The OFFICIAL The Dark Knight thread

[Koray Savas 2,251]

At least that means decent music ...

David Arnold sucks. There are plenty of better British composers.

[Trent B 337]

David Arnold sucks.

You suck.

[Bryant Burnette 654]

I love the Bond series, and if I had to choose between the Bond franchise and the Batman franchise, I'd send Batman to the scrap heap and not even blink before doing it.

That said, I don't think that there is one single Bond movie that's even close to being as good as The Dark Knight. I don't expect that to change with Quantum of Solace.

[Quintus 5,399]

David Arnold sucks. There are plenty of better British composers.

Not since Vaughan Williams died and John Barry retired, there isn't.

[FattyMcButterpants 1]

At least that means decent music ...

David Arnold sucks. There are plenty of better British composers.

How utterly intelligent that is! How did I even dare to post in the light of this astounding chain of rock- solid arguments?

Clearly, I have failed.

[Taikomochi 1,136]

At least that means decent music ...

David Arnold sucks. There are plenty of better British composers.

How utterly intelligent that is! How did I even dare to post in the light of this astounding chain of rock- solid arguments?

Clearly, I have failed.

Not to get involved, but you didn't really produce a strong argument, or any for that matter.

I wouldn't put it quite as bluntly, but I agree with Koray.

[Koray Savas 2,251]

For anyone that's interested: The price for the 2CD set has dropped to $45 on Amazon.

[Desplat13 1]

OK, back to the real reason for this thread: the TDK vs. Wall-E debate

For me, TDK was very cliche. It was the 'dark' middle part of a (probably) trilogy that took itself way too seriously and tried to make of for it's lack of originality with length. Or something like that. Whatever the reasons, I thought it was dark in a very cliched way, and way way way way too long.

Wall-E, seemed much less forced. I admit that the first part was best, but I did like the second part as well, and I liked the message: WORK. I think it is a message that really needs to go out in this day and age of movies and computer games and enough entertainment to waste a lifetime on. I know this is the wrong message board for that last sentence, but oh well.

I also thought the love story was handled very well in Wall-E, as opposed to TDK where I absolutely didn't care when what's-her-name got killed off.

Anyway, those are my thoughts.

[Neimoidian 14]

David Arnold sucks. There are plenty of better British composers.

Not since Vaughan Williams died and John Barry retired, there isn't.

John Powell is the only one that can be considered here, I think. He is quite great. I don't think he is better than Arnold, though. At least not for me. His best scores aren't as great as Arnold's as far as I am concerned.

[Taikomochi 1,136]

OK, back to the real reason for this thread: the TDK vs. Wall-E debate

For me, TDK was very cliche. It was the 'dark' middle part of a (probably) trilogy that took itself way too seriously and tried to make of for it's lack of originality with length. Or something like that. Whatever the reasons, I thought it was dark in a very cliched way, and way way way way too long.

Wall-E, seemed much less forced. I admit that the first part was best, but I did like the second part as well, and I liked the message: WORK. I think it is a message that really needs to go out in this day and age of movies and computer games and enough entertainment to waste a lifetime on. I know this is the wrong message board for that last sentence, but oh well.

I also thought the love story was handled very well in Wall-E, as opposed to TDK where I absolutely didn't care when what's-her-name got killed off.

Anyway, those are my thoughts.

Wait wait wait. TDK is cliche because it really didn't have a love story, as opposed to Wall-E which had the mo0st typical love story I've seen all year. TDK was different, not cliche, but not unoriginal in that it wasn't about the love and romance. The love in the movie was only there to help explain Harvey's transition to evil. or being misguided anyways.

I liked TDk better because it was much less traditional, even for a sequel. Wall-E was the typical Disney crap wrapped up in the bow of a post apocalyptic world. For example, there was no final show down for TDK. Look at Empire. There was even a final duel before hanging on Cloud City. Yes, Batman and the Joker fought, but the Joker said himself that fight meant nothing. The real climax was the following scene with Harvey.

Even if you truly believe it fits deeply into the middle sequel frame, it's still more original than Wall-E with it's redundant story line. Now that I think of it, I can't see too many differences between it and Heartbeeps.

[Desplat13 1]

TDK was cliche because it was dark in such a forced way, trying to be so serious. Sure, it was well done. I am not arguing that. But Wall-E meant much more to me because it had heart and character, instead of the endless dark black/blue-ish scenes with very serious people trying oh so hard to get an oscar. I can only watch that for so many hours at a time, and TDK was way too many of them in one movie. Very well done, but still somewhat forced and way too long, whereas Wall-E never seemed forced.

