The Dark Knight - Ten Years On

[dahj]

Today marks the tenth anniversary of the premiere of The Dark Knight, still arguably the most important comic book movie to hit the screens. Came across an interesting read regarding the subject:

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/h...anged-movie-business-but-at-what-cost-1126942

Ten years removed from The Dark Knight we have a certain expectation about what a superhero adaptation looks like, how it operates, and how it aligns itself with the most popular, introductory texts based around the character. Even with more superhero movies now than ever, there’s a sense that we’re being limited, that we’re only seeing the success of films guaranteed to work. It’s plausible to imagine that this film we love so much, The Dark Knight, would not receive the same kind of standing ovation today. The Dark Knight is a testament, an invitation to change, break rules, rework canon, and introduce a little anarchy.

I'll probably try and squeeze in a rewatch sometime this week, if anyone else is up for it I'm fine if this turns into a rewatch thread.

 

[gblews]

I appreciate that TDK did something different with superhero movies, I just didn't particularly care for that difference. TDK is to be commended for doing a different route for a comic book movie, but in terms of being a pacesetter for these movies, I think Iron Man was just as important to the genre. Iron Man didn't have the overall cast that TDK had, nor the prestigious director, both of which, I believe, are a big part of why people think TDK is so great, but it did present a much more relatable superhero.

As I think the article points out, many of the "suits" misread what made TDK a good movie. The folks at WB/DC apparently thought it was the movie's tone. They then presented a string of movies that imitated TDK's tone without TDK's acting, directing, and script. This has all but ruined the Superman franchise. Wonder Woman, is of course, the obvious exception.

Marvel, on the other hand, took Iron Man's tone, which was a major reason for the the original film's artistic and financial success, and used it as a template to create a series of aesthetically pleasing AND financially successful movies.

As a pacesetter for future comic book movies, I think TDK is overrated. Iron Man, OTOH, because it didn't boast as prestigious a director or cast, is quite underrated as a harbinger of future comic book movies.

 

[EnderAKH]

Important? I would argue Donner's Superman is far more important to the genre than The Dark Knight.

 

[kirk55555]

The only thing The Dark Knight really did was make WB think that grim dark "realism" is the only way to make a superhero movie, regardless of what hero the movie is about, and because of that we got Man of Steel and Batman v Superman. Even if I didn't find TDK to be extremely mediocre, the damage it (unintentionally, to be fair) did to later DC movies would make me think of it in a negative light. None of the really good to great superhero movies that came around that time and after it (meaning the entire MCU, X-Men FC/DoFP and Wonder Woman) took anything from TDK.

 

[OCD Geek]

The only thing The Dark Knight really did was make WB think that grim dark "realism" is the only way to make a superhero movie, regardless of what hero the movie is about, and because of that we got Man of Steel and Batman v Superman. Even if I didn't find TDK to be extremely mediocre, the damage it (unintentionally, to be fair) did to later DC movies would make me think of it in a negative light. None of the really good to great superhero movies that came around that time and after it (meaning the entire MCU, X-Men FC/DoFP and Wonder Woman) took anything from TDK.

I love The Dark Knight (and enjoy The Dark Knight Rises more than most), but man did the studio learn the wrong lessons from it. People liked those movies due to the likable characters and interesting stories. I'm dreading the shitty R-rated superhero movies we're going to get because the studios learned the wrong lessons from critics and audiences loving Logan and Deadpools 1 & 2.

 

[JirinPanthosa]

I would agree with 'Important' as it reset the tone of comic book movies from the fluffy tone we had previously.

Though I personally find the movie overrated. Villains have believability issues, IMO, and I think some of the show's assertions about human nature were a bit too "Psych 101 mixed with general teenage misanthropy".

 

[Anwar]

I would agree with 'Important' as it reset the tone of comic book movies from the fluffy tone we had previously.

Though I personally find the movie overrated. Villains have believability issues, IMO, and I think some of the show's assertions about human nature were a bit too "Psych 101 mixed with general teenage misanthropy".

That and most of the philosophies presented in the film as absolutes (Die a hero or inevitably become a villain) are outright garbage.

 

[crookeddy]

That and most of the philosophies presented in the film as absolutes (Die a hero or inevitably become a villain) are outright garbage.

Not sure what world you live in, but that part was basically absolute fact. They garbage was the convicts not blowing up the other ferry. Took me out of the movie at that movie.

 

[CorporalClegg]

I agree it's hugely overrated. Outside of Ledger's performance, there really isn't any 'there, there'. It's not a bad movie, just very mediocre. Begins is a much better film, overall. And the script much tighter--even with the ridiculous plot holes. But then, that's not how it works, and Ledger's performance is more than worth the price of admission.

As far as "important," well that's kind of one those nondescript words that could really mean anything. But strictly in terms of "significance," I agree with @EnderAKH that Donnerman is the better choice.

