Batman: The Dark Knight - 2008

slasher13 · Post by **slasher13** » 30 Jul 2007, 08:04

Teaser Trailer up on the net

High Quality (21.2Mb)

Source: Dave's trailer page

thelostdragon · Post by **thelostdragon** » 30 Jul 2007, 11:01

Why do HD trailers lag when I play them? Sound plays fine, but the video works very slowly.

Thanks by the way. The Joker sounds really cool.

thelostdragon · Post by **thelostdragon** » 30 Jul 2007, 11:07

Wow!

http://ibelieveinharveydent.com

EvaUnit02 · Post by **EvaUnit02** » 30 Jul 2007, 11:30

thelostdragon wrote:Why do HD trailers lag when I play them? Sound plays fine, but the video works very slowly.

Reinstall Windows, problem solved. Else build a PC (or get one assembled for you using hand-picked parts) which ain't shit. Only retards whom like being majorly ripped off buy prebuilt ones from the likes of Dell.

thelostdragon · Post by **thelostdragon** » 30 Jul 2007, 12:13

EvaUnit02 wrote:Else build a PC (or get one assembled for you using hand-picked parts) which ain't shit. Only retards whom like being majorly ripped off buy prebuilt ones from the likes of Dell.

My PC is self-built.

Phew... guess I'm no retard then.

EvaUnit02 · Post by **EvaUnit02** » 17 Aug 2007, 05:08

gasteropod · Post by **gasteropod** » 17 Aug 2007, 13:30

WOW! Thanks for that

Yi-Long · Post by **Yi-Long** » 17 Aug 2007, 13:51

Cant say I'm excited. It all looks kinda amateurish.

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 17 Aug 2007, 13:57

You can tell that from some screen captures? It looks ace and I can (hopefully) see 2008 will already be a better year than 2007, which lets face it is easily the worst year for Blockbusters in a very long time.

I'm still not convinced by Heath Ledger in the role of The Joker though. Nicholson was great in the role.

IronMonkey · Post by **IronMonkey** » 17 Aug 2007, 14:00

Amateurish? Those are photographs taken from on the set, not stills from the actual film. The images in the film will be far better than what you see here!

Remember the first film? I hardly think they're going to drop the mood & atmosphere of Batman Begins & go back into the stupidity territory of Batman & Robin. I doubt Warner would even let them! Besides, I have faith in Christopher Nolan & Christian Bale.

This is going to be a great film.

Yi-Long · Post by **Yi-Long** » 17 Aug 2007, 14:40

IronMonkey wrote:Amateurish? Those are photographs taken from on the set, not stills from the actual film. The images in the film will be far better than what you see here!

Remember the first film? I hardly think they're going to drop the mood & atmosphere of Batman Begins & go back into the stupidity territory of Batman & Robin. I doubt Warner would even let them! Besides, I have faith in Christopher Nolan & Christian Bale.

This is going to be a great film.

Aw oki. I was affraid these were actual in-movie screenshots. No wonder it looked amateurish (lightning and such).

I'm also not convinced by the Joker. In the comics the skin is really white, but here it just looks like bad drabby make-up...
Plus a guy in a bat-suit in a real-life setting... it just keeps looking ridiculous. Furthermore I still dont think Baile looks anything like Bruce Wayne from the comics, although I agree he did a good job in Batman Begins.

I dont know... I just feel this kinda movie works better in animation and/or CGI.

EvaUnit02 · Post by **EvaUnit02** » 17 Aug 2007, 14:49

No Batman Live action film has yet to come close to Mask of the Phantasm.

Kevin Conroy and Mark Hamill are still the best Batman and Joker, bar none.

gasteropod · Post by **gasteropod** » 17 Aug 2007, 17:52

Yi-Long wrote:I'm also not convinced by the Joker. In the comics the skin is really white, but here it just looks like bad drabby make-up...

Look at the second pic of him where he's in full outfit and kicking Batman, his face seems to be really white there. I imagine the other pics are later on where his makeup has worn off and stuff.

gasteropod · Post by **gasteropod** » 17 Aug 2007, 18:06

thelostdragon · Post by **thelostdragon** » 17 Aug 2007, 18:48

bradavon wrote:I can (hopefully) see 2008 will already be a better year than 2007, which lets face it is easily the worst year for Blockbusters in a very long time.