[Wycket 36]

TDK was cliche because it was dark in such a forced way, trying to be so serious. Sure, it was well done. I am not arguing that. But Wall-E meant much more to me because it had heart and character, instead of the endless dark black/blue-ish scenes with very serious people trying oh so hard to get an oscar. I can only watch that for so many hours at a time, and TDK was way too many of them in one movie. Very well done, but still somewhat forced and way too long, whereas Wall-E never seemed forced.

That's funny, because I felt that Wall-E came off as forced garbage with a message to kids to get off their arses and do things rather than simply sit around. Face it, Wall-E was not original at all, and simply did what TDK did: use conventions and stereotypes well and went above and beyond a simple story. The problem is that TDK has Heath Ledger's performance, one which will go down as one of the greatest movie villians of all time. Wall-E is a kids movie which will probably be ecilpsed by another Pixar movie in a few years.

And this is a Dark Knight thread, if you love Wall-E so much, start your own thread. We don't need this to turn into a constant battle between two movies that don't have anything in common.

[Desplat13 1]

OK, I don't need to argue it. I just happened to post something, then be gone for a week and not get a chance to defend my post. That is why I was bringing it back up. If you don't want me here, I can leave...

In a moment. First, Heath Ledger's performance was good, but overrated. Second, I think that an impressive array of un-seen individuals made Wall-E better, and no one aspect stole the glory. The whole thing was solid, and moving.

OK, I'm done.

Probably...

[Charlie Brigden 7]

THE DARK KNIGHTt was only forced in the way that it was influenced by some of the very best Batman/Joker stories, which are very dark. I don't really understand the cliched or unoriginal point, either. In terms of dark black/blue, I think someone saw a badly colour-timed copy. Regarding serious performances with people trying to get an Oscar, well that's just rubbish. They're just great performances backed up with some great writing putting their all into a project they - and a lot of other people - have great faith in, and in turn brought a lot of needed seriousness, emotion and weight to a genre which rarely sees those qualities.

As for WALL-E, I haven't seen it. But comparing it to TDK seems redundant at best.

[MissPadmé 17]

how could anyone compare these two films?? they are both mostly unique.

[Wycket 36]

OK, I don't need to argue it. I just happened to post something, then be gone for a week and not get a chance to defend my post. That is why I was bringing it back up. If you don't want me here, I can leave...

In a moment. First, Heath Ledger's performance was good, but overrated. Second, I think that an impressive array of un-seen individuals made Wall-E better, and no one aspect stole the glory. The whole thing was solid, and moving.

OK, I'm done.

Probably...

Hey, I'm all for defending your argument, but saying that the real reason of this thread is to discuss Wall-E and TDK is not a good way to start off a thread which basically is meant to be in admiration of TDK. You like Wall-E better and there's nothing wrong with that, but when you say things like Heath Ledger's performance is overrated, you gotta expect some hate.

[Desplat13 1]

Hey, I'm all for defending your argument, but saying that the real reason of this thread is to discuss Wall-E and TDK is not a good way to start off a thread which basically is meant to be in admiration of TDK.

That was why I put the after saying that.

It was a joke.

And I think TDK was well done.

[Bryant Burnette 654]

Even if you truly believe it fits deeply into the middle sequel frame, it's still more original than Wall-E with it's redundant story line. Now that I think of it, I can't see too many differences between it and Heartbeeps.

I think that says more about you than it says about WALL*E (or Heartbeeps, for that matter). And it doesn't say anything good.

The whole WALL*E conversation started (I think) due to me saying that I thought The Dark Knight was probably the best movie of the year, but with the caveat that I would want to see WALL*E again before making up my mind. So the discussion of WALL*E is germane to the discussion about The Dark Knight; sorta.

Personally, I think anyone who doesn't like both The Dark Knight and WALL*E is good-taste-impaired.

[Wycket 36]

Personally, I think anyone who doesn't like both The Dark Knight and WALL*E is good-taste-impaired.

Oh I think Wall-E is a fine film and probably in my top 10 of the year. I just think its challenging to say the movie is better than TDK, especially when you consider its mostly from a technical point whereas TDK is all about the acting.

[indy4 155]

The only acting in TDK that was outstanding beyond belief was Ledger's Joker. I'd say that Ledger/Joker would rank in my top 5 best performances in all of film.

The rest of the acting was good, but that's it.

[Bryant Burnette 654]

Personally, I think anyone who doesn't like both The Dark Knight and WALL*E is good-taste-impaired.

Oh I think Wall-E is a fine film and probably in my top 10 of the year. I just think its challenging to say the movie is better than TDK, especially when you consider its mostly from a technical point whereas TDK is all about the acting.

