference to him actually being vulnerable to stupd dogs yet invincible to hordes of goons.

could be wrong though

Well if you look at Begins in hindsight you can see several things were setup for this film.

- The D.A. got murdered leaving a space for Harvey Dent to be elected.
- Scarecrow was still on the loose
- The Joker leaves a calling card
- Rachel rejects Bruce leaving room for the Bruce/Rachel/Harvey love triangle in TDK

I think they setup several things very well for the next movie.

- Batman is now an outlaw
- They need a new Batmobile, probably more traditional in appearance.
- The Riddler is coming and I would bet money that...
- He's going to discover that Two Face has been hid away in Arkham.

i'm not saying you're wrong or anything... i just dont want to see another batman movie with The Riddler and Two-face as villians again, atleast not in the same movie. Also a new batmobile could be not only more traditional in appearance to the batmobile.. but a more traditional looking vehicle period. Since everyone will be out to get batman now that they think he's murdered a few people, driving another tank like vehicle (even at night) isn't very low profile. Maybe it'll be a modded lamborgini or something that has hints of a more classic batmobile design? just throwing ideas out there.

I could see Robin working in the story - if done right.

Think of a story where a young Dick sees his parents murdered.  Years later, around 16 or so, he takes to the streets to find their killer.  Eventually, his activity attracts the Batman who tries to scare/force him from vigilante justice, but Dick won't be stop.  Eventually, Batman realizes that, eventually, Dick is going to get himself killed unless he gets some training, and thus takes Dick under his bat-wing.  It's still close enough to be the story of "Batman", but almost-realistic enough to work.

Basically, Batman doesn't *want* Robin, but doesn't have much of a choice.

But, yeah, I'd prefer to keep Robin out for awhile.

I don't think Two Face will completely be a villian in the next movie. He will come forward to clear Bruce's name.

Harvey wasn't breathing, they had a funeral. I don't think he's coming back. As good as this movie was (phenomenol), i almost would say i'd almost prefer they just leave the series be. What more is there to accomplish other than a fat paycheck? Like spiderman 2, i think the series can almost go downhill from here.

I would be content if there was no third film. I need to see this one again in Imax.

Isn't that what happened with Tim in TAS?
Side note; if Ledger hadn't died, the Jason Todd story could've been neat.

Dunno... never got to see those episodes...

i'd ake robin only if they used Christian Bale from  Empire of the Sun they can't so no Robin

Remember that Raz Al' Ghol (spelling) is far from dead...

another thing about Robin...i can just imagine batman having robin with him...he is about to battle the zaniest craziest villian and then the villian sees Robin, so he calls the police explaining the sistuation....Seriously Batman WTF...i'm not even that crazy

I've seen this twice now. Overall I like it! The first time was much better than the second, tho.

All the good stuff people are saying here is true: gritty, realistic, morally complex, exciting action, great performance by Ledger.

Major negatives for me: stupid one-liners throughout, some from Ledger but mostly from Bale; overly moralistic and preachy, especially towards the end; movie loses steam after the highway action scene, which was especially beautiful; the whole ferry boat scene was pretty contrived and overcooked, and the final showdown between Batman and the Joker was lame; lots and lots and lots of talking, no reason for this movie to be two and a half hours. Though it has the appropriately dark "tone," I like my comic book movies to have more visual pizzazz than this film (more of a cartoon representation of big cities, a la Batman Returns or Spider-Man 2). Also, I've never liked Christopher Nolan's editing (too fast, no real understanding of geography so it's easy to get confused; don't even bother trying to figure out who does what in Batman Begins, there is NO context to any of the explosions or punches) but here it was much improved. Yet I still cannot abide Batman showing up in the middle of any room and saying "surprise!" especially when he is able to magically appear in the middle of a crowd of tuxedos and punch Joker square in the jaw. Did no one say "holy shit that guy is fucking magic!" or do they just expect Batman to appear in thin air?

Also, Two-Face's makeup was not in line with the film's gritty realism, so in any other context I may have liked it, but here it was out of place.

Again, highway action scene and every scene with Ledger (especially when he's wearing a dress) are excellent. Last 45 minutes, not so much.

I thought Aaron Eckhart did an excellent job of holding his own, especially in the last third of the movie.

His performance is fine, even great, but where the plot takes him is meandering.

Also, Two-Face's makeup was not in line with the film's gritty realism, so in any other context I may have liked it, but here it was out of place

what???? first of all i did think it was a grittier looking joker than any other i've seen, secondly even if i thought it didnt fit the look of the rest of the film, i'd love the contrast between him and everything else that was seen as "normal."

in fact, i didnt like how his clothes didnt stand out much in many of the scenes because it made him look as if he was dressed normally, but had the weird makeup on. There were a few scenes where you get to really see the colors on his suit and i thought to myself "now THATS the real joker"

what bitching about two face!!! He was PERFECT....Planet Gamecube Forums where nintendo fans come to bitch about EVERYTHING

comparison

http://i146.photobucket.com/albums/r259/theultimateperm/harvey.jpg

Two Face has to be given a few liberties given the nature of the character. However, most are not necessary since he looked like half his face burned off which didn't look unrealistic. The only thing about it was that is was the only visual that was over the top in the whole movie that you had to look at for more than 17sec.

i agree with theperm (for once?)

Tommy Lee Jones was a horrible Two Face... :(

Also...it wasn't make up, at least not all of it. That's incredible CGI work. I'm pretty sure most (read: all) peoplethat say they didn't like it, or it was mediocre, just want to be able to say that. You do have to keep in mind that it's a fucking superhero movie.

The only thing that clashed with the "realism" of the Noland films is his eye.  But I can easily excuse that because it looked totally badass.

Saw this in IMAX not an hour ago...


*Applauds*

They should end the batman trilogy or whatever they have planed NOW. No need to make a movie that will be worse.

if the stop now it will prove batman movies come in 2s, time to start another series! Holy Camp cycle batman..now with sin city and 300 out of the way comic book movies have a new meaning..and lol

http://cube.ign.com/dor/objects/17045/resident-evil/images/bio32.html

its kinda weird actually for that perticular pic of tommy lee jones as twoface, its actually a good picture, becuase it looked really goofy in the movie.


I was like HOLY SHIT yeah when i saw two fac's faces  in dark knight, i didn't even think they were going to get to that plot in this movie. My only complaint is two face was a short lived character. He was there, he was cool, and then he died

Maybe they were trying to stay in the "realism" route by killing him off early 'cause there's no way someone in that condition could last for long?

C'mon, give me more credit than that. Perhaps contrasting it to the gritty realism was incorrect; rather I thought the effect was overdone, overused, and not very believable. It felt like they were showing off, and it was distracting.

I thought it was horrifyingly disgusting and perfectly offset his other side.

which was perfect because his other side was a "perfect" pretty-boy herald as gothams White Knight

I was just trying to be an anti-elitist, yet that in itself makes me an elitist.

I think people need to get out more if they call most of what happens in the movie realistic. It was a great movie but come on, it was far from a "realistic".

i think we're all talking about it being realistic when compared to the later, extra campy, batman films. I know i am.

EasyCure has a time machine!  Tell me, what villains appear in films later than this one?  I hope it's Bat-Mite!

On a serious note, did anyone here hate Batman Begins or at least find its big villainous plot appallingly stupid?  If so, I'd like to get your opinion on whether The Dark Knight is worth bothering with.  Thanks.

Realism isn't about being "accurate to reality." Realism is attempting to represent a version of reality without gloss or stylistic obfuscation. It, in and of itself, is a style. EasyCure is correct when saying that we're applying the statement when compared to previous Batman films. Really, when compared to every other comic book movie ever, the Nolan Batmans clearly use "realism" as their aesthetic base.

P.S. I hate Batman Begins; it's edited like a trailer, with none of the humor of a Michael Bay film.

Svevan, what are some of your favorite movies? 

I'm testing a theory.

It is too bad that Nolan wants a more "realistic" lineup of villains I'd love to see some of the more supernatural villains like Clayface and Mr. Freeze show up but fitting with the dark tone of Nolan's Batman. TAS showed you can have these characters and not be laughable if done right.

haha i didnt get it until i re-read my post more thoroughly. i'm sure you know i meant the later batman films AFTER tim burtons Batman.

