Register  |   Log In  |  
Sign up to our weekly newsletter    
Follow us on   
Search   
Forum Home Register for Free! Log In Moderator Tickets FAQ Users Online

RE: The Dark Knight

 
Logged in as: Guest
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Film Forums] >> Film Reviews >> RE: The Dark Knight Page: <<   < prev  34 35 [36] 37 38   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: The Dark Knight - 21/8/2012 1:30:24 AM   
chris kilby

 

Posts: 1521
Joined: 31/3/2010

quote:

ORIGINAL: Prophet_of_Doom


quote:

ORIGINAL: Deviation

MY QUESTION WILL REMAIN UNANSWERED WHY


There's a line in Trainspotting when they're talking about Sean Connery and reference The Untouchables getting a sympathy vote ... so I'm assuming it was a play on words/quotes by CK.


Thank you. Blimey O'Reilly!

(Prophet of Doom, huh? I know how you feel...)

(in reply to Prophet_of_Doom)
Post #: 1051
RE: The Dark Knight - 21/8/2012 1:33:54 AM   
chris kilby

 

Posts: 1521
Joined: 31/3/2010
Anywho... The Dark Knight. Did I raise any issues about it earlier in my rather lengthy (and, I hoped, serious and thought-provoking yet light-hearted) review/essay that anyone would like to discuss on this Dark Knight Review thread? Anyone...?

(in reply to chris kilby)
Post #: 1052
RE: The Dark Knight - 21/8/2012 1:39:53 AM   
chris kilby

 

Posts: 1521
Joined: 31/3/2010

quote:

ORIGINAL: Prophet_of_Doom

So, the Dark Knight ... oh wait, wrong thread


No, wait! Come back! Come back, Shane. I mean Batman. COME BAAAAAAAAAAAACK...!!!

(You see what I did there? It's Shane. It's a film. Quite a famous western, actually. Which was rather poignantly referenced at the end of The Dark Knight. Just like it was at the end of Pale Rider. I mentioned it in my review, earlier. No...? [SIGHS] I'll get me coat.)

(in reply to Prophet_of_Doom)
Post #: 1053
RE: The Dark Knight - 21/8/2012 1:42:29 AM   
Prophet_of_Doom

 

Posts: 756
Joined: 15/2/2006

quote:

ORIGINAL: chris kilby

Anywho... The Dark Knight. Did I raise any issues about it earlier in my rather lengthy (and, I hoped, serious and thought-provoking yet light-hearted) review/essay that anyone would like to discuss on this Dark Knight Review thread? Anyone...?


Well, the first point I'd take issue with is the lack of flab. There's definitely flab. Always is with Nolan.

But the one single feature that I always remember, the first thing that always pops into my head is this: Nolan (and most of the film's fans) focus on how the film is bedded in reality. Not the cartoon world of Burton, but a hyper-stylised world in which we might all exist. And then, he gives us the worst cgi make-up for Two-Face at the end, that I thought I was watching shots from The Mummy. And The Mummy hasn't aged well. The moment that happened, BAM, the film lost me. Because everything in a film has to work within the framework that it has built for itself.

(in reply to chris kilby)
Post #: 1054
RE: The Dark Knight - 21/8/2012 1:56:07 AM   
Deviation


Posts: 27284
Joined: 2/6/2006
From: Enemies of Film HQ
quote:

ORIGINAL: chris kilby

quote:

ORIGINAL: Deviation

MY QUESTION WILL REMAIN UNANSWERED WHY


SICK BOY
All I'm trying to do is help you understand that The Name of The Rose is merely a blip on an otherwise uninterrupted downward trajectory.

RENTON
What about The Untouchables?

SICK BOY
I don't rate that at all.

RENTON
Despite the Academy Award?

SICK BOY
That means fuck all. Its a sympathy vote.


I say again: I was quoting Trainspotting with the express aim of questioning the validity of awards in general, not the artistic merit of The Godfather which would still be a good film whether it won Oscars or not. Apocalypse Now is even "better" and as far as I know that didn't win any Oscars. Unlike, say, Driving Miss Daisy. See what I mean? I don't know. I'm a man of vision and the world's wearing bi-focals. (That's a famous film quote an' all.)

