Comments on: Suggestions for Inclusion

By: Mothman

Mothman — Sat, 09 Oct 2010 12:14:46 +0000

I hate people who say “It’s just a movie”.

Piss off if that’s the best critical input you can give. “It’s just a book”… It’s just a TV show” … I can’t watch this movie again because of dumb assed writing that includes fingerprints in brick dust.

By: Tyrell

Tyrell — Sat, 01 Aug 2009 00:31:08 +0000

omg wut da movie waz so dum i tink peepl wuz smokin weed wen tey saw it!!!1!111!!!!!! LOL mayb they shud see da real good moviez lik miami vice or 12 rounds. JOHN CENA CUOLD KILL BATMAN!!!

By: mdk

mdk — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 22:21:34 +0000

erm.. mr expert: so if the acidbath story was invented 40 years after jokers first appearance, that means joker was introduced in 1911 ?????,
for the acidbath is first mentioned in Detective Comics #168 “The Man Behind the Red Hood” February, 1951

and i think it has become essential for his charakter because this way the joker doesnt really choose to look “strange” (even if he dresses normal he is a “freak” its something like a stigma he isnt really responsible for; unlike somone using shabby makeup) and its important for the relationship between batman and joker (thats why he doesnt kill him: he feels guilty)
and further i think heath ledger played the worst joker ever (actually i dont think he played “the joker” at all… that should not mean, he played the linguistically challenged clown bum bad) but thats just my oppnion and doesnt matter

By: Earlofthercs

Earlofthercs — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 03:54:04 +0000

Lo, thats cool. we’re cool man, no worries.

By: Lo

Lo — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 07:48:53 +0000

well i have no doubt youre right about the origin differences, Earlofthercs. And i appreciate the history lesson. You made valid points. But for the record i didn’t say the movie was boring, i was talking about the concept. I actually thought it was a relatively exciting movie. Yes, i have not read too many of the older comics, most I’ve read were from the 80s and after. Yes, THOSE comics. And i’m sure the original was different. No i guess it isnt essential what the joker looks like, but, personally, i didn’t think he was acting like the joker either. Just a psychopathic hobo. Just my opinion. And no, no one asked me. Im sure youre very knowledgeable about batman comics and i can appreciate that. But my point in the comment was mostly why the film was suppose to be realistic. It can be any origin im aware of or not. And no i didn’t say the alternate universe was wrong, i just thought the one they came up with was silly. The Burton joker wasn’t necessarily right either, (and yes im aware of the red hood, mobster, and struggling comedian alternate versions). And they chose the mobster, which was fine. I thought they got it mostly right for a film. And if there is another version im not aware of im anxious to know, im sure im ignorant to a lot of things But it was just belly aching, man. just seeing if anyone agreed with my personal opinion.

By: Kevin

Kevin — Fri, 29 May 2009 22:27:52 +0000

Make a site about Terminator:Salvation. This raspy voiced Bale voice can ruin any movie.

By: george

george — Fri, 29 May 2009 16:50:53 +0000

it does get boring in the third act. after the joker escapes its pretty much downhill, not a steep drop, but a slight decline to the end. i think if they got rid of dent it would have been a much better movie.

By: Earlofthercs

Earlofthercs — Fri, 29 May 2009 07:01:44 +0000

What Batman comics have you been reading? Joker’s origin of `acid bath’ wasnt written until almost 40 years after his debut, so why is it more of an essential part of his character than his personality to you? I dont care why his face’s white, or who he was before he became the joker, I care that he acts like the joker… which he did, in this movie.

Again the `acid’ in dents face was originally the origin of a different two face, Harvey Appolo from the old comic strips. The `acid in the face from maroni’ as two-face’s origin was only made canonical in the comcis in 1987- 45 years after his first appearance as a a comic book villain.

The films are an alternate universe, if events happen a little differently it doesnt make them `wrong’ merely different. ITs the characterisation that’s important, and again Two Face behaves like two-face.

I didnt find the movie boring at all.

By: Lo

Lo — Tue, 26 May 2009 22:34:57 +0000

I don’t know if it was just me, but I had a serious problem with this movie. I have been reading batman comics since i was about 10, and i wanted to shoot myself in the foot after seeing this movie. Was it a good movie, sure, I’ll give it that. Was it BATMAN? NO. The thing that bothered me the most was the fact that Christopher Nolan was so obsessed with making Batman “believable” that he actually kind of insulted the story/comic. The story is already much more believable than most comic, but so what, either way, it doesn’t matter.

Yes, batman is a story, it isn’t real, but it is an incredible comic book, and it is it’s fiction that makes it amazing.
Why does the Joker need to wear makeup? Have we seriously become such an unimaginative society we can’t even stretch our imaginations to believe a man’s body could become altered after a chemical bath. This was what made the Joker the Joker. He is meant to be a contradiction of a attractive person with unhuman like qualities, chalk white skin, green hair and red lips. Not an average white guy who put some crappy spray-on hair dye, grease paint, and looks like a hobo.”I’m a man of simple tastes.” Did ANYONE on the set read the comic?

Most of all i really didn’t like the fact Heath Ledger played him. I suspect 2/3 of the movie goers were 14 and 15 year old girls who would go see anything that had “THAT HOT GUY FROM ‘10 THINGS I HATE ABOUT YOU’”.

My other question, what’s wrong with Harvey Dent having a chemical thrown in his face? What is so believable about being burned, if he was, he probably wouldn’t have an eye on that side either. But why can’t we just STICK to the story. Or at least the ORIGIN.

My final question is why did Bruce Wayne seem to play such a small part in the movie. It hasn’t really touched on the emotional and psychological strain he experiences. How batman becomes a bitter person, torn between being Bruce and being who he really is, Batman. Or how he basically begins turning off as a human and becomes consumed with fighting crime.

Well, thats all. My only point is the catch phrase for the movie , “Why So Serious?” is in my opinion a contradiction of the movie’s goal, to make it serious(OR “BELIEVABLE”). The characters live in an objective world, with consequence and dull normalcy.
BOOOOOOOORRRRING.
Imagination must exist in batman, that’s their unfathomable magic.
But maybe batman just shouldn’t be made into a movie. Some of the best stories make for some of the worst movies and vice versa.

By: george

george — Fri, 22 May 2009 19:27:36 +0000

sorry, Star Trek was good. it was much better than the overhyped and entirely average dark knight.