Batman Begins had kind of a stupid plot. What was the deal with the cave? It was a fucking cave for 2 seconds and then it was gone. And then every part with Ra's Al Ghul was disrespectful to the character. Right down to calling him "Raaz," which sounded weird every fucking time.

What are you talking about with regards to the cave?  I don't understand what you're referring to.

The batcave is an integral part of the Batman Mythos. It also was a place to escape to during the fire.

in the comics the batcave/bruce manor has been destroyed..at which time bruce wayne did pretty much what he was doing: staying in a penthouse, and storing all his stuff in a big garage

I'm still trying to figure out what nickmitch meant by "It was a fucking cave for 2 seconds and then it was gone."

Didn't they fight in a cave or something when he was being trained?

Not that I remember.  I just remember the house and the ice-lake.

See now you are making me want to rewatch it again. :(

Only cave in BB was  the Batcave.

I actually just watched the "in-movie experience" Blu-Ray thing today.  It was kind of cool, but I would have rather just watched a straight commentary.  It was just scenes they filmed for a documentary that they lined up to make sense in context of what was happening in the film.  I don't think I even found a traditional commentary on the Blu-Ray.  Maybe I'm just blind.

i think i know what he means, but nickmitch correct me if i'm wrong:

the batcave everyone knows and loves has always been Bruce's lair, a place where all his gadgets are stored/hidden away and where he does alot of his investigating. In BB the batcave is shown for a few seconds but all of batmans "toys" are stored at Wayne Enterprise's R&D facility. You don't see the batcave again until he's taking rachel back to get the antidotve for the drug she was about to OD on.

keep in mind i've only seen BB twice, on tv mind you, so maybe they took out stuff i missed? But thats the feeling i'm getting from what i saw in BB to what i saw in TDK. TDK had absolutely no batcave, correct?

That's exactly what I was referring to. There's that part where he finds the cave under his house, but then it's never mentioned or shown again. But now that Perm has reminded me of what happened in the comics, I no longer have a problem with it. Sorry for the confusion. I had seen it just before I saw The Dark Knight, so that bit was fresh in my mind, although it was obscure.

Calling him "Raaz" still pissed me off, though.

I'd much rather they call him "Raaz" than hear his full name every time they referred to him.  Then again, I'm not a comic nut and didn't even know about the character until that movie so I really didn't give a shit.

That's understandable, but I was a big fan of The Animated Series. Throughout TAS, he would be referred to as "Rache" without the Al-Ghul part.

Ah, I see.  I noticed all the comic book guys referring to him as "Rache" Al Ghul during the documentaries for Batman Begins, while the movie people referred to him as "Raaz".

I used to watch the animated series off and on, but was never a loyal follower, and had never even seen the character before.  I did watch "Batman Beyond:  Return Of The Joker" yesterday on Cartoon Network though.  :-P

i wanted to watch that but my gf didnt seem very interested! ARGH!

It was pretty entertaining.  The plot was totally ridiculous, but there were cool scenes going back to TAS with Batman, Batgirl, and Robin vs. The Joker and Harley Quinn.  The more Harley the better.  Was worth watching for free on a lazy afternoon.

Terry McGuinness is a total douche-nugget though and not a worthy Batman at all.

So I watched and I like it. It was a good movie, far from being the best movie ever as the internet wants to claim but it was really good.

And I liked the Joker, however I still missed some things. The spontaneity of the comic/animated Joker is put away somewhat in favor of "schemes", like the hostage/clown situation or the two boats stuff (with results that were frankly very predictable). Too much emphasis on morality with his actions, but I guess that was because of the two-faces character more than anything . However the Joker smile is just terrible, I would personally had left the scars open like in Pan's labyrinth, that would have been awesome, I also supposed this is why I couldn't see much of the Joker I'm used to know in Ledger's character, not enough smile, the make up didn't do much for me.

Oh also, Return of the Joker is the most awesome animated movie just for this scene. If I'm to believe the youtube comments the movie was heavily edited which is a damn shame, I saw this version some time ago without editing.

my friends from work ruined the plot for me like a year ago or whenever it was, so i know the story but i'd still like to see it play out.

Damn, that's way cooler than the version they show on TV.  On the TV version Robin/J.J. accidentally kills Joker by making him electrify himself or something.  That was way better.  Now I need to see real version.

Yeah it was pretty disturbing, but I don't know if they edited the rest of the movie as well, I don't recall anything like that. Probably the fights are better, longer and at least have some blood.

Now that I've given it some thought I can pinpoint exactly what I don't like about the Jokerin TDK. His insanity is too "normal". He shakes his head, he stumbles when walking, he repeats phrases, its basically like the mad people that swing back and forth in a corner while drooling, the usual picture of a mad man. The Joker is more like Hannibal Lecter in that even if their actions prove otherwise they act completely rational and calm.

You can read some of the edits they did for the movie here]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Batman_Beyond:_Return_of_the_Joker#Re-editing]here if you like. Obviously theres spoilers for anyone that hasn't seen it.

Damn, I hate censorship.  There are a lot of stupid changes in there.  "Oh no don't say "death" or "kill" to the children!  They may have to accept mortality!"

in the dark knight Wayne and Alfred talk about how they can't wait for Wayne manor to be rebuilt. an obvious setup for the next movie

the same thing happened to the Ninja Turtles, which is why they lived at April's apartment at the beginning of part 2, but they found a kickass lair for part 3, but then part 3 sucked and they spent it in japan. Damnit if i were a movie producer i would just make a ninja turtle movie the old school way.

The third movie will happen and will be inevitably hated by everyone. Is the curse of the third sequel and no sci-fi movie has escaped from it (maybe starwars but not really).

Personally I can't wait, since the villain of this one was good but didn't blow me away I'm more than willing to give other villains a chance.

(maybe starwars but not really)

LOL Return of the Jedi is the best one in the whole series.
;)

There are plenty of people who hate Return of the Jedi, most people considered it the worst of them until the prequels came out.

Also, Star Trek III isn't hated, it's universally believed to be the best odd-numbered Trek movie.

Are you serious? wow I never knew enough people to say "plenty" of people dislike Return of Jedi. It's got the best production values and perfectly wraps it up.  I guess people probably just hate the Ewoks too much.

Hmm, the third movie surpassing the first two? I don't think it's ever been done. To be fair, few sequels surpass the first one, but The Dark Knight definitely took it up a notch.

Now that I think about it, Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade surpassed Temple of Doom in most peoples eyes.

Return Of The Jedi is the weakest of the original trilogy.  I would even put it behind Phantom Menace.  I actually liked the prequels though, so I'm probably in the minority on this one.

And most people definitely prefer The Last Crusade to The Temple Of Doom.  Temple of Doom is watchable, but not a very good movie all things considered.  I would rather watch Crystal Skulls than Temple Of Doom.

I think it's easier for people to get excited about the third films in a series when the second film doesn't quite satisfy.  Look at Episode III compared to Episode II.  Many people still didn't like it, but those of us who did enjoy the prequels would probably list that as the best one.  Now that The Dark Knight is going to be such a huge hit and loved by almost everyone, it's going to be very hard to follow that up, especially with two of the most marketable villains already out of the game.  I'm sure I'll love the movie though, as I've been infatuated with both the new Batman movies.  Some people have been speculating that they don't even need to have a villain for the third flick, with Batman "on the run" and all.  That would be a neat trick, to make a super-hero movie with no villain but was still great.  I think this team could pull it off.  They haven't let me down at all so far.

No comment.

No commenting on your no comment. I've seen your movies tastes.

ROJ is my favorite Star Wars movie as well. Though it doesn't compare with Le Frenche de Trois that Evan probably loves. ;)

Again, as soon as I voice my opinion the thread becomes about how much everyone hates my taste: why is it that everyone knows all about how sucky my movie taste is when they haven't seen any of the movies I have?

/frustrated digression

The internet is a cruel and unreasonable place.

But I'm going to name three things I like about Evan's taste in movies.

1. He appreciates The Dark Knight, the greatest film of the year.
2. He likes the Bourne Supremacy, especially for it's powerful ending sequence.
3. He's willing to watch black and white and subtitled movies, which many of my friends are unwilling to do.

coughsupremacycough

Fixed!