Die Hard 4.0
Death Proof
The Simpsons
Rush Hour 3
Rocky Balboa
Transformers

The only really bad blockbuster this year was "Pirates 3".

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 17 Aug 2007, 19:04

Maybe but "average" and "good enough" are not what I expect. I want "excellent" and "great".

From your list I've only seen DH4 and Transformers, DH4 was enjoyable but come on it's on in the same league as DH or DH2. It's so stupid in places. Transformers I also enjoyed.

What happened to the real blockbusters of the 70s and 80s? When it was all about a real story, with real people, with decent scripts. CGI has a hell of a lot to answer for.

Markgway · Post by **Markgway** » 17 Aug 2007, 19:19

Yi-Long wrote:I'm also not convinced by the Joker. In the comics the skin is really white, but here it just looks like bad drabby make-up...

I'm gonna hazard a guess that it is supposed to be "bad drabby make-up". I mean, sometimes a master criminal just doesn't have time to spend in front of the mirror.

Markgway · Post by **Markgway** » 17 Aug 2007, 19:23

The only ones on LD's list I've seen are DH4.0 and Rocky Balboa.

I thought D.H was great fun and Rocky pretty unecessary.

I may still go to see The Simpsons now that the school holidays have ended.

Not sure about Death Proof. Not a fan of exploitation films really. May leave it until DVD and Rush Hour I'll try on DVD (even though it'll suck salty balls).

Transformers I couldn't care less about. My penis has more storytelling ability than Michael Bay.

thelostdragon · Post by **thelostdragon** » 17 Aug 2007, 19:50

Markgway wrote:My penis has more storytelling ability than Michael Bay.

No pictures please. We're not keen on seeing syphilis.

bradavon wrote:What happened to the real blockbusters of the 70s and 80s?

LOL! Welcome to the future.

Yi-Long · Post by **Yi-Long** » 17 Aug 2007, 19:52

Markgway wrote:
Yi-Long wrote:I'm also not convinced by the Joker. In the comics the skin is really white, but here it just looks like bad drabby make-up...
I'm gonna hazard a guess that it is supposed to be "bad drabby make-up". I mean, sometimes a master criminal just doesn't have time to spend in front of the mirror.

Hmmm... but in the comics, the Joker isnt white because of make-up, but because all pigment is somehow sucked from his skin, due to the toxic he fell in...

About the 2007 blockbusters: None of them seem really interesting to me.
I would have gone to Bourne 3, but because of the return of shaky cam, I wont. I'll catch it on DVD some day.
Only movie that looks exciting to me this summer, is Rattaouille.
Also, I'd like The Simpsons, but I'll just wait for the DVD.

As far as 'blockbusters' are concerned, I guess that's all.

gasteropod · Post by **gasteropod** » 17 Aug 2007, 20:00

Yi-Long wrote:Hmmm... but in the comics, the Joker isnt white because of make-up, but because all pigment is somehow sucked from his skin, due to the toxic he fell in...

As far as I'm aware, there is no official story of what happened to the Joker. The chemical thing was used in the first Batman film, but that's just one scenario. If the Joker just applies makeup in the new film, then that is another scenario, and is not wrong.

Killer Meteor · Post by **Killer Meteor** » 17 Aug 2007, 20:06

The Joker's chemical origin was revealed in 1951, about 11 years after his debut. In that story, he is a crook called The Red Hood who escaped from the Batman by swimming though the chemical waste pipes. In The Killing Joke, he has flashbacks in which he is a failed comedian pressed into serving the Red Hood gang.

Markgway · Post by **Markgway** » 17 Aug 2007, 23:56

Yi-Long wrote:Hmmm... but in the comics, the Joker isnt white because of make-up, but because all pigment is somehow sucked from his skin, due to the toxic he fell in...

I'm guessing they've changed that here.

EvaUnit02 · Post by **EvaUnit02** » 18 Aug 2007, 01:29

Ivan Drago wrote:The Joker's chemical origin was revealed in 1951, about 11 years after his debut. In that story, he is a crook called The Red Hood who escaped from the Batman by swimming though the chemical waste pipes. In The Killing Joke, he has flashbacks in which he is a failed comedian pressed into serving the Red Hood gang.

Christ, the origins of DC characters have been retconned so many times, god only knows which is the right tale. As gastropod said, no tale is right or wrong; Batman Begins has it's own continuity anyway.

EvaUnit02 · Post by **EvaUnit02** » 18 Aug 2007, 03:49