(There's no need to shout.)



But...why the hell use that for The Godfather? It's totally irrelevant to the point there. It's fucking confusing to say the least.

< Message edited by Deviation -- 21/8/2012 1:58:02 AM >


_____________________________

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dpp1978
There are certainly times where calling a person a cunt is not only reasonable, it is a gross understatement.

quote:


ORIGINAL: elab49
I really wish I could go down to see Privates

(in reply to chris kilby)
Post #: 1055
RE: The Dark Knight - 21/8/2012 2:27:07 AM   
chris kilby

 

Posts: 1521
Joined: 31/3/2010
You're confused!?!

(Leave the gun. Take the cannoli. Happy, now...? )

< Message edited by chris kilby -- 21/8/2012 2:29:40 AM >

(in reply to Deviation)
Post #: 1056
RE: The Dark Knight - 21/8/2012 3:30:35 AM   
chris kilby

 

Posts: 1521
Joined: 31/3/2010
quote:

ORIGINAL: Prophet_of_Doom


quote:

ORIGINAL: chris kilby

Anywho... The Dark Knight. Did I raise any issues about it earlier in my rather lengthy (and, I hoped, serious and thought-provoking yet light-hearted) review/essay that anyone would like to discuss on this Dark Knight Review thread? Anyone...?


Well, the first point I'd take issue with is the lack of flab. There's definitely flab. Always is with Nolan.


From a purely scriptwriting perspective, I'd say Nolan and his co-writers are definitely low-fat. If anything, you could argue they are too schematic. A-B writers, overly-concerned with plot at the expense of everything else. Look how the scenes at the start of The Dark Knight introduce The Joker, Gordon, Batman/Wayne and Dent, in turn, then starts mixing and matching them (Batman and Gordon, Gordon and Dent, Dent and Wayne) until the triumverate of "decent men in an indecent time" meet for the first time on the roof of the MCU. Each scene, building up to that moment which sets Act II in motion, is textbook "Screenwriting 101." Each scene imparts vital information about character, plot or both then, job done, doesn't hang about. On to the next scene. Yet what could be a soulless exercise in plot mechanics is anything but cos these vital scenes which introduce the dramatis personae and set up the plot are great dramatic scenes in their own right. The drama hides the machinery. Now that's good writing and as lean as Jessica Ennis.

Take the dinner scene between Bruce, Harvey and Rachel. It's virtually the heart and soul of the film and, apart from The Joker, the main engine of the plot. This scene establishes so much amid the witty banter and amusing character interplay. It establishes that Bruce believes Harvey could well be The White Knight he's been looking for. It sets up the whole "Either you die a hero" thing which basically binds Bruce and Harvey together and seals their fate. But most importantly and most subtly it starts ringing alarm bells that Harvey maybe isn't quite The White Knight everyone hopes he is and suggests that maybe Two-Face was lurking far below the surface all along. And it does all this and more with incredible skill, craft and economy.

It's a bit of a screenwriting masterclass in its own right. A filmmaking and acting masterclass too. Listen to what's being said. And what is unsaid. Look at the masks everyone's wearing, the lies and deceptions. Look at the telling glances between Rachel and Bruce which speak volumes. Watch how the camera circles the characters round the table (a signature move which recurs throughout the film) which suggests unease and reflects how, behind Bruce's smirking playboy act, The Batman is circling Harvey like a predator, trying to suss him out. Phew! And that's not the half of it. And that's just one scene. I've seen whole movies which don't have that much going on!

quote:

But the one single feature that I always remember, the first thing that always pops into my head is this: Nolan (and most of the film's fans) focus on how the film is bedded in reality. Not the cartoon world of Burton, but a hyper-stylised world in which we might all exist. And then, he gives us the worst cgi make-up for Two-Face at the end, that I thought I was watching shots from The Mummy. And The Mummy hasn't aged well. The moment that happened, BAM, the film lost me. Because everything in a film has to work within the framework that it has built for itself.