Words of affirmation is Evan's love language.

Which makes me pathetic. Anyways, don't you think it's a bit early to call The Dark Knight the greatest film of the year? Like, there's six months to go.

I do because Wall-E still is

LOL from the guy that said all those 6 movies listed sucked.

To get this back on Topic, I'm putting up pictures of the villians so far in the Nolanverse.

Zsasz
http://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k302/shyguy70/zsasz.png

Ras Al Ghul
http://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k302/shyguy70/rasalghul.png

Scarecrow
http://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k302/shyguy70/scarecrow.png
Joker
http://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k302/shyguy70/Joker.png

Two Face
http://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k302/shyguy70/twoface.png

Who's next?

Well, I think Al Ghul is definitely dead, because this version has nothing to do with the immortal comic/TAS version. Two-Face I think it's still open that he -could- come back, but due to the nature of his departure I think he is also dead.

I think Khushrenada is right on the money; Riddler is a strong possibility. It just can't be another crazy guy because we're not going to get a better psychopath than Ledger's Joker anytime soon. I could see him as a very calculating villain, playing lots of mind games, possibly not even present most of the time (think Die Hard 3 but better). Alternatively, Bane could potentially be done well. The Penguin, if anything, I think would turn up as a mob boss, a minor role like Zsasz. The Ventriloquist is similar but slightly harder to swallow. But the one that I think is almost assured is Catwoman, simply because they're probably going to want a new female lead in the next film, and she always makes for interesting interactions with Batman.

I want Mr. Freeze or Clayface, no substitutes will be accepted!

I really wanted to see Harley Quinn but that's very doubtful to happen.

Did someone say, Mr. Freeze?

http://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k302/shyguy70/freeze.png

May I recommend The Animated Series then? Those versions are excellent, but Nolan's vision is more serious and I don't see those characters making an appearance.

Harley is to Joker what Robin/Batgirl would be to Batman. She wouldn't fit, and even if there was a way to do her justice in the films, given Ledger's passing I think it's highly unlikely.

May I recommend The Animated Series then? Those versions are excellent, but Nolan's vision is more serious and I don't see those characters making an appearance.

I've seen the Animated Series and I think it proved you can make those characters less comedic. In fact I would think Mr. Freeze, an extremely tragic character would make an excellent and disturbing edition to Nolan's Batman films if he is willing to go more supernatural in his villains. Heck kind of went part way with two face.

I think there's something very serious about a young attractive woman who has devoted her life to and become obsessed over a raging lunatic such as The Joker. 

Plus she's hot.  Bewbs=$$$.

I'll say this- she'd have fit in great with Nicholson's Joker.

How is Two-Face supernatural? Severely scarred, yes, but there aren't as many huge suspensions of disbelief required as a guy in a freezing suit. Who is still an excellent character, he just doesn't fit the -tone- of these new films. Same reason I never want to see them try to shoehorn this Batman into a Justice League movie, no matter how bad they want to compete with the Avengers. It just doesn't work.

I think that the focus will continue to be on Batman vs. the mob in these films, and whatever villains are used will fit into that dynamic. Very interested to see where Nolan and Goyer take it next.

::points at Two-face's eye as suspension of belief::

Eh, I'd say that's within the realm of believability, if not quite realistic. Eyes are there. How much tissue can you remove before it doesn't function correctly? I don't know the scientific answer. Shapeshifting mudmen, though, is pretty far out there. The thing that all of Nolan's villains have in common thus far is that they're all normal men. There aren't really any powers going around, aside from a weaponized hallucinogen, and there are precedents for such drugs in real life.

christopher lloyd

mr freeze

http://weblogs3.nrc.nl/moskou/wp-content/uploads/2006okt/judge_doom.jpg

mr freeze is a great character, but its hard to do in Nolan's world. I can imagine someone who's cold in the since that they've shut off their emotions, but not in the sense that their frozen.

I could see a version of Freeze working sans suit. Maybe injured in a cryogenics lab accident or something, nerves deadened, body partially frozen inside and slowly falling apart...like a leper, or that one Bond villain with the bullet in his head...I dunno. I trust Nolan and Goyer to do -any- of the villains in a way that works well, if they decide they need to. But I think some are more out of the way than others, and thus less likely to be worth the trouble.

I'm glad to see Return of the Joker got some love while I was gone.  That was a great movie - the unedited one, at least... If you've only seen the edited version, really, go see the uncut version...  It's good. :)

That aside, SubZero is one of my top Batman movies as well.  The Animated Series, as a whole, is just wonderful.

Anywhoo, back to Dark Knight - I saw it again last week with my wife and it was still good the second time.  It's a shame the phone number they showed in the movie didn't work. :(

what phone number?

was it 618-304-6938?

I just realized the worst thing about this movie. every (and I mean EVERY) emo/goth kid is going to dress as the Joker this Halloween. If you thought the Crow thing was bad back in the 90s, you ain't seen nothin yet.

I was really impressed that they didn't do a "555".  I hate that in movies.

In the scene where Bruce/Alfred is warning Gordon about the cop he's riding with.  Gordon receives txt messages.  The first time I saw it, I tried to get my cell phone out and get it typed in quickly, but (assumed) I didn't get it correct.  When I saw it the second time, I was waiting for it as the scene came up.

People should hide more real numbers in movies. ;)

they've already started. Some dude dressed up like this Joker and got busted stealing Dark Knight posters... lol

Saw the movie and really liked it.  The Joker was awesome as everyone says as well as Harvery Dent.  My only gripe is the cell phone radar thing that maps all of Gotham.  It was totally pointless and unrealistic and could have easily been replaced with an eyewitness seeing the Joker, the Joker wanting to be chased (hostages in masks), or tracing the phone call/transmission followed by good building surveillance.

Joker still won in my book.  While the boat (lucky) and Dent were stopped Batman KILLED Dent.  The Joker stood still at one point hoping Batman would run him down just to make Batman break that one rule.  The Joker may not have beaten the city but he made Batman kill Dent by knocking him out the window to save the child.

Harvery Dent is dead.  If he somehow survived (no helmet) a simple police commissioner, and a brand new one at that, can't make Harvey disappear into a prison.  Even if he is backed by Bruce Wayne's money there is only so much he can do.  Half of Dent's face is extremely recognizable and his burn accident was on the news, he needs major medical operations from the burns and from falling off a building without the suit and especially the helmet batman has.  They would then need to sneak him into Arkham, bribe a judge or somehow avoid a trial, have the warden and nearly all the guards in on it, and then keep him in solitary permanently or the other prisoners would tell someone.  They also would have had to find a way to trick/bribe a coroner and the usual funeral people.

I don't think That was a funeral at the end, but rather a public memorial service. They probably recanted on their story that Harvey made it out of the hospital.

Also keep in mind this is Batman. He can make people disappear if he chooses. As for the official status of Harvey/Two-Face, Jonathan Nolan (co-writer and brother) alluded he was dead in a podcast. Also, a leaked script said that Harvey was dead of a broken neck. However, Emma Thomas (wife and producer) stated that Two Face may not be dead in an interview. Plus, Aaron Eckhart has stated he is willing to appear in a third film.

Didn't Bruce Wayne pay for the restoration of Dent's face in The Dark Knight Returns?

So let's recap...

They did bio-terrorism
Then they did terrorism

Where do they go from here?

I think Mr. Freis (or however you spell) could be a badass character if done right, but I don't think an entire movie could be made out of him and his struggle for his wife's survival.

Maybe if you had Ras al ghul's daughter hire him as a mercenary though...maybe that could work.

Would that be terrorism though? Doesn't even matter?

So, there's talk about Ledger getting an award for his performance in TDK.

There's also talk about not giving it to him due to his personal issues.

Thoughts?

I don't think he'll care either way.

EDIT for actual response in addition to my terrible joke:  I really don't see what his "personal problems" have to do with his awesome performance.  If the performance shines, award it.  It's not their job judge peoples' vices and personal lives, it's their job to judge their performance on-screen. 

I should also add that I don't know what award you're referring to, so I'm assuming a high profile Oscar type thing.