However, I think in terms of impact, Burton-Bats would be number one. I'd argue that the pop-culture ubiquity and proliferation of superheroes/comics really started with 89, as you can trace the lineage through TAS and DCTAS, to the X-men cartoon and X-Men video games, through the X-Men and Spidey films.

 

[Anwar]

Not sure what world you live in, but that part was basically absolute fact. They garbage was the convicts not blowing up the other ferry. Took me out of the movie at that movie.

Cincinnatus, George Washington, Nelson Mandela, Dicoletian, Africanus, Eleazar Lopez Contreras, Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, William Sherman, the list goes on of people who didn't become villains despite being seen as heroes. And they didn't die in the middle of being heroes either.

Nolan's problem is that he thinks his philosophies are airtight and absolute.

 

[The Realist]

They garbage was the convicts not blowing up the other ferry. Took me out of the movie at that movie.

Can't agree. Possibly the best moment in a movie I saw belatedly and wasn't nearly so impressed with as I was supposed to be.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

Yes, Superman (1978) is many times more significant than The Dark Knight.

Well-executed on many levels, BB & TDK proved that superhero films can treat the subject matter hyper-realistically, at least when situations and characters don't stray more than a little into the realm of the fantastical, which of course comprises only the slimmest of cross sections through the overall genre. [ed - Superman had done this to a point, but it, so to speak, was either unable to or chose not to extend its serious tone throughout the entire film, especially when it came to its treatment of Luthor, Otis, and Eve.]

I went into TDK unspoiled, so I was very surprised when it became a two-for-one with the Joker and Two-Face. Ledger was good, but Two-Face almost stole the show for me, actually.

Returning to the point of it being well-executed, that made the film experience well worth the price of admission. That places it in the range satisfactory to good. It's a good movie to see, because of the excellent execution and performances. It has some quotable dialog. But is there anything deeper, any takeaway that enhances my life the way great literary pieces do? No. Not for me. It's just kind of there. It entertained, it's noteworthy in the ways in which it did that, but it does not extend beyond that except in a few select ways, but that makes it just like every other film on that level.

As far as Batman (1989) goes, parts of it are outstanding. Overall, I didn't really like it. Exactly why is a discussion I might return to at another time. On comparing and contrasting that film with Valman and the Nolan trilogy, I think there's potentially a much better Batman film still yet to be made. [ed - Of course, yes, Bats89 kicked off the run of superhero films and shows that extends to present day. That's quite clear.]

 

[Marc]

Cincinnatus, George Washington, Nelson Mandela, Dicoletian, Africanus, Eleazar Lopez Contreras, Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, William Sherman, the list goes on of people who didn't become villains despite being seen as heroes. And they didn't die in the middle of being heroes either.

And I think you completely and utterly missed the point.

Batman chose to be seen as the villain to save the reputation of Harvey Dent (by appearing to have killed him) because of the good he'd done for Gotham and it very important that that legacy stand.

 

[suarezguy]

I thought and still do that it was a good film but not particularly exceptional (and also a disappointment after BB). Some of the themes are interesting and yet presented kind of simply and their resolutions feel pretty half-hearted.

 

[Anwar]

And I think you completely and utterly missed the point.

My point was that Nolan seemed to think the points he was making were unassailable and infallible and irrefutable. They weren't.

Hell, Alfred's story about the Bandit being some random nihilist was also full of holes. Holes no one points out.

Batman chose to be seen as the villain to save the reputation of Harvey Dent (by appearing to have killed him) because of the good he'd done for Gotham and it very important that that legacy stand.

That also didn't sit well with me and felt half-assed. They easily could have covered up the few murders Dent committed, it's not like there were witnesses saying Harvey killed anyone.

Of course, I also felt Dent being some "White Knight" was also unearned. He was more a figurehead while Gordon and Batman did the real work.

 

[DonIago]

It's hard for me to believe Nolan really thought any of that when he deconstructs it in the next film.

 

[Anwar]

It's hard for me to believe Nolan really thought any of that when he deconstructs it in the next film.

He hardly deconstructed anything in TDKR. He hardly did anything with that film at all.

 

[crookeddy]

My point was that Nolan seemed to think the points he was making were unassailable and infallible and irrefutable. They weren't.

Source?

 

[crookeddy]

He hardly deconstructed anything in TDKR. He hardly did anything with that film at all.

Dealt with the dangers of populism, the importance of symbolism, and had the "rising up" theme inserted throughout the movie. One of the most meaningful superhero movies ever made.

 

[Anwar]

Source?

Someone in the film would've pointed out the flaws in Harvey's philosophy and Bruce would've pointed out how Alfred's story about the bandit could be reconsidered if Nolan thought those points were disputable.

Dealt with the dangers of populism, the importance of symbolism, and had the "rising up" theme inserted throughout the movie. One of the most meaningful superhero movies ever made.

The critique on Populism is nigh-nothing, the whole thing about Dent's crimes being exposed was nonsensical because at no point does anyone stop to think "Wait, what if Bane is lying to us?" and the "rise up" thing is half-hearted as well. MCU movies do it better, and less pretentiously.