Fair enough. Few things date quicker than special effects. Personally I found "Two-Face" disturbingly horrific, a good "Nolanverse" approximation of the comics, and a vast improvement on the Tommy Lee Jones in Batman Forever. I thought it looked convincingly "real" enough although obviously such an injury would surely prove fatal. Burns victims are particularly prone to infections and at the very least Harvey would be blind in that dry, lidless eye, and sound like The Elephant Man. Wearing Bane's gimp mask.

But that's the tightrope Nolan's been walking - between comic book fantasy and at least the appearance of a plausible pseudo-reality. As I said before, I think The Dark Knight Trilogy's supposed "realism" has been overstated and can be counter-productive - the more "real" it tries to be, the sillier it risks looking. Two-Face kinda encapsulates that.

I like Nolan and Burton's Bat-flicks for different reasons. While I prefer the gritty "reality" of Nolan (probably cos I'm so pedantic) I've always loved the twisted, German Expressionism of Batman Returns which, being so timeless, may actually age better than The Dark Knight Trilogy. Nolan's films are so contemporary, so rooted in the here-and-now (9/11, The War on Terror, Occupy, yadda, yadda, yadda) that they may date really badly. Even more than poor old Harvey's CGI-ed face!



< Message edited by chris kilby -- 21/8/2012 3:41:03 AM >

(in reply to Prophet_of_Doom)
Post #: 1057
RE: The Dark Knight - 21/8/2012 3:30:44 AM   
Deviation


Posts: 27284
Joined: 2/6/2006
From: Enemies of Film HQ
It is because it would suggest you thought The Godfather was that, a sympathy vote.

_____________________________

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dpp1978
There are certainly times where calling a person a cunt is not only reasonable, it is a gross understatement.

quote:


ORIGINAL: elab49
I really wish I could go down to see Privates

(in reply to chris kilby)
Post #: 1058
RE: The Dark Knight - 21/8/2012 3:43:44 AM   
chris kilby

 

Posts: 1521
Joined: 31/3/2010

quote:

ORIGINAL: Deviation

It is because it would suggest you thought The Godfather was that, a sympathy vote.


Sorry. That's old business already.

(That's from Duck Soup, BTW.)

(in reply to Deviation)
Post #: 1059
RE: The Dark Knight - 21/8/2012 11:37:11 AM   
giggity

 

Posts: 293
Joined: 4/3/2012
quote:

ORIGINAL: Prophet_of_Doom


quote:

ORIGINAL: chris kilby

Anywho... The Dark Knight. Did I raise any issues about it earlier in my rather lengthy (and, I hoped, serious and thought-provoking yet light-hearted) review/essay that anyone would like to discuss on this Dark Knight Review thread? Anyone...?


Well, the first point I'd take issue with is the lack of flab. There's definitely flab. Always is with Nolan.

But the one single feature that I always remember, the first thing that always pops into my head is this: Nolan (and most of the film's fans) focus on how the film is bedded in reality. Not the cartoon world of Burton, but a hyper-stylised world in which we might all exist. And then, he gives us the worst cgi make-up for Two-Face at the end, that I thought I was watching shots from The Mummy. And The Mummy hasn't aged well. The moment that happened, BAM, the film lost me. Because everything in a film has to work within the framework that it has built for itself.


I agree that Nolan's films take a more serious take on the character who does fight in a bat-suit, but i've never found them to be very realistic, they're more realistic to previous Batman films and superhero films in general but it's still a film series which has Batman training with Ninja's, a man with half of his face burnt off going around murdering people, mid-air saves etc... It is still a comic book based film so it would without a doubt contain those qualities but approaching them in a more grounded way and showing why he choose to be Batman in a more organic way doesn't mean they are rejecting those heightened comic book aspects. They're just adapting them to this specific interpretation.

edit: I also would have preferred that Nolan used Prosthetics for Two Face, although his excuse for using CGI was that Make up just added to the face, whereas a burn is supposed to take away from the face, using CGI was the only way to get that effect. While I would have preferred make up it doesn't really take me out of the film.