Well the movie set it up as the Joker returning, and I do believe Two Face was originally supposed to be dead... that could very well be changed now, though, since they will probably be hesitant to have the Joker back soon, if at all, with Ledger having passed on.

Eckhart has been signed on for the third movie as well, although that's never a definitive sign as these types of movies often sign on actors for sequels just in case they might need them and to avoid a price hike to get them back on (Kelly Hu - Lady Deathstrike - was signed on for X-Men 3 for example even though she never appeared).

That's weird 'cause she was most definitely dead at the end of 2.

Personal issues should have nothing to do with awards, at least there shouldn't be a double standard. Amy Winehouse is an alcoholic crackhead, who does rails during concerts and video tapes herself smoking crack...but she gets awards all the time.

i was going to dress like the joker 2 years ago, but didn't because i never bought a suit and thought i was too fat

http://theperm.tetrametrics.com/Images/avatars/PGCPERM.jpg

i'd photoshop it, but i look enough like joker regularly to not need to

stop posting pics of yourself!

Wat uh nurd.

And I thought Maxi was narcissistic.

One could look at it this way, did his drug use improve his performance?
Should we award people for using performance enhancing drugs?

he was taking ambien..i don't think that had any effect on his performance. Never take sleeping pills! They do nobody any good. Exercise and more water...sleep like a champ. Ambien sucks because it fucks up your memory. You don't remember taking your pills.

Fuck... I've been taking Ambien the past week.  I'm gonna go get into the movies.

http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/02/06/heath-ledgers-death-is-ruled-an-accident/

"Mr. Heath Ledger died as the result of acute intoxication by the combined effects of oxycodone, hydrocodone, diazepam, temazepam, alprazolam, and doxylamine."

That much stuff running through your system can't be good for your mind.

It wasn't terrible, I LOL'ed.

If he didn't get an oscar for Brokeback Mountain I don't see why he should get one now. The sad thing is that he will probably get it.

Coming this summer, Maverick is...


MR.MCFUCKNUTS

Somebody photoshop this shit up:
http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a359/Mav23/knifeattack.jpg

Thank you.  :)

Is this movie really so great?  It doesn't appeal to me at all.  I guess that makes me homophobic or something, but I just have no interest in it.

Would you want to see the movie if one of the leads was a girl?

No.  Total chick flick.

If the chick was absolutely gorgeous then maybe.

If she were half-naked as well? For sure.

The movie is an acquired taste. But acting wise his character impressed me more than the Joker. Still, is a drama, and its really slow, so it's not exactly along what comic book fans like about Batman Begins and the Dark Knight. The cinematography is really great also. Definitely worth a look but don't expect anything beyond a "chick flick" to be honest, albeit a really good one.

Two guys in a tent is now a chick flick? ;)

Currently Dark Knight is #1 movie of the Summer. And within a week it should hit the 400 Million Dollar mark.

With 94% its one of the few movies to be BOTH a HUGE BLOCKBUSTER and LOVED by Critics.

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/movies/box_office.php

3 Weeks in a Row at #1.

This is a real achievement and the discussion in this thread needs to change from stupidity to talk about this .

i thought you'd been on NWR long enough to know all threads end in stupidity

The movie is still EPIC FAIL, as it has not surpassed Titanic in total ticket sales by quantity.  When it reaches $900 million in sales, then we'll talk about achievements.

Titanic is EPIC FAIL because it has not surpassed Gone with the Wind in total ticket sales by quantity.

I bet more people have seen TDK in theaters than Titanic - you've got to take into account the girls that went to see Titanic 10+ times while it was at the movies.

Also Titanic was a really good movie. ::hides::

freak

Hmm... she might be a girl after all....

Like if there wasn't enough fanboys that are around their 10th viewing for TDK.

Yeah but the difference is...it doesn't have the oh-so-dreamy Leo DiCaprio in it, it has the...oh-so-dreamy Christian Bale. Am I gay?

Titanic was a good movie...and in many respects it was a great movie.

The problem with Titanic is it is not as good as the hype or as good as the sales and everything makes of it. 

To me Titanic is like Forest Gump another great movie, that just doesn't live up to its hype, and although both movies are great and I enjoyed watching them the first time, I can't bring myself to watch them again. 

Yeah except that Forrest Gump IS a great movie and can and should be watched multiple times. 

The last eight posts of this thread made me vomit in my own mouth.

edit: MONEY DOES NOT EQUAL QUALITY. YOU ARE BEING SOLD A GENERIC MASS-MARKET PRODUCT ENGINEERED TO MAKE AS MANY PEOPLE STUPIDLY HAPPY AS POSSIBLE. THESE FILMS ARE MADE BY MACHINES, AUTOMATICALLY CHURNED OUT COOKIE CUTTER BULLSHIT. VOTE REPUBLICAN.

You'd be gay if you didn't have a man crush on Christian Bale ;)

I'm sure they're well aware of that, Evan. Your post reminded me why I don't come on NWR as often as before.

How on earth did this film get a 12A?
The 12a rating means kids BELOW age 12 can go when supervised with someone older. It's a good film and all but this should have been a 15.

Hipster meltdown...

can't blame a guy for trying. 

No politics.

You might be

holy crap... I think you are actually right...

Yeah, he's right. I don't get those gay.com ads though, because I use Adblock Plus in Firefox.

so wait. even though i have a girlfriend and get mine often... i'm still gay for NOT having a man-crush on Christian Bale?


What if i say i have a man-crush on him AS batman, does that help?

No, Christian Bale's batman voice was a cheesy gay p0rn horror flick voice.

I think Kevin Conroy should have been dubbed over Bale for Batman's voice.

damn what should i do then!?!?!?

Stop caring what we think and just go out and have sex with Christian Bale already.

Damn i can't right now. its too last minute to find a Robin costume

You're right money doesn't equal quality but if the film is good, more money to make it can definitely help make it better. The problem is that more money often means more people in a studio watching over a film and making decisions about it to make it more consumer friendly. They have to be more careful in what they are putting their money into.

And a question: You said the last 8 posts made you want to vomit. Is that because you don't like:

A) Gone With The Wind
B) Titanic
c) Forest Gump

Please let it be B and C.

Stop encouraging him.

b and c

GWTW is a pretty damn good movie, with some serious flaws (again a studio made product). Far from the best film ever made, which was what producer David O. Selznick stated he intended to make (so he poured millions into it and fired directors that didn't make it to his specifications).

My post was semi-tongue in cheek, yours is deliberately cutting. Why is popular opinion allowed, but contrary opinion booed?

edit: the point of my post is that The Dark Knight does not deserve the acclaim or money it is getting. It's a good film, and nothing more. The second time I saw it I fell asleep. Too much moralizing, too little Heath Ledger. It may go on to be the highest grossing film of all time: what's funny is that we used to pay money to go see romances, dramas, and "auteur" or "art" films. Post-Jaws and -Star Wars we only go to see special effects and swashbuckling adventure. Check the top 10 box office reports for every year from the 40s to now and notice a SERIOUS shift around the late 60s and again in the 70s. Now movies are entirely marketed to the 13 year old boy, because he has the most disposable income, and if you don't share his taste, you are "weird." Notice that The Dark Knight wants to be a gritty Batman tale but is rated PG-13? The director signs a contract guaranteeing the studio that specific rating (because it has the most box-office potential), so either he deliberately sanitizes his vision so it does not cross an imaginary "R-Rated" line, or he manipulates the MPAA to give him the rating he wants (something Spielberg can do by just showing up at their offices and saying "I made this movie, give me my rating." see: Transformers, where he was a producer.) Money talks. Art is a whore to commerce, so this is the stuff that gets the most play (and let's not pretend that the "prestige" pictures released in Nov/Dec for Oscar consideration are any better).

