Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull vs. The Dark Knight

[Koray Savas 2,251]

Uhh, was Batman ever a cultural phenomenon? Burton made a couple of eh films. Schumacher made a couple of sh!t films. Nolan made a couple of fantastic films.

[Quintus 5,399]

I think he was referring to the character himself, who certainly is.

[Koray Savas 2,251]

Yes, I agree there, but it seems like he's talking about the films. He says if Batman was introduced by Nolan, he wouldn't be a cultural phenomenon. If he's talking about the comics, why is Nolan involved in that?

[Quintus 5,399]

Well he does say "Batman would never be a cultural phenomenon if he'd been introduced..."

[Koray Savas 2,251]

So, if Nolan created the Batman comic series, it wouldn't be cultural a phenomenon?

[Quintus 5,399]

I'm not saying I agree with Jeshopk, I was just clarifying his meaning, I think.

I'm not about to speculate on his remark, since nobody could possibly know the answer.

[Bryant Burnette 654]

Batman would never be a cultural phenomenon if he'd been introduced to us by Nolan.

An excellent example of why your opinions seem way off-base to me.

Why should we expect Nolan's movie(s) to be more an introduction to the character of Batman than a refinement of that character? Nolan's Batman builds on the versions that came before him, in the sense that many of us bring our own ideas about the character to the movie when we watch it. You can't divorce that from the experience, because it's part of the experience.

Also, I'm not at all sure that your statement is even correct. Say what you want to, the public has responded to Nolan's Batman movies so far. The tendency with The Dark Knight seems to be to assume that the only reason people flipped is because of Heath Ledger/the Joker, but that's a flawed theory. In this movie, the Joker is always only about provoking Batman. His character exists only to further refine and develop Batman himself. Therefore, the whole movie is about Batman. It's a character piece. And you can't say that people responded to the movie without responding to it on that level. Some of them may not know that's how they responded, but it doesn't make it any less true.

Uhh, was Batman ever a cultural phenomenon? Burton made a couple of eh films. Schumacher made a couple of sh!t films. Nolan made a couple of fantastic films.

You weren't around for the first Burton movie, I guess.

Yes, it was definitely a cultural phenomenon.

[indy4 155]

Batman was a cultural phenomenon before the Burton films.

[Red 75]

In this movie, the Joker is always only about provoking Batman. His character exists only to further refine and develop Batman himself. Therefore, the whole movie is about Batman. It's a character piece. And you can't say that people responded to the movie without responding to it on that level. Some of them may not know that's how they responded, but it doesn't make it any less true.

A better argument would be to say that TDK is really about Harvey Dent.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

The Dark Knight is about all of us!

[Bryant Burnette 654]

In this movie, the Joker is always only about provoking Batman. His character exists only to further refine and develop Batman himself. Therefore, the whole movie is about Batman. It's a character piece. And you can't say that people responded to the movie without responding to it on that level. Some of them may not know that's how they responded, but it doesn't make it any less true.

A better argument would be to say that TDK is really about Harvey Dent.

I would if that were true.

It isn't.

[Red 75]

His character arc is really the backbone of the film though, and out of all the major characters he is the most dynamic (as opposed to Batman and Joker, who are mostly unchanging).

[Bryant Burnette 654]

His character arc is really the backbone of the film though, and out of all the major characters he is the most dynamic (as opposed to Batman and Joker, who are mostly unchanging).

In the same way that the Joker exists in the movie merely to further define and motivate the character of Bruce Wayne/Batman, so does Harvey Dent. He just represents the opposite end of the spectrum, promising the bring light and order where the Joker proimses to bring dark and chaos. Batman represents the reality of life, which is that those two ends of the spectrum have to be negotiated and compromise found between them.

Psychologically, this movie is entirely -- and only -- about Batman. The other characters are mere devices that allow for exploration of Batman. In the case of Harvey Dent and the Joker, they are extremely well-drawn and well-performed devices, but they're still just devices. Saying that either of them is what the movie is really about is an excellent case of having missed the point entirely.

[Quintus 5,399]

Dent is certainly the moral backbone though, but the film is really about this poor guy: