Only a day ago my good friend, William, and I were debating via email about The Dark Knight versus 1989's Batman. The following is my take on the two films as directly quoted from one of my emails:
I must feverishly disagree with you about The Dark Knight and it's pacing. For starters, the addition of sub plots worked very well for the film. It is hard to have empathy for Harvey Dent without having a strong foundation of what his character represents, hard to add levity to the mood without Kyle Reese's blackmail attempt (which later opens the door for one of the most excellent scenes of the film), hard to weave a plot that is slightly less derivative than most without creating a solid backbone involving the mob, police corruption, and unwavering justice in the form of Jim Gordon (and Batman I suppose).
Chris Nolan did something wonderful: he made the Batman believable. This is not to say that Tim Burton's Batman is of a lesser vision... saying that would be blasphemy. However comparing the two films is the proverbial apples and oranges situation. Tim's world is one geared more towards fantasy and the perceived comic book feeling. Nolan's world is more grit, more believability (as much as caped crusaders and severely scarred sociopaths are believable), and more human emotion.
That said, Bale makes for a very bland Batman, thus making his character the weakest in the film in my humble opinion. Michael Keaton's take on Bruce Wayne/Batman felt human. Aside from that nuisance I'd take Ledger's Joker over Jack's and Aaron Eckhart's Harvent Dent over Billy Dee Williams'.
The Batman comics are dark. Very dark in some cases. And they are serious. Read the graphic novel "The Killing Joke" and you'll see my point. Also the series "Knightfall", which I happen to own original copies of. Nolan gave the Batman reboot the look and tone (and indeed pacing) it needed to become more like the books intended it to be.
I must feverishly disagree with you about The Dark Knight and it's pacing. For starters, the addition of sub plots worked very well for the film. It is hard to have empathy for Harvey Dent without having a strong foundation of what his character represents, hard to add levity to the mood without Kyle Reese's blackmail attempt (which later opens the door for one of the most excellent scenes of the film), hard to weave a plot that is slightly less derivative than most without creating a solid backbone involving the mob, police corruption, and unwavering justice in the form of Jim Gordon (and Batman I suppose).
Chris Nolan did something wonderful: he made the Batman believable. This is not to say that Tim Burton's Batman is of a lesser vision... saying that would be blasphemy. However comparing the two films is the proverbial apples and oranges situation. Tim's world is one geared more towards fantasy and the perceived comic book feeling. Nolan's world is more grit, more believability (as much as caped crusaders and severely scarred sociopaths are believable), and more human emotion.
That said, Bale makes for a very bland Batman, thus making his character the weakest in the film in my humble opinion. Michael Keaton's take on Bruce Wayne/Batman felt human. Aside from that nuisance I'd take Ledger's Joker over Jack's and Aaron Eckhart's Harvent Dent over Billy Dee Williams'.
The Batman comics are dark. Very dark in some cases. And they are serious. Read the graphic novel "The Killing Joke" and you'll see my point. Also the series "Knightfall", which I happen to own original copies of. Nolan gave the Batman reboot the look and tone (and indeed pacing) it needed to become more like the books intended it to be.
No comments:
Post a Comment