Used to be a studio would release a film then let it play for weeks hoping that word of mouth would catch it. Now movies are advertised for months (or over a year, see: The Dark Knight) prior to release so the studio can get the most money out of opening weekend. There is no such thing as a "long-run" in the theatres anymore. Either you're an instant hit (which is directly correlative to the amount of money spent on advertising) or you're a flop. Notice that TDK had the biggest opening weekend ever: is this an indicator of quality or fandom? Those people went to see the film because of franchising and advertising, and they probably already knew they would love it no matter what.

edit again: case in point, 2007 box office numbers:

1 Spider-Man 3 $336,530,303
2 Shrek the Third  $322,719,944
3 Transformers $319,246,193
4 Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End $309,420,425
5 Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix $292,004,738
6 I Am Legend $256,393,010
7 The Bourne Ultimatum $227,471,070
8 National Treasure: Book of Secrets $219,964,115
9 Alvin and the Chipmunks $217,326,974
10 300 $210,614,939

notice how many hundreds of millions of dollars that is? Is it possible that the product being sold here is generic enough to please everyone?

compare to 1967 (40 years earlier)

1. The Jungle Book $60.964 m
2. The Graduate  $44.091 m
3. Guess Who's Coming to Dinner $25.500 m
4. Bonnie and Clyde $22.800 m
5. The Dirty Dozen $20.404 m
6. Valley of the Dolls $20.000 m
7. You Only Live Twice $19.389 m
8. To Sir, With Love $19.100 m
9. Thoroughly Modern Millie $15.455 m
10. Born Losers $14.750 m

Not all of these films are great: some are sleazy, others are action films geared towards males, but we have a musical, an animated film (Pixar films routinely place high today, but in 2007 Dreck the Third and Alvin and the Shitmunks beat Ratatouille), two dramas starring an African American who is not wielding guns, a Bond film, and two studio-financed "art" films (Graduate and Bonnie and Clyde), both transformational films about their generation. SOMETHING HAS CHANGED.

moral: the event film rules. if you want to make small films you have to put 'em on YouTube

Whoa! Struck a a nerve with the Batman fan ShyGuy. Good Job Svevan.

Anyway's while you deal with that, I'll move on to a different angle.

Do you think the change in the way movies are released might have something to do with the way studios make their money? On opening weekend, a theater splits it's ticket sales with the studio 50/50 but after the opening weekend, the split is 80/20 in favor of the theater. (I may be off on the split but that's just what I recall). Moreover, most ticket sales drop off the following weekend. Therefore, it shouldn't come as a surprise that movies are built around having big opening weekends. It helps studios make the most profit on that weekend and get as many people to see it as possible so that next week, that crowd will then go see the next big opening.

Ticket prices may also to be to blame. The truth is, I really don't go the theater much with ticket prices so high. So, if I do go, I want it to be worth the money. I think a lot of people feel the same way. Hence, that's why so many special effects and action movies end up at the top of the box office. Watching a period drama or a comedy doesn't change much whether you view it on a small screen or a large screen. But the difference in picture can definitely affect a film with those kinds of features. I'm not saying that's a hard rule but I'd argue that is the case in the majority of films. For example, I rented a movie a few weeks ago called "Flawless" about a jewel hiest. I'm a sucker for hiest films. Anyways, I enjoyed the movie a lot. Definitely worth renting. Seeing it in a theater. Wouldn't recommend. I'd have said wait for it to come out on video.

Which brings me to my third point and the one that most ties into your point. Theater culture has changed. A lot of adults and senior citizens wait for movies to come out on video because they don't like the theaters. They're too loud, crowded and people can be rude. Like you said, movies may be marketed to 13-year old boys but the theaters have also changed to reflect this and to be more welcoming to a younger demographic.

I have to thank you for opening my eyes to the horror of Alvin and the Chipmunks. I don't know how that film actually made the top ten. There clearly is a problem.

The battle of the pompous begins. ::leaves forever from this thread::

Where's my 50 cent bail out gif when I need it?  :(

Comparing films and their totals to 40 years ago and to recent films is massively inaccurate - adjust them all according to inflation.

The money's not the point (though adjusted for inflation would be interesting); the types of films present on each list is the point.

Once again, no reading comprehension. We're talking about why movies have changed and what has caused it.

Totally agreed.  Unless it's a movie my wife is wanting to see (thus a "Date Flick"), I usually don't even bother to go see a movie unless it's a huge CGI whorefest on the opening weekend (preferably midnight showing) simply because I want the huge screen with the crowd that's into seeing the movie.  If I want to watch, say, Little Miss Sunshine, Diggstown or whatever, I'm not going to spend the $15 in gas and $16 for two tickets to see a movie that I can't pause, rewind, etc... I'll wait for the DVD.

There's no problem with the top 10 movies of last year being in the top 10. People don't want to watch crap like The Dirty Dozen or the Graduate anymore. The people who watched those movies in 1967...are all dead now.

Confirmed: Evan is an 80 years old.

Evan is to movies what Ian is to Nintendo, he's a fan of them but hates nearly everything about them and only likes the way things were a long time ago.

I love plenty of movies. Find me on Flixster, or check my viewing log on IMDB. There you'll see that I've rated nearly 300 movies as either 9s or 10s (meaningless numbers, but good for memory). I've only rated 100 movies under a 5.

People just think I hate movies because I don't like the ones THEY like. And the same is thrown back at me, that I don't respect other people's taste (one must always admit that one could be wrong, and I will do that right now: I could be completely wrong about movies).

I just don't think today's cinema is a "matter of taste:" we're being told what to like, and we're extremely limited in what we can see in the theatre (limited by the financial influence of big studios out to make a buck). Almost no one watches the greats (be they old or new) and prefers superhero/blockbuster schlock. I tell you, none of the box office top 10 from 2007 will enter the "pantheon" while at least three from the 1967 list had already done so by the end of that year. (And this isn't to say that 1967 wasn't plagued with advertising, hype, and poor moviemaking: some of the films on that list are pretty bad).

And since I'm being defensive, here's a list of some modern (2000 or later) films I love:

Bourne Supremacy
Eastern Promises
Finding Nemo
Gosford Park
A History of Violence
Lost in Translation
Master and Commander
No Country for Old Men
Ratatouille
Solaris
AI: Artificial Intelligence
Atonement
Changing Lanes
Dawn of the Dead
The Departed
Grindhouse
Knocked Up
Match Point
Michael Clayton
Minority Report
Million Dollar Baby
Shaun of the Dead
Spider-Man 2
There Will Be Blood
Zodiac
any Harry Potter movie (though some are better than others)

and many more lesser known or foreign-language films as well.

TDK is a fine movie, but it is lacking in geographical editing (can't tell wtf is going on half the time, though like I said it's way better than the practically abstract Batman Begins); has way too much preaching and faux-philosophical dialogue (Shy: just cause people can't agree on what the movie's "moral" is doesn't mean it's not moralizing. Confusion on the movie's part shouldn't be misunderstood as ambiguity.); and has such a dead climax. The action scene in the middle of the film was way better than the one at the end. Two-Face wasn't an interesting character post-transformation, though Joker was interesting from start to finish (especially because he didn't have an origin story: he was just THERE). There's a lot to like about this movie, but if it wasn't Batman it wouldn't make half the money.

edit: BTW, I never watch comedies on DVD cause they're never as funny without a big group of people. Big screen or never. The way action films like LotR and the Batman flicks are edited, I would almost prefer to watch them on a small screen, cause then I might be able to follow what's happening. And finally, Brandogg: I can't get over that you can call The Graduate crap without even so much as a defense. I don't think it's the second coming of Christ, but it's a damn fine movie (better than 300, or any Pirates film).

edit again: it's entirely possible to be too negative about movies, but whether I'm positive or negative I get called names. So what to do....

Complete neutrality

Yeah, if you're neutral the worst thing you'll get is jokes from Futurama fans.

I watch the greats. Or at least what I've been told are the greats.

I'm not sure why Svevan gets crapped on so much. Maybe it's the way he presents his thoughts. Or maybe it's the constant smear campaign against his thoughts trying to make him look like a fan of independant films and scorn all Hollywood productions.

I agree with a lot of the things he says but then I've watched a lot of older movies as well.

I'll admit. I like Svevan. It's just that most people of his major tend to develop movie tastes designed to piss off everyone else.

This is an assumption about motive that you can't prove.

Also, my majors are Art History and Poli-Sci. Unless I xfer to a school with a good film studies program.

Film majors may be pricks, but that does not negate their taste.

I think, now I haven't read the whole thread (or care to), but I think he gets made fun of for his movies tastes 'cause he acts like a hater on most things everyone else enjoys.  He hates on them to the point where it just seems out of place with the norm.  Because it is one thing to dislike largely popular movies, it's another to hate them.  No body likes a hater.