< Message edited by giggity -- 21/8/2012 11:38:59 AM >

(in reply to Prophet_of_Doom)
Post #: 1060
RE: The Dark Knight - 21/8/2012 11:41:29 AM   
Rgirvan44


Posts: 19055
Joined: 10/3/2006
From: Punishment Park

quote:

ORIGINAL: chris kilby


I don't know. Maybe gangster and super-hero movies aren't the ideal place for such thought-provoking ideas after all...



If I may be so bold, and if you will permit me the chance to respond to you - why can't these genres be the place to present thought-provoking ideas?

Perhaps my question is too limiting to the debate which you are seeking on these forums, so I will understand if you do not wish to talk about it.

_____________________________

It is a far, far better thing that I do, than I have ever done; it is a far, far better rest that I go to, than I have ever known.


(in reply to chris kilby)
Post #: 1061
RE: The Dark Knight - 21/8/2012 1:15:46 PM   
chris kilby

 

Posts: 1521
Joined: 31/3/2010

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rgirvan44


quote:

ORIGINAL: chris kilby


I don't know. Maybe gangster and super-hero movies aren't the ideal place for such thought-provoking ideas after all...



If I may be so bold, and if you will permit me the chance to respond to you - why can't these genres be the place to present thought-provoking ideas?

Perhaps my question is too limiting to the debate which you are seeking on these forums, so I will understand if you do not wish to talk about it.


I said "maybe."

Are you kidding? Like Clive Barker and David Cronenberg, I think genres are precisely the place to explore complex and sensitive issues metaphorically which maybe are too sensitive to discuss directly. And they always have been. Look at all those giant bug movies in the 50s which reflected anxiety over The Bomb and alien invasion flicks which were really Reds-Under-The-Bed movies. Or violent westerns like The Wild Bunch which were "about" Vietnam in a way no war movie would have dared in 1969. (I mean, have you seen The Green Berets? Jaysus!)

And look at how The Dark Knight Trilogy obliquely addresses 9/11 and The War on Terror with more depth and maturity than the worthy-but-dull (and on-the-nose) likes of World Trade Centre and In The Valley of Elah. I don't doubt that great movies will be made directly about these still-sensitive subjects some day. But it will take time and perspective - it was almost 20 years before Hollywood addressed Vietnam in earnest. It'll probably take that long again before Hollywood addresses the here and now. So until then, The Dark Knight (and, interestingly, The Avengers) will just have to do for now.

(United 93 is probably the one truly Great film about 9/11 so far, but it's still "just" a docudrama which powerfully re-stages the events of that day free of the historical context later films will be able to provide with the benefit of hindsight.)

(in reply to Rgirvan44)
Post #: 1062
RE: The Dark Knight - 21/8/2012 1:39:42 PM   
clownfoot


Posts: 7941
Joined: 26/9/2005
From: The ickle town of Fuck, Austria

quote:

ORIGINAL: chris kilby


quote:

ORIGINAL: Rgirvan44


quote:

ORIGINAL: chris kilby


I don't know. Maybe gangster and super-hero movies aren't the ideal place for such thought-provoking ideas after all...



If I may be so bold, and if you will permit me the chance to respond to you - why can't these genres be the place to present thought-provoking ideas?

Perhaps my question is too limiting to the debate which you are seeking on these forums, so I will understand if you do not wish to talk about it.


I said "maybe."

Are you kidding? Like Clive Barker and David Cronenberg, I think genres are precisely the place to explore complex and sensitive issues metaphorically which maybe are too sensitive to discuss directly. And they always have been. Look at all those giant bug movies in the 50s which reflected anxiety over The Bomb and alien invasion flicks which were really Reds-Under-The-Bed movies. Or violent westerns like Soldier Blue which were "about" Vietnam in a way no war movie would have dared in 1969. (I mean, have you seen The Green Berets? Jaysus!)

And look at how The Dark Knight Trilogy obliquely addresses 9/11 and The War on Terror with more depth and maturity than the worthy-but-dull (and on-the-nose) likes of World Trade Centre and In The Valley of Elah. I don't doubt that great movies will be made directly about these still-sensitive subjects some day. But it will take time and perspective - it was almost 20 years before Hollywood addressed Vietnam in earnest. It'll probably take that long again before Hollywood addresses the here and now. So until then, The Dark Knight (and, interestingly, The Avengers) will just have to do for now.

