You're using the term "over hyped" incorrectly. A movie that arrives with lots of hoopla but disappoints the majority of moviegoers - or fails to bring them into the theaters at all - is over-hyped. TDK is making a ton of money and the vast majority of viewers loved it - you may not love it, but you can't say it didn't live up to its hype FOR MOST PEOPLE.
Movies like Phantom Menace and 1998's Godzilla were much better definitions of "over hyped"...
I agree with you there. I'm still digesting my first viewing and this is a point that is sticking in my throat. This aspect pushes the film into the realm of comic-book fantasy for me, much moreso than any of the gadgetry on display. People like to say that the appeal of Batman is because he seems more real, and his lack of super powers means he's more relatable. What this actually boils down to is that the character's universe is a more pragmatic one than you find with a character who is super-powered and therefore has to battle other super-powered foes to generate any suspense. Concepts of such guileless idealism to me seem to be too much in conflict with that pragmatism. The same 'white knight preservation' concept would give an otherwise whimsical Shazam story some unexpected weight or gravitas. In a gritty, adult Batman story, this feels forced, naive, and very out of place to me.
But look at how many Gotham citizens panicked and tried to kill Reece? (sp?)...this does show how fragile and hanging on a thread Gotham had become. They also witnessed the Mayor nearly getting shot....in fact a shot was taken. The Judge blown up and the Commissioner killed. They were banking on Dent.
It may not be realistic, but I like it because it represents exactly why Wayne decided to become Batman in the Begins:
quote="Bruce Wayne"]People need dramatic examples to shake them out of apathy and I can't do that as Bruce Wayne, as a man I'm flesh and blood I can be ignored I can be destroyed but as a symbol, as a symbol I can be incorruptible, I can be everlasting.[/quote]
Batman preserves Harvey's legacy precisely to avoid seeing his image otherwise destroyed and corrupted.
I also think the White Knight concept is a natural evolution of Gotham's growth. At the time of Begins, conditions are so bad that everyone, including the police, is willing to tolerate a vigilante like Batman. But as the city pulls itself out of the gutter, it's only natural for it to want to divorce itself from someone as harsh as Batman and instead embrace someone a little more clean-cut and inspiring.
Really, I think the end of TDK was inevitable- at some stage Gotham would have turned on it's vigilante protector.
Tim. I vaugely recall the Reese sequence. The others I'll duly note. This aspect may play better for me on a second viewing. I'll try to squeeze one in this week before I have to hit the road again.
Just saw this one. Great and memorable film, even when it probably included *a bit* "too much" of everything (some scenes were slightly "rushed", since the story had to move to the next one). 4/5.
But yes, this is the first true "superhero epic" (I still haven´t seen "Superman Returns (2006)", though) and what can I say about Heath Ledger other than: Oscar.
Btw. I was surprised to see Cillian Murphy AKA Scarecrow
in the cameo role.
Yes, I didn´t had any issues with the length either. Like I said in my earlier post, this was "epic filmmaking" for me and that requires a long running time. 100 minute "The Dark Knight" would´be been the wrong way to go with this film...
I think TPM is a bad example, at least in terms of what Jeff is getting at. I think Jeff is saying that the "reaction to the film" is what is overhyped, not the pre-release buzz.
TPM had tons of pre-release hype, not so much post-release hype. A better (and far more recent) example of Jeff's type of hype would be Wall-E, a movie that got insane critical and Internet reaction but has mostly been forgotten already.
Just saw it. Didn't like Maggie Gyllenhal. I dunno what it is, but I've disliked most of the actresses in comic book movies of the last decade or so. Katie Homes, Maggie Gyllenhal, Kirsten Dunst, etc.
I'd prefer they start casting tougher, more believable, more Hawksian-type women in these roles. There's a reason Karen Allen is the best chick from an indiana jones flick, and it's not her looks.
I heard that it was mentioned in an issue of Entertainment Weekly, and it certainly does come across as a 'real' moment of comedy to take advantage of the explosions not going off at the right time. It doesn't look staged. It's almost like an outtake, but one of the coolest outtakes around, wouldn't you say?
The fact that I don't hear anyone talking about it, that the other people I have talked to didn't think much of the film, and that the Wall-E discussion thread here is only at 5 pages in length and hasn't had a single new post in 5 days.
EDIT: this is not meant as a knock against the film...I thoroughly enjoyed it. But I don't think the general public is embracing it the same way the geeks are
I think a big part of why the Wall-E discussion died was because it got hijacked by issues that related only tangentally to the content of the film itself. Wall-E's opening weekend made up less than a third of its gross so far, and shrinking. That says to me that it's a film with legs. True, the post-release buzz doesn't come anywhere near the buzz for The Dark Knight, but The Dark Knight is an exceptional example.
This is more of a discussion for the box office thread, but as great as it is to get $200 million, I gotta think there are some folks at Disney and Pixar pretty disappointed with that gross. A lot of people seemed to think Wall-E stood a really good chance at making a run for top grossing Pixar film so far instead of 6th of 9 and it has almost the worst legs of any Pixar film to date as well.
Certainly not many expected that Kung Fu Panda would likely outgross it.
Considering that Wall E will sell millions of copies in its first week on DVD and Blu Ray, I don't think it's been forgotten.
EDIT: In all fairness, there aren't many movies that are even two weeks or a month old that are still being discussed. People seem to only want to talk about the newest movies and any discussion older than a month usually dies because everyone has moved on to the next blockbuster that they have to see.
EDIT 2: I will say that The Dark Knight will probably be the rare exception of a movie that continues to be discussed for quite a while after its release.
My wife and I left TDK with some confusion. Hopefully there are some easy answers.
Batman says he's going to rescue Rachel, but rescues Harvey Dent instead. Huh?
Why must Batman be blamed for Harvey Dent's murders? Why can't they be blamed on the Joker? Who's going to know?
Who did Dent kill and why? He was after two cops, and killed one. But they mentioned maye five murders? I missed something with that.
Was the Joker's comments about not planning, just doing meant to be literal, or just more of his lies, to confuse Dent? Because he was clearly and long-term planner, highly organized and meticulous. How else could he have completely rigged a hospital for perfect implosion without any wise to it? Or is this a conceit, that a maniac can do such things just by winging it?
Interesting movie, but it left me puzzled at points.
It seems that way. And yet it's such a bald lie that even deranged Dent should have called him on it. And so it made me think that the Joker doesn't plan -- in the movie world such things take no effort or planning. Like how Batman can conjure up impossible technology in a week or two.
Well, I'll probably see it again on DVD at Christmas so it might make more sense then.