Hater is level 1. 

Douche Bag is level 2.

You achieve douche bag by never making any new arguments and continue to be a hater. (Ian and more recently, lindy.)

Not that I'm calling anyone out or anything.

This thread has turned from an appreciation of a great film into an emo squabble, but it doesn't matter. Batman is cool, and iconic, and a lasting character in this World's history of fiction. After we're all returned to dust, the character of Batman will still be around because he clicks with people on a very base level. Hundreds of years from now there will still be Batman stories just like there are still stories of Hercules, King Arthur, or Sherlock Holmes.

woah there, I think you are getting ahead of yourself a tiny little bit...

WOW.

4 weeks in a row at #1.

and currently at 441 Million Domestic.

http://boxofficemojo.com/weekend/chart/

thats amazing.

hahahahahahaha. I don't care what you people say about him, that was a brilliant response.

metropolis is somewhere one my top 10 film list, i might have another list on ask thepem, but scratch that list

10 list sans order

1. Metropolis(not the fucking japanese anime one, the silent film)
2. Dracula
3. Reservoir Dogs
4. Citizen Kane
5. Yojimbo
6. Dawn of the Dead
7. Suspiria
8. Following(i never ever had an urge to burglarize a house without Christopher Nolan)
9. The Birds
10. A Clockwork Orange

to svevan, my minor is art history, and major is art. I took a class on the history of film and got to watch some pretty badassed old school movies. I watched Citizen Kane, and Yojimbo on my own though. Originally. i wanted to make video games, i had this grand mission to fix the vg industry, but i don't care anymore. I prefer passive media now because i can't get suspension of disbelief in a video game anymore.

Art is basically what I meant, that, and the actual film majors. But yeah, studying art, makes you look at it differently. Like, after my internship, every Wal*Mart visit to me is now "comp-shopping." I honestly can't look at either store the same because I see more than the typical guest.

Either way, it's all good.

If evan wants some ground breaking stuff, go watch noah's arc.

He will more than likely insta-hate the idea, but lets suggest it anyway!

today i'm working on my last test a take home test, i see everyone on their computers tiling away, following the system and can't help but feel that moloch has won and we are all just slaves to the machine.

Interesting article

ON NOES EVAN IS TEH VALIDATIONATED.

I'm going to bump this thread a year from now and we will see how I feel about the movie then.

I don't see the article as validating my opinion. In fact I think he's too positive on the film. But it's still a great article.

why do you find it so great and interesting?

Finally saw this movie a couple weeks ago.  It was good, but I liked Iron Man better.  ;D

I just saw it too.  I liked it a lot, but it was a little hard to get over Batman's voice, along with the juxtaposition of the ridiculously-costumed characters with its super-serious storyline.

Still, a very good movie and my favorite Batman movie to date.

I just watched it too... man was it long.  I spent the whole movie thinking they were just setting up Two Face for the next movie, only to find out he gets an entire story arch in Dark Knight as well.

A friend of mine lent me his bluray copy. There are scenes that are full widescreen, and other scenes have black bars on top and bottom of the screen? LOL, and what a poor editing, filming job. Gotham city didn't feel, or seem like the dark, brooding city that it is. Batman's voice??? I still prefer Michael Keaton as Batman, and Jack Nicholson as the Joker. I still prefer the first two Tim Burton Batman movies. I think The Dark Knight is a good movie to watch, but not a good Batman movie to watch.

It's not poor editing, that's the way the movie is supposed to be, it was like that in the theaters too. Most of the movie was shot in 2.78:1, and the IMAX scenes (most of the outdoor scenes) were recorded in 16:9. I...can't believe some of the recent blasphemy in this thread...it makes me very sad.

Iron Man, was a great movie as well vudu, my second favorite film of the year and probably the second best "superhero" movie ever made. I can see where it would appeal to some people more than The Dark Knight.

Ridiculous costumes? There were only three costumes in the entire film, Batman, the Joker (I've seen scene kids at the mall wear more extreme outfits than this) and briefly the Scarecrow (which was only a burlap mask)

Also, the movie wasn't long enough.

I still think Two-face should of got his own film, not be part of this one. If I didn't already know that Heath Ledger died after the film was in post-production, I would've swore they did that as a necissary filler because a main character was gone. Since thats not the case though, I'm mad at that decision.

Oh and wasn't Batmans voice even more extreme in Batman Begins? I didn't like it either but i prefer the more toned down version in this film then the other.

I gotta buy this dvd...hm..

They should have brought in Kevin Conroy to do voice dubbing.

I didn't mind Batman's voice.  I minded the fact that Bruce Wayne has absolutely no personality.

It was really hard to empathize with his character.  In Batman Begins there was a side-story that focused on Bruce Wayne's coming to terms with his second identity and what he needed to do to separate that character from his real identity.  In The Dark Knight there was no character at all--Bruce was little more than a vehicle to move Batman from scene to scene.

That's who that dude was, the Scarecrow.  Could not think of his name.

I just meant that sometimes there was this super-serious scene going on and I'd kind look at Batman and think how ridiculous he looked, and it would take me out of the moment.

really? he didn't have as much character as the first movie but it was there. He was pining for Rachael who couldn't accept who was taking over (batman over bruce), and thank god was in a less emo way than peter parker vs spiderman. He also struggled with the whole "how to stop evil without becoming it" issue that the joker was trying to bring out in everyone.

Batman doesn't need vudu's empathy, he's Batman. The point of how Bruce was potrayed in this film vs. the first one was how the Batman persona has completely consumed him by this point, and Bruce is just a mask. All he used Bruce Wayne for was to further his ends as Batman. That's what Rachel meant when she said Gotham city would no longer need Batman, but Bruce still would.

Chirstopher Nolan mentioned in the BluRay live chat that makeshift Bat cave in this movie was to illustrate the quality of life he was leading. It was sparse and empty save for the tools he was using at the time.

batman has 3 personalities..he's playboy Bruce Wayne, he's the real Bruce, and then he's batman

when Rachel died you saw the real Bruce, when he's got two hotties on his side thats the playboy front he puts out for the media, batman is batman

I think they should've left Two-Face alive.  I feel that with Heath Ledger dead, the next movie is going to seem so detached from this one.

You make an excellent point Perm, Chuck Dixon, one of the Batman comic writers, agreed with the point that there was the Bruce Wayne mask, Batman, then there was the most real personality that was displayed in the comics when he was interacting with Alfred, Nightwing, or Robin in the Batcave. In the Nolanverse, the only person who ever sees this side of him is Alfred.

I wish Two Face was kept alive just so he could be shown in Arkham Asylum in the next movie and Bruce wouldn't have Harvey's blood on his hands.

No more Batman for another decade, plz.

We all saw what happened during Val Kilmer's reign of terror.

Finally read this whole thread.  In terms of the rise of the "Event Movie", I think it has more to do with technology than anything else.  The rise of television as a mass-market medium (which began in the 60's, but really started to take off in the 70's) meant that you could now advertise films on a massive scale.  Furthermore, TVs led to VCRs and DVDs, which set the bar higher for what people were willing to leave their house for and pay extra to see at a theater.

These days, the biggest theater releases are event movies because people can't get that same feeling of spectacle on a TV at home.  However, they can pretty much enjoy a comedy or drama to the same degree at home or at a theater, so most people go for the cheaper option.  40 years ago there was no such option, since television was still growing and going to the theater was the only way to see first-run movies.

Lindy makes a good point. The human psyche has an inherent need to be part of an audience, a group of followers, sometimes. The bigger the spectacle, the more you feel like you are part of the audience. That's why going to the movies is a social experience, not just watching the film.

Is that why I'd rather stay at home and watch a movie, but because I'm impatient waiting for it I FORCE myself to go to the theater even though I hate the environment and prefer to go when no one is there?

No. You're just a freak. Like me! movie quote

I like going to the movies, but I hate opening day crowds.  They suck.

I hate movie theaters. Whenever I am paying for a movie, I always go at the same time, every time: early Sunday afternoon. No one is there and that's just how I like it. Unless it's IMAX.