(United 93 is probably the one truly Great film about 9/11 so far, but it's still "just" a docudrama which powerfully re-stages the events of that day free of the historical context later films will be able to provide with the benefit of hindsight.)



Corrected for accuracy.

_____________________________

Evil Mod 2 - Hail he who has fallen from the sky to deliver us from the terror of the Deadites!

http://www.thepixelempire.net/index.html
http://clownfootsinversemidas.blogspot.com/

(in reply to chris kilby)
Post #: 1063
RE: The Dark Knight - 21/8/2012 2:27:59 PM   
chris kilby

 

Posts: 1521
Joined: 31/3/2010
That an' all. More overtly too. But The Wild Bunch is a "stealth" Vietnam movie as well. As is Ulzana's Raid and a whole, er, fistful of Spaghetti Westerns which tended to be very political/left wing anyway - A Bullet For The General is about 'Imperial' American interference in regional conflicts.

(Soldier Blue's so violent, BTW, it makes The Wild Bunch look like The Brady Bunch!)

(in reply to clownfoot)
Post #: 1064
RE: The Dark Knight - 21/8/2012 3:49:30 PM   
Prophet_of_Doom

 

Posts: 756
Joined: 15/2/2006

quote:

ORIGINAL: chris kilby

quote:

ORIGINAL: Prophet_of_Doom


quote:

ORIGINAL: chris kilby

Anywho... The Dark Knight. Did I raise any issues about it earlier in my rather lengthy (and, I hoped, serious and thought-provoking yet light-hearted) review/essay that anyone would like to discuss on this Dark Knight Review thread? Anyone...?


Well, the first point I'd take issue with is the lack of flab. There's definitely flab. Always is with Nolan.


From a purely scriptwriting perspective, I'd say Nolan and his co-writers are definitely low-fat. If anything, you could argue they are too schematic. A-B writers, overly-concerned with plot at the expense of everything else. Look how the scenes at the start of The Dark Knight introduce The Joker, Gordon, Batman/Wayne and Dent, in turn, then starts mixing and matching them (Batman and Gordon, Gordon and Dent, Dent and Wayne) until the triumverate of "decent men in an indecent time" meet for the first time on the roof of the MCU. Each scene, building up to that moment which sets Act II in motion, is textbook "Screenwriting 101." Each scene imparts vital information about character, plot or both then, job done, doesn't hang about. On to the next scene. Yet what could be a soulless exercise in plot mechanics is anything but cos these vital scenes which introduce the dramatis personae and set up the plot are great dramatic scenes in their own right. The drama hides the machinery. Now that's good writing and as lean as Jessica Ennis.

Take the dinner scene between Bruce, Harvey and Rachel. It's virtually the heart and soul of the film and, apart from The Joker, the main engine of the plot. This scene establishes so much amid the witty banter and amusing character interplay. It establishes that Bruce believes Harvey could well be The White Knight he's been looking for. It sets up the whole "Either you die a hero" thing which basically binds Bruce and Harvey together and seals their fate. But most importantly and most subtly it starts ringing alarm bells that Harvey maybe isn't quite The White Knight everyone hopes he is and suggests that maybe Two-Face was lurking far below the surface all along. And it does all this and more with incredible skill, craft and economy.

It's a bit of a screenwriting masterclass in its own right. A filmmaking and acting masterclass too. Listen to what's being said. And what is unsaid. Look at the masks everyone's wearing, the lies and deceptions. Look at the telling glances between Rachel and Bruce which speak volumes. Watch how the camera circles the characters round the table (a signature move which recurs throughout the film) which suggests unease and reflects how, behind Bruce's smirking playboy act, The Batman is circling Harvey like a predator, trying to suss him out. Phew! And that's not the half of it. And that's just one scene. I've seen whole movies which don't have that much going on!

quote:

But the one single feature that I always remember, the first thing that always pops into my head is this: Nolan (and most of the film's fans) focus on how the film is bedded in reality. Not the cartoon world of Burton, but a hyper-stylised world in which we might all exist. And then, he gives us the worst cgi make-up for Two-Face at the end, that I thought I was watching shots from The Mummy. And The Mummy hasn't aged well. The moment that happened, BAM, the film lost me. Because everything in a film has to work within the framework that it has built for itself.