I would argue that the subtlety of animation -- breathing life into something that is, by definition, lifeless -- is at the very least as siginificant an artistic achievement as a great performance (like the ones on evidence in The Dark Knight). At its best (which is pretty much all the time), Pixar creates an extraordinarily convincing portrait of humanity. They use robots and talking cars/toys/fish to do so, but as far as I'm concerned, that just makes it all the more impressive.

[Koray Savas 2,251]

The only acting in TDK that was outstanding beyond belief was Ledger's Joker. I'd say that Ledger/Joker would rank in my top 5 best performances in all of film.

The rest of the acting was good, but that's it.

Eckart and Oldman were just as good, IMO.

[Bryant Burnette 654]

The only acting in TDK that was outstanding beyond belief was Ledger's Joker. I'd say that Ledger/Joker would rank in my top 5 best performances in all of film.

The rest of the acting was good, but that's it.

I disagree 100%. Aaron Eckhardt is just as good as Ledger; he just doesn't have as showy a role.

Also, Gary Oldman and Morgan Freeman hit all the right notes in their performances.

Not to mention Christian Bale. I don't understand the criticisms he receives. If he weren't as great as he is in the role, the movie would be worthless.

[JoeinAR 1,949]

I think Bale is the weak link, he pales in comparison to the other 5 male cast members.

[Delorean90 42]

No, I think he's doing a fine job. Here are my real beefs so far:

1. The TDK score is an improvement in some ways, but these are certainly lacking. This has been discussed ad nauseum, but I'll go back into it with whoever wants to go into it.

2. Batman should not be in a contest with Superman to see who can cause the most collateral damage. I thought it worked well in the first film, when it was an illustration of how green and emotional he was, and Alfred addressed it. However, in TDK, he's back to destroying cars left and right. Why? It strikes me as very superfluous, especially for Batman, with his plentiful training. This could easily become a non-issue in a humorous way, though, if you had a scene where Bruce talks with someone about donating money for the people whose cars were destroyed.

3. Please, in the next film: NO CONTROVERSIAL DEATHS! Let the line be the line. In Begins we had Ra's, in TDK we had Harvey. It almost gets to where his code becomes meaningless. True, he's not killing all over the place like in Burton's films, but these cases didn't even really present a humongous, major situation where Bats was truly faced with a horrible choice absolutely staring him in the face. TDK is debatable, but the necessity of the particular action he took isn't really clearly elucidated. Again, if they address this in his character in the next film, and show that the deaths that he has played a part in are weighing on him, then this will work. Until that point, this is my biggest concern in the Nolan films.

The voice doesn't bother me, I loved the convoy ambush, I thought the acting was good, and the tone was handled well. It's more these issues listed above that weigh on me.

[Koray Savas 2,251]

Ill go back into the score again. What did you specifically find it lacking?

[Delorean90 42]

For one thing, a fluid musicality. As catchy as some sections can be in their own sort of way, on the whole there's this very restricted, rhythm-centric mode that strikes me as a bit too generic. I want more melody, more counterpoint, more stuff you can sink your teeth into. I think this also goes for the emotional range. Pretty much the entirety of the scores are in some uber-serious vein, with little variation. It's like it's all shades of black, with littl respite even into gray, and it makes for a more boring score. There are times for a more sympathetic touch, times for a more "BOO-YAH!", jump up out of your seat, exciting touch, time sfor a more menacing touch...there's a lot of emotional range in the films themselves, but the scores themselves are rather myopic in this regard.

Related to those issues is the lack of interesting orchestral color. A lot of it is rhythmic strings and brass. The percussion is often synthetic (kudos for the real snare on "Like a Dog Chasing Cars"), and I don't recall if there's ever usage of a non-ethnic wind instruments.

The electronics sometimes overwhelm--boy, do cues like "Lucius Fox" and the music where Batman suits up for the finale sound out of place; there are times where I like them (the unreleased opening seconds of "Scaling the Mountain" being one example off the top of my head), but sometimes not so much. On top of that, there is absolutely no reason whatsoever to have a synthetic orchestra sound, whether actual or replicated, on a film of this nature and with this big a budget.

What's interesting is that, as I've said before, there are certain ideas, themes, and moments that I like, but overall, for these reasons, the execution is lacking. More diversity within the scores would go a long way. For instance, I would find "Scaling the Mountain" a more appropriate and appreciable if cues like "Tumbler Chase" were a better payoff, more interesting and exciting.

There are aspects I like, and in their own kind of way they have a certain intrigue, but they are certainly disappointing scores.

[Koray Savas 2,251]

Here's an interesting video.

[Delorean90 42]

The video stops in the middle.

-Ben, who'sh waiting to be impresshed.