This made me LOL. Kudos

i just like watching movies, i have noticed that at many points my inappropriate laughter seems out of place. The Dark Knight isn't just a Batman movie, its a Film. Its deep and artistic, actually so was Batman Begins. I have watched many a iteration of Batman. I watched Batman: Mask of the Phantasm the other day, and its hard to think something so well made was being made at roughly the same time as the likes of Batman Forever. The cartoon movie is way more deep than the live action movies were at the time. The 90s were overall just a terrible decade for movies. I can't even watch X-men and take it serious anymore. Just too many damned Xes everywhere.I can imagine the movie being soo much better, and at the same time have guys in yellow jumpsuits.

but you know what GI J0E is going to really suck. Really , really suck. I just can't see it as being anything more than a movie aimed at selling toys and being cartooney as fuck. IMO if their going to make it on film, it had better be a film. Dark Knight was way too successful to go down the path it looks like their going down. Although, i'm pretty sure that part of the success has to do with Ledger's death and not anything to do with the fact that the movie was really good.

What?! You don't like the cartoon X-Men?! That's fucking strange. I love them shits to death.

It may have been over the top at some points, but at others, it had some pretty good drama.

I think he's talking about X-Men, the movie. It is pretty stupid with the "X-COM" or whatever that cell phone thing is.

oh no i loved the x-men cartoon..well the 90s one anyways. None of that xmen kids crap that came on whatever it was called.

X-Men: Evolution?

yeah x-men evolution the only thing cool about that show was wolverine, it seriously was xmen kids. I know that in the beginning of the comic it really was more academy like, but that was when it was lame and no one liked it.

Sorry for bumping, but I FINALLY got around to seeing "The Dark Knight".

Simply put, it was awesome. I expected it to be good, but I never expected how great it would be.  The story, character development, the action, the scenes nearly everything enthralled me.

What truly surprised me was how many action scenes the film had, despite its storytelling appeal. The whole thing was one big action sequences, from start to finish. The Joker's schemes were great, if a bit "Saw" inspired. This film made him look like a terrorist rather than a criminal. Not a bad thing, but it surprised me they went for the criminal genius look to him.

The scene in which he explodes the hospital...amazing. I think they DID blow a building up. The Joker's reaction was fantastic.

Harvey Dent was a really well written character and nearly stole the spotlight from Bruce and The Joker. Too bad he might never appear, unless they pull off the classic comic book death and he comes back somehow. Also, I was surprised that they killed off Rachel, but it was vital in order to developer Two Face.

Now my biggest worry is; will the third film live up to the first and second one? As you guys might have noticed, many films lose their spark by the third film. Pirates, Shrek, Batman, X-men, Spider-Man and many more started to suck by the third film. The Joker might not be dead, but Heath Ledger is. How can that performance be topped if The Joker was to return? "The Dark Knight" really developed Batman as someone who is struggling between being a hero and a vigilante. How can this be developed further in the sequel? They refuse to allow Robin into the Nolan films...

But despite that great film.

Christ Nolan, etc will definitely take their time to make it, unlike all the other franchises out there.

Matrix 2 & 3, Pirates 2 & 3, and even Back to the Future 2 & 3 were made back to back and were hence rushed. X-Men 3 changed directors (from Bryan Singer to Brett "I like to think I can make movies" Ratner), Spiderman 3 was waaay too campy, and Shrek totally lost its identity from a smart parody to spot-that-pop-culture-spoof in the vein of Date Movie etc.

The way the tone changed so dramatically from Batman Begins to Dark Knight can never really be repeated when Batman 3 comes out.

All the action scenes were done for real! - the hospital blow up (that's why Joker's reaction is totally genuine!), the tumbler and batpod chases, the HK building jump, the truck flipping over - and that makes TDK something really special. Batman 3 is definitely going to be good :D

If they're smart, they won't make a 3rd (unless they're greedy).  Let this film live on as a legend for next decade or so.

It's too early for Robin to be int he film.  If Batman is still coming in to his own identity, he can't take on a Robin.  He at least needs a real batcave.

Less armor, more Adam West Chest.

Yes! The biggest reason I love the Nolan Batman films is because they take a fantastic concept and apply it into the real world and make it believable (even if it does limit some potential). The Joker's plan to blow up the boat was extremely twisted and could happen in the real world.

James Rolfe (aka "The Angry Videogame Nerd") did a review of all the Batman films up to Dark Knight for Spike TV. Here's what I find funny; when he discusses the old Batman movie serials from the 40s, the 60s Batman TV series and film and the 80s and 90s Batman movies he tells people to look at them as they were intended to be (the 60s Batman as a campy comedic look at Batman, the Burton films as stylized comic book films and the Schumacker films as B-movie comedies) and not to judge them with today's standards. Yet when he gets to "Batman Begins" he bashes it, calls it the most overrated film ever and wonders if Warner Bros. intoxicated the audience with gas in order to get rave reviews.

Here are his issues:
- The fight scenes were badly shot: I can't argue this, but I was able to forgive it because the movie is about story and character development and not about action sequences.

- The Batmobile was ugly: True, but I saw it as more of a tank, and in "The Dark Knight" it proved vital. To me, its more important that the Batmobile is useful to Batman than how cool it is.

- The choice of Ra's Algul and Scarecrow as the main villains: James complains that they were rather uninteresting and that  in Scarecrow's case, poorly misused (its his favorite villain and didn't like how he was treated). To me, this was Batman's film. Had they started with the Joker right away the audience's attention would have been divided between Batman and The Joker. In fact, people talk more about The Joker in "Dark Knight" than any of the other characters. Since this film was made in order to re-invigorate Batman as a character having another high profile villain would have disrupted the story.

Not to mention that having Ra's Algul as both Bruce's mentor and Batman's villain was a really good choice and adds tension and development to the story.

Finally, I thought the development of Scarecrow was great. Its true that he didn't appear in costume till the end of the film and that was briefly. But just because he wasn't is costume it didn't mean he wasn't Scarecrow. Its interesting seeing villains as normal men, and see them evolve into the evil masterminds we see in the stories.

- The story: Jame's complain with the story was that it focused too much on Bruce's backstory (saying that this was already done in the first Batman movie) and felt pretentious, forgetting the fact that this is essentially about a man who wears a Bat costume.

What I find ironic is that when dealing with the other Batman films he tells people to look at them as they were intended to be, yet fails to do this with the new Batman films.

To me, the Nolan films are about developing Batman as a human being first, a hero second. In order for Batman to be taken serious as a character after the disastrous "Batman and Robin" Nolan NEEDED to re-start the franchise and focus on Batman the man. Yes, we know that the reason Bruce became Batman was because he saw his parents being killed. But why can't this be its own story? We have been told that this event plays a very significant role in Batman's life. Why can we see how it truly impacted Bruce? Why can't we see what happened after these events happened? Why can't we see how this affected Bruce emotionally?

When I saw the film I was stunned that we see more of Bruce Wayne and less of Batman, and I thought it was a great thing. Many superhero movies focus very little on the character and more on the hero. This can be annoying, especially when they try to impose some emotion into the character (Spider-Man). The Nolan films, however, treat its characters as human beings, especially Batman who is really an emotional disturbed being that might be crazier than the villains he fights.

True, "BB" was a bit pretentious, but has James seen "The Hulk" (the first one)? Now THAT was a movie that was trying too hard to be serious despite its concept (guy turns into big green monster and goes on a rampage). Also, the last Batman film adventure made him look even more ridiculous than the 60s Batman. It was a sour memory that if it wasn't for the great comics and cartoons it would have killed Batman on the spot. So can you blame Nolan for trying to make Batman serious and enjoyable once more? Also, it did get overhyped, but once more, can you blame people for being happy that Batman's return to the screen was not only good, it was great?

Its like you have a kid who does horribly in school. Wouldn't you be extremely happy if your kid went from the worst student ever to honor roll child in less than a year? That's what happened with Batman Begins, it was a great vision of the hero and it worked.

OK, now for the tl:dr version: James is complaining that "Batman Begins" was pretentious, focused too much on Batman's origins, focused on B-list villains, and had poor action sequences. The thing is that he tells people to look at the other Batman films as they were meant to be. So Batman Begins should be seen as a real interpretation of the mythos by focusing on Batman the man, and its one of the many ways the Dark Knight has been envisioned ever since his conception.