Fair enough. Few things date quicker than special effects. Personally I found "Two-Face" disturbingly horrific, a good "Nolanverse" approximation of the comics, and a vast improvement on the Tommy Lee Jones in Batman Forever. I thought it looked convincingly "real" enough although obviously such an injury would surely prove fatal. Burns victims are particularly prone to infections and at the very least Harvey would be blind in that dry, lidless eye, and sound like The Elephant Man. Wearing Bane's gimp mask.

But that's the tightrope Nolan's been walking - between comic book fantasy and at least the appearance of a plausible pseudo-reality. As I said before, I think The Dark Knight Trilogy's supposed "realism" has been overstated and can be counter-productive - the more "real" it tries to be, the sillier it risks looking. Two-Face kinda encapsulates that.

I like Nolan and Burton's Bat-flicks for different reasons. While I prefer the gritty "reality" of Nolan (probably cos I'm so pedantic) I've always loved the twisted, German Expressionism of Batman Returns which, being so timeless, may actually age better than The Dark Knight Trilogy. Nolan's films are so contemporary, so rooted in the here-and-now (9/11, The War on Terror, Occupy, yadda, yadda, yadda) that they may date really badly. Even more than poor old Harvey's CGI-ed face!




I don't know where to start. I can understand that you rate the film highly, but this is bordering on idolatry. Objective reasoning has gone out the window. Acting/writing/filmmaking mastercalsses? Those comments drain my soul so comprehensively that the resultant ennui renders any response impossible!

(in reply to chris kilby)
Post #: 1065
RE: The Dark Knight - 21/8/2012 4:25:27 PM   
Discodez

 

Posts: 802
Joined: 2/9/2010
quote:

ORIGINAL: Prophet_of_Doom

I don't know where to start. I can understand that you rate the film highly, but this is bordering on idolatry. Objective reasoning has gone out the window. Acting/writing/filmmaking mastercalsses? Those comments drain my soul so comprehensively that the resultant ennui renders any response impossible!




you still managed one though



< Message edited by Discodez -- 21/8/2012 4:34:34 PM >

(in reply to Prophet_of_Doom)
Post #: 1066
RE: The Dark Knight - 21/8/2012 4:31:40 PM   
Prophet_of_Doom

 

Posts: 756
Joined: 15/2/2006

quote:

ORIGINAL: Discodez


quote:

ORIGINAL: Prophet_of_Doom

I don't know where to start. I can understand that you rate the film highly, but this is bordering on idolatry. Objective reasoning has gone out the window. Acting/writing/filmmaking mastercalsses? Those comments drain my soul so comprehensively that the resultant ennui renders any response impossible!




you still managed one though


Damn you, hoisted by my own petard!

(in reply to Discodez)
Post #: 1067
RE: The Dark Knight - 21/8/2012 4:34:54 PM   
Discodez

 

Posts: 802
Joined: 2/9/2010

quote:

ORIGINAL: Prophet_of_Doom


quote:

ORIGINAL: Discodez


quote:

ORIGINAL: Prophet_of_Doom

I don't know where to start. I can understand that you rate the film highly, but this is bordering on idolatry. Objective reasoning has gone out the window. Acting/writing/filmmaking mastercalsses? Those comments drain my soul so comprehensively that the resultant ennui renders any response impossible!




you still managed one though


Damn you, hoisted by my own petard!


I have to agree with Chris's comments on the two face CGI though, having watched TDK again recently sure it's not perfect but it's pretty damn good. You say that as soon as it appears then BAM any notion of reality goes out the window but how else could it have been achieved, make up can only go so far and to have made it with prosthetics and all gory and bloody would have made his face look bloated and plasticy and probably made the censors baulk at giving the film a 12 certificate.

