I really don't see how the third movie dealt with the dangers of populism meaningfully; Bane used some populist rhetoric but while doing so still presented himself openly as very much a bad guy, openly threatening to destroy the whole city just if one person left it. And it's pretty unclear whether his regime did lead to a significant amount of people becoming corrupted and supporting the regime.
The Dark Knight - Ten Years On
- Thread starter dahj
- Start date
I really don't see how the third movie dealt with the dangers of populism meaningfully; Bane used some populist rhetoric but while doing so still presented himself openly as very much a bad guy, openly threatening to destroy the whole city just if one person left it. And it's pretty unclear whether his regime did lead to a significant amount of people becoming corrupted and supporting the regime.
MCU movies either don't do it at all, instead focusing on fun and comedy, or they just straight up tell you "THIS IS THE MESSAGE OF OUR STORY" like Iron Man.
And please don't come back by telling me the virtues of Iron Man, I know - it's my favorite superhero movie. You just have to recognize that in terms of cinematic artistry the MCU is pop music, and TDK trilogy is more like... a pops orchestra. Not the most artistic, but... more artistic. If that doesn't matter to you, that's fine. Pretending otherwise is just pure lying though.
That would be The Dark Knight (2008) and Watchmen (2009). Nolan and Snyder delivering the one-two punch back to back.
Hahaha
Watchmen didn't live up to financial expectations, so it shouldn't have influenced WB as much as it did.
No, they can have subtle messages. They don't have characters stand around and give operatic monologues like Nolan does, though.
The TDK trilogy is more pretentious pop, if we're going there. Tries to be profound but isn't.
But it was a totally unknown IP and was rated positive by the critics and fans.
Dark was in and people wanted it.
Sony did their dark reboot with the Amazing Spider-Man in 2012 and people really dug that film too.
The MCU just wiped out half of its heroes in "Infinity Wars" and tried to portray the main villain as "complicated" and there are people out there who are still upset over the grimmer tones of the DC movies?
I don't think so. I don't think either the Marvel or DC films do it better or worse.
I don't think so. I don't think either the Marvel or DC films do it better or worse.
That movie wasnt that dark, and people really didn't like it that much...
The first ASM was good, it was ASM2 that was more of a conflicted response.
Fascinating article.
If there's a top 5 greatest superhero films list in terms of overall execution of story, performance, entertainment value and artistic achievement--in other words, everything--then The Dark Knight is tied at #1 with Donner's Superman. Superman--like TDK answered its own internal voice about what its character was and had to be to live up to its generations of strengths, instead of being reshaped into an assembly line product of things the world has seen time and again, and failed to be larger than life...with a purpose. There's little wonder the Nolan Bat-films were not only phenomenally successful, but--almost inarguably--the most acclaimed of any superhero film of this century: they spoke to a world audience that wanted to see Batman be Batman. Not a clown (most of the 1966 TV series after season one), or a foam-covered misfit (the Burton/Schumacher films), and be as formidable and striking as he was long before Miller, whether in his earliest, Golden Age stories, or the dramatic resurgence of the late 1960s, where Frank Robbins & Irv Novick and subsequently Denny O'Neill & Neal Adams--forcefully reminded the world that Batman was indeed a grim champion that had to face as many real word type threats (e.g. organized crime, corrupt politicians, etc.) as the usual fantasy threats. That's nothing new to Batman as a character, contrary to the thankfully minor accusations against the plots of the Nolan films.
That made Batman a must-read character, which more "contemporary" writers (e.g., Loeb and Moore) zeroed in on and built on, which (ultimately) served as the right inspiration for Nolan's unparalleled work. TDK was the natural, evolutionary step in taking the comic book film out of the realm its--unfortunately--returned to (more often than not): easily-disposed Power Rangers fantasies that barely have a lasting, creative/memory effect a full 24 hours after watching it, In TDK and the entire Nolan series, there was not doubt Batman had the traits of his greatest interpretations from print, which was an perfect marriage to the film of this era, without compromising the power of Batman (and his supporting characters) as one of the most thrilling, unique modern age myths.
As more superhero films are piled on, its clear that the great among them are not only far and few between, but not attempted in favor the assembly line, silly, bloated film that will not have a lasting impact beyond the month of its release (impossible to even stretch that out to a year). The Dark Knight did that and more since that July of 2008, stamping a legacy so strong that its become the work all others are compared to when discussing the greatest of that sub-genre in film. No need to guess why.
If you're ashamed of comics.
No, they just had no real competition at the time. Put the Nolan movies out against a full force MCU and they wouldn't do as well.
IE, admitting that the people who made the movies were ashamed of comics.
The damage Nolan and Singer did is being undone and people are no longer ashamed of comics.
Its legacy relies on a dead actor, and its lasting appeal is to those ashamed of comics...who unfortunately are still a significant number.
Last edited:
My friend, the silver age has been over for decades. Comics themselves have evolved, why can't you accept that movies will as well?
That's what I keep telling people who think all CBMs should be grounded, every single last one of them. But they refuse to accept stuff like magic, space opera, going to other dimensions, etc.
Of course nowadays those same people are saying all CBMs should be R-Rated.
Last edited:
We're fast approaching the point where ALL movies are effectively comic book movies in some shape or form. As it swallows up the entire movie industry it is now splitting out into subgenres.
Rightly or wrongly, old school comic book purists have already lost this war. Even comics themselves are hardly what they once were anymore, as what little audience is left for comics is primarily adults, not kids.
No. Seriously? All movies are comic book movies? Are you just flat out ignoring the vast majority of movies that have obviously nothing at all to do with comic books?
I'm using a broad term equating comic book movie with action/popcorn. For instance, Jurassic World is a comic book movie in my estimation. Solo is a comic book movie. They function identically, stylistically. The "vast majority" of movies out there, at least the ones likely to be talked about here, are in that bucket.
"Popcorn" movies have been around longer than CBMs.
Jurassic World and Solo are not comic book movies by any reasonable definition. Comic books did not invent the summer blockbuster genre.
And even that category of movies is nowhere near being the 'vast majority' of all movies. The oscars at least still have no shortage whatsoever of things most of us have never heard of for them to celebrate.
Some choose to live in the age where superhero comics and characters were chained down by silly plotting that was being rejected in the 1960s, but would creep back in from time to time, despite the comic-reading culture not supporting it. That kind of plotting was not much better than an episode of any loud, Saturday morning schlock mixed with any random video game.
The Dark Knight's overall impact and success pointed to audience interest and expectations of that character, which is--apparently--confusing to some who think Batman should be making jokes in the middle of a serious situation that would make the cast of Sesame Street perform a collective eye-roll.