I think Mr. Rolfe should focus more on making videos that are actually funny before he thinks he can be a credible critic of the best Batman products since TAS.

He's still better than That Guy With The Glasses though.

Ang Lee's The Hulk is a better movie then BB. Oh no I DIDN'T.

Don't care. The new Hulk movie was MUCH better.

Don't care that you don't care. ;)

I don't care that you don't care that I don't care, SO THERE! :p

But in all seriousness, Ang Lee did try the same character development as in BB and TDK. The problem was that it wasn't as captivating as Batman's, because the Hulk is far more straightforward than Batman. The comic book panel effect didn't help either. I admire the effort, but felt more annoying than enthralling.

The new Hulk movie was much more balanced (even if the love story wasn't as good) and thus a better effort. And Tony Stark appearing in the film helped A LOT.

If we took the third Batman film as the third year of Batman, that is the year that Dick Grayson is adopted in most continuities.  I think an interesting story could be told with the Robin origin story without actually having him become robin or don the costume.

Honestly there are people that like Hulk? The cinematography was top notch, and so was the CGI - but everything else...was absolute crap.

Which version? The Ang Lee version or the 2008 version?

Actually the next movie is the PERFECT time to re-do Robin. 

We have basically had Batman: Year One
                                Batman: Vs. The Joker (Year 2)

The next movie needs to either be about Batman's weakness for a beautiful villain named Catwoman...or about Robin.
Personally, I would jump in time to with the next Batman movie so that it isn't right after The Dark Knight Returns, that it is 2-5 years later.  Batman is more established with his identity he has gone underground. 

I would love to see a very serious take on Robin, and Bruce Wayne as a "broken" or dysfunctional father figure for a young boy hurting.  (He actually doesn't have to be Robin in this movie.)  Balance that with Bruce falling in love with both Selina Kyle and Catwoman and you have a pretty interesting movie juggling Batman the man, Bruce Wayne the father, and Bruce Wayne the man.

just wanted to chime in and say that my friends 4 year old son is the cutest thing ever when he does his impression of the joker and says "why so sewious!"

pap64 is spot on. I too saw the angry video game nerds review on batman, and thought his review was just too biased towards Burton's Batman. To really enjoy a movie you have to do two divergent things that makes little sense. Forget any other movie was ever made before it, and also try to see every movie that was ever made before it. Sounds strange right?

If there's a jump like that, then I could really see Robin in the next film.  However, I'd rather see Batman fully become established in a movie, than for the story to just cut to that point.  Then again, maybe that's just me.

Batman is fully established at the end of the Dark Knight. He faced his greatest villian and survived. He knows he can't quit and he has no reason to. Rachel is dead and his "successor" turned into Two Face. Gotham needs Batman and Batman needs Gotham.

I think both have their bright spots. Personally I am not too thrilled about Nolan's more realistic take on Batman, I don't necessarily want it corny but I'd love to see some of the more supernatural villains make an appearance even if they are of the more "evil" variety then the Burton take on them. A serious Robin shouldn't be too hard to do, Batman: Animated Series pulled him off quite well.

on the other hand as realistic as Nolan's movies are..it is not totally out of the question that something fantastic happens. Anyone seen the Prestige?

Loved that movie, and you do have a point. I'd love to see what Nolan could do with a supernatural character like Mr. Freeze, he could almost give you nightmares if done right.

I'm referring to the Ang Lee crapfest. I loved the comic strip effect, and the Hulk until halfway into the movie, but the story, and the way that they bastardized the Hulk's true origin, in order to make it seem "more realistic" was just retarded.

Christian Bale flips out on T4 set.

So he flipped out because someone was messing around while he was shooting a scene?

LOL. Professionalism at it's best. That's some justifiable anger there.

I was honestly expecting a fight. He was REALLY pissed at the guy.

Is he talking to his alter ego Bruce Wayne?

That's from the set of the new Terminator movie.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0438488/

He mentions the actor "Bryce" which is the chick who plays Kate Conner.

Ah lol. I thought he said Bruce. ;)

Actually, I thought I heard a guy's voice apologizing to Christian, saying "I am a professional".

holy shit that is awesome....that man is scary

Well ya, but that's not "Bryce." While he was doing the scene, he saw this guy behind Bryce walking around; distracting him.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v287/luigidude/angry.gif

This is the remix.

hahahahahahahahaha at the remix.

I believe I smell the start of a new meme...

Coming soon: Mama Luigi Poops featuring clips from this.

Ah, that remix was almost as good as the Bill O'Reilly one.

You know, as I heard the song I kept imagining Batman yelling at Superman while Wonder Woman told him to "Shut the f*** up!".

I just wish he would have said "Do you know who I am?  I'm the GODDAMNED BATMAN!" during his rant.

Give it time. I'm sure someone will find enough audio to peice that together..

What is most funny is reading the defense posts on IMDB. It is one thing to chew someone out for screwing up and then letting it drop, it is quite another to threaten the guy. Poor guy he had to be terrified.

If its film he deserved it, unless its digital than not so much. Film is expensive..there is no reason to waste it. Reshooting justs wastes money. If dailies don't come out well thats even worse. On the Shining do you know why Shelley Long is doing such a good job crying. Its because Kubrick yelled at her for like 12 hours until she got it right.

I'm not going to say he's right for going off on the dude, but Christian Bale is a ridiculously dedicated actor, so he probably gets upset when people don't seem to be taking things as seriously as he does. Go watch the Machinist, and then watch Batman Begins, he lost 62lbs for the former, and then quickly gained it back, and an additional 40 for the latter.

Yeah, Bale is very serious about acting as a craft so I can understand where he's coming from even if it was excessive. At least he didn't throw a phone at the guy....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w2yv8aT0UFc&feature=channel_page

i thought this was pretty funny a while back, but with this new news...its even funnier

Don't they usually film in digital now? Also verbal abuse is never acceptable, and that is what Christian Bale was doing. He was being a bully.

I've known some emotional people in my life. Not bad people, just when things get to a point, they explode instead of letting it out in a constructive manner. Being an actor, having a deeper connection with your emotions could be a good thing. I'm not saying what he did is right, just he needs to find a better outlet of his hostility.

Since this happened during a time that he was arrested for being abusive torwards his family, there may have been something else going on in his life that we don't know about. There hasn't been any other reported outbursts since so maybe he's worked it out.

From what I understand, Christian Bale wasn't abusive to his family. His sister and mother have a drug problem and he kicked them out of his hotel room when they insulted his wife.

His behavior on the set isn't acceptable, but it is understandable.

To be honest, Bale's behavior is not surprising.

Actors are emotionally disturbed people. It doesn't matter if they are really talented, if they have money and fame or even if they are beautiful. They go through a lot of distressing things in their lives and it messes them up greatly.

Actors and actresses have to...
- Please their audience non-stop or else they will tear you a new one
- Look as good as possible because everyone is watching
- Give their best in order to make it in the film industry
- Take as many roles as possible so they always have work
- Work with other actors who may have even more issues than them
- Give up their private lives because everything you do is public
- Avoid the temptation of drugs and alcohol

All of this can drive anyone to insanity, so this is why I believe actors can be emotionally disturbed. They have to think about many things and that makes them act crazier than usual.

Christian Bale is either laughing his head off or lamenting the fact that he blew it.

Ron Howard was on Howard Stern today and they talked about this (Ron Howard's daughter was shooting the scene with Bale at the time), they basically said he felt bad afterwards, but that the guy shouldn't have been where he was, and basically *kind of* deserved at least *some* of it. Oh well, at least all the techno remixes are completely awesome.

Yeah this kind of stuff actually happens quite often, we just don't hear about it.  A lot of actors are known for losing their temper on set toward either another actor, a crew member or sometime even the director.

I'd be more surprised to find a famous actors who hasn't acted like Bale did at least once during their career.

I hope this happens on a podcast, just for lols

You mean someone actually flip out while recording a podcast?

I've actually thought of doing that, especially when the other podcasters are full of it ;) .

I want to know what the guy looked like Bale was verbally abusing.

well who the fuck released the tape? They should be fired, fired..it was probably that damn unprofessional DP
the remix is hilarious