The only "realistic" way they could have done it would have been to rip off half of Eckhart's face! I doubt he's that "method" personally

(in reply to Prophet_of_Doom)
Post #: 1068
RE: The Dark Knight - 21/8/2012 4:43:14 PM   
Prophet_of_Doom

 

Posts: 756
Joined: 15/2/2006

quote:

ORIGINAL: Discodez


quote:

ORIGINAL: Prophet_of_Doom


quote:

ORIGINAL: Discodez


quote:

ORIGINAL: Prophet_of_Doom

I don't know where to start. I can understand that you rate the film highly, but this is bordering on idolatry. Objective reasoning has gone out the window. Acting/writing/filmmaking mastercalsses? Those comments drain my soul so comprehensively that the resultant ennui renders any response impossible!




you still managed one though


Damn you, hoisted by my own petard!


I have to agree with Chris's comments on the two face CGI though, having watched TDK again recently sure it's not perfect but it's pretty damn good. You say that as soon as it appears then BAM any notion of reality goes out the window but how else could it have been achieved, make up can only go so far and to have made it with prosthetics and all gory and bloody would have made his face look bloated and plasticy and probably made the censors baulk at giving the film a 12 certificate.

The only "realistic" way they could have done it would have been to rip off half of Eckhart's face! I doubt he's that "method" personally


I don't know, I remember a magazine (can't remember which, probably worth googling) that ran a fan art competition on what Two Face might look like (this was just prior to TDK being released). And some of them were quite good and realistic ... but all of the comments were that they were too cartoonish and over the top and that Nolan would be going for something far more believable, following the tone of Batman Begins. Of course, those fan pics were like pictures from A&E by comparison to what Nolan eventually gave us!

(in reply to Discodez)
Post #: 1069
RE: The Dark Knight - 21/8/2012 5:36:01 PM   
The Renegade

 

Posts: 24
Joined: 24/6/2012

quote:

ORIGINAL: homersimpson_esq

tl;dr


There's a ration on words ? How very Orwellian..

(in reply to homersimpson_esq)
Post #: 1070
RE: The Dark Knight - 21/8/2012 5:41:00 PM   
The Renegade

 

Posts: 24
Joined: 24/6/2012

quote:

ORIGINAL: homersimpson_esq

I'm not really sure what knowing you has to do with the price of fish.

You moan that someone is being pedantic. Then you are pedantic.

You have a go because somebody lists critics who were favourable towards The Godfather - despite having made that happen in the first place - and then list your own critics with unfavourable reviews of The Godfather.

What am I missing here?



The point ?

(in reply to homersimpson_esq)
Post #: 1071
RE: The Dark Knight - 21/8/2012 5:42:07 PM   
The Renegade

 

Posts: 24
Joined: 24/6/2012

quote:

ORIGINAL: homersimpson_esq

If you can get a straight answer out of yourself, let me know.



Ooh ! get the madam !

(in reply to homersimpson_esq)
Post #: 1072
RE: The Dark Knight - 21/8/2012 5:43:50 PM   
The Renegade

 

Posts: 24
Joined: 24/6/2012

quote:

ORIGINAL: homersimpson_esq

This is a particularly dark night...for logical discourse.

DID YOU SEE WHAT I DID THERE.




Nope. Went completely over my head.

(in reply to homersimpson_esq)
Post #: 1073
RE: The Dark Knight - 21/8/2012 5:46:38 PM   
Hood_Man


Posts: 12192
Joined: 30/9/2005
Please Renegade, we really don't need another poster who quotes post after post after post

(in reply to The Renegade)
Post #: 1074
RE: The Dark Knight - 21/8/2012 5:50:16 PM   
elab49


Posts: 54736
Joined: 1/10/2005
I'm sure your friend can argue his own corner Mr Renegade - so leave the trolling out, yes?


_____________________________

Lips Together and Blow - blogtasticness and Glasgow Film Festival GFF13!

quote:

ORIGINAL: Deviation] LIKE AMERICA'S SWEETHEARTS TOO. IT MADE ME LAUGH A LOT AND THOUGHT IT WAS WITTY. ALSO I FEEL SLOWLY DYING INSIDE. I KEEP AGREEING WITH ELAB.