[MissPadmé 17]

I for my self loved Ledger.. BUT the annoying thing .. how he licked his lips constantly while speaking. Sorry to say, I hated it!

[indy4 155]

I loved that, along with all the canine references made throughout the film.

[Red 75]

The video stops in the middle.

-Ben, who'sh waiting to be impresshed.

It was pretty interesting I have to say, seeing a portion of the film with just music and all.

I thought this was pretty cool:

[Koray Savas 2,251]

Click!

[indy4 155]

Oh God...

There are some stupid people in the world.

[Nick Parker 3,040]

Click!

That is one of the funniest articles that I have ever read.

[Red 75]

They're about 70 years too late on that one.

[QMM 4]

Variety reports that the score for The Dark Knight has been disqualified by the executive committee of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences music branch from being considered for an Oscar.

Formal letters to that effect are expected to go out this week to composers Hans Zimmer and James Newton Howard, who collaborated on the music.

Their previous collaboration, on Batman Begins, was similarly disqualified in 2005.

According to the trade, the big issue was the fact that five names were listed as composers on the music cue sheet, the official studio document that specifies every piece of music (along with its duration and copyright owner) in the film.

Zimmer previously said that listing multiple names on the cue sheet was a way of financially rewarding parts of the music team who helped make the overall work successful.

Zimmer, Howard and the other three individuals -- music editor Alex Gibson, ambient music designer Mel Wesson and composer Lorne Balfe -- reportedly signed an affidavit stating that the score was primarily the work of Zimmer and Howard.

That apparently wasn't enough for the majority of the committee, which was also supplied with documentation indicating that more than 60%, but less than 70%, of the score was credited to Zimmer and Howard.

Link

[indy4 155]

But it would have been acceptable to just have JNH and HZ written on the list? That's still two composers, where do they draw the line?

[Nick Parker 3,040]

"Ghost writers", huh? Typical.

[crocodile 7,984]

No matter what's really behind this decision, I have one word to comment on this: good.

Click!

They're about 70 years too late on that one.

Ironically, they decided to do that just after the release of a movie that doesn't use the word "Batman" in its title.

Karol

[Trent B 337]

Now that the article was posted on fsm and was able to read it....that's pretty hilarious. I figured one of these days all that ghost writing that goes on with the RC group would be their down fall.

[Koray Savas 2,251]

What downfall? Hans doesn't care about the Oscars, and even if the score was credited to just 2 composers the Academy would still deem it ineligible. It's one of their stupid rules, if a score has more than just one composer it can't be nominated. But of course, they seem to break this rule whenever they please.

[Romão 2,274]

If they can nominate multiple writers, producers, fx technicians, etc, why not two composers?

[Ollie 1,059]

There are more important Oscars that the Dark Knight deserves to be nominated for.

Score wasn't one of them.

[Romão 2,274]

Yes, I'm sure it will get several more deserving nods.

[Morlock 11]

What downfall? Hans doesn't care about the Oscars, and even if the score was credited to just 2 composers the Academy would still deem it ineligible. It's one of their stupid rules, if a score has more than just one composer it can't be nominated. But of course, they seem to break this rule whenever they please.

The rule has been in place since 1986, I believe, when something like 10 people were nominated for Georges Del...I mean Quincy Jones' The Color Purple. Since then, I believe the only time they broke it was The Last Emperor, which was rather clear cut and transparent as to who wrote what. There are other rules they like to break (like bending over backwards to nominate LoTR:RoTK and Babel, both blatantly in contradiction with the rules) but this one they are pretty consistant. Zimmer's methods simply don't correspond to the classical description of artistic achievment. And frankly, I love a lot of the man's music, but the lack of transparency is one of the most vexing aspects of his career.

[Ollie 1,059]

The rule has been in place since 1986, I believe, when something like 10 people were nominated for Georges Del...I mean Quincy Jones' The Color Purple.

[Hlao-roo 389]

I figured one of these days all that ghost writing that goes on with the RC group would be their down fall.

Indeed, the end is nigh for Zimmer and his ilk.

[Taikomochi 1,136]

What downfall? Hans doesn't care about the Oscars, and even if the score was credited to just 2 composers the Academy would still deem it ineligible. It's one of their stupid rules, if a score has more than just one composer it can't be nominated. But of course, they seem to break this rule whenever they please.

I have to agree with Koray.

You guys see, they were similarly disqualified in '05 for BB. They must have known. They didn't care anyways.

And the fact that there was even enough buzz surrounding the score that this would make news means that the negative opinions of the score on this site must be isolated.

[Red 75]

It is kind of a dumb reason to disqualify it, but I didn't think it was an Oscar-worth score anyway.