Annual Poll 2013 - All Lists Welcome

(in reply to The Renegade)
Post #: 1075
RE: The Dark Knight - 21/8/2012 6:15:34 PM   
Fluke Skywalker


Posts: 9540
Joined: 23/4/2006
From: the dark side of the sun

quote:

ORIGINAL: giggity

I also would have preferred that Nolan used Prosthetics for Two Face, although his excuse for using CGI was that Make up just added to the face, whereas a burn is supposed to take away from the face, using CGI was the only way to get that effect. While I would have preferred make up it doesn't really take me out of the film.


I've been a bit 50-50 about Two Face as well, the injuries look so extreme it does shift the film out of the 'realism' aspect of Nolan's take on Batman, but it also looks so damn cool you forgive it, so overall CGI Two Face gets a thumbs up.

(in reply to giggity)
Post #: 1076
RE: The Dark Knight - 21/8/2012 7:19:51 PM   
The Renegade

 

Posts: 24
Joined: 24/6/2012

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hood_Man

Please Renegade, we really don't need another poster who quotes post after post after post



Sorry.

(in reply to Hood_Man)
Post #: 1077
RE: The Dark Knight - 21/8/2012 7:23:03 PM   
The Renegade

 

Posts: 24
Joined: 24/6/2012
quote:

ORIGINAL: elab49

I'm sure your friend can argue his own corner Mr Renegade - so leave the trolling out, yes?




Sorry ? Say what ? Those Billy goats trip trapping over my bridge distracted me..

< Message edited by The Renegade -- 21/8/2012 7:25:50 PM >

(in reply to elab49)
Post #: 1078
RE: The Dark Knight - 22/8/2012 1:54:48 AM   
chris kilby

 

Posts: 1521
Joined: 31/3/2010

quote:

ORIGINAL: Discodez


quote:

ORIGINAL: Prophet_of_Doom


quote:

ORIGINAL: Discodez


quote:

ORIGINAL: Prophet_of_Doom

I don't know where to start. I can understand that you rate the film highly, but this is bordering on idolatry. Objective reasoning has gone out the window. Acting/writing/filmmaking mastercalsses? Those comments drain my soul so comprehensively that the resultant ennui renders any response impossible!




you still managed one though


Damn you, hoisted by my own petard!


I have to agree with Chris's comments on the two face CGI though, having watched TDK again recently sure it's not perfect but it's pretty damn good. You say that as soon as it appears then BAM any notion of reality goes out the window but how else could it have been achieved, make up can only go so far and to have made it with prosthetics and all gory and bloody would have made his face look bloated and plasticy and probably made the censors baulk at giving the film a 12 certificate.

The only "realistic" way they could have done it would have been to rip off half of Eckhart's face! I doubt he's that "method" personally


Wasn't The Red Skull in Captain America a combination of prosthetics and CGI? Make-up which was digitally tweaked and slimmed down in post...?

(in reply to Discodez)
Post #: 1079
RE: The Dark Knight - 22/8/2012 1:58:34 AM   
chris kilby

 

Posts: 1521
Joined: 31/3/2010
quote:

ORIGINAL: Prophet_of_Doom

I don't know where to start. I can understand that you rate the film highly, but this is bordering on idolatry. Objective reasoning has gone out the window. Acting/writing/filmmaking mastercalsses? Those comments drain my soul so comprehensively that the resultant ennui renders any response impossible!


Sorry. I have that effect on people. "Masterclass" was pushing it a bit. But so was "idolatry." I don't like The Dark Knight that much. But it was late and I'd had a very trying evening...


< Message edited by chris kilby -- 22/8/2012 2:07:13 AM >

(in reply to Prophet_of_Doom)
Post #: 1080
Page:   <<   < prev  34 35 [36] 37 38   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Film Forums] >> Film Reviews >> RE: The Dark Knight Page: <<   < prev  34 35 [36] 37 38   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


 
Movie News  |  Empire Blog  |  Movie Reviews  |  Future Films  |  Features  |  Video Interviews  |  Image Gallery  |  Competitions  |  Forum  |  Magazine  |  Resources
 
Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.109