Iron man vs The Dark Knight thoughts

[Surlethe]

The Joker puts Obadiah Stane to shame? How? The Joker is the most cartoonish villain I've seen since Megatron, who was an actual cartoon. At least Obadiah Stane had comprehensible real-world motivations, even though he lost his shit when it became obvious that the house of cards was going to collapse on him (and that's not unheard-of either). The Joker is just evil because he enjoys being evil; since when is that a "deep" character?

I actually thought that Obadiah Stane's motivations were not just comprehensible, but realistic. How many successful big-businessmen would be willing to do what Stane did in order to make the sort of profits he was getting? (Hint: the answer starts with "almost" and ends with "all of them.") Even if Stane lost his marbles at the end and got his hands 'dirty,' his motivations were exactly what everyone knows and hates about Wall Street - one can easily see Stane coughing up bribe money to Indian authorities to cover up Bhopal or playing buddy-buddy with the US Coalition Provisional "Keystone Cops" Authority in Iraq.

[SCRawl]

Heath Ledger's acting was terrible (Jack Nicholson's Joker in the old Tim Burton Batman was much better).

Your taste is in your ass.

I also preferred "Iron Man" to TDK, but not for any one reason. If one were to deconstruct these films, then I think that a sound case could be made for TDK being the better piece of work, but since I'm not a film student I just go by what I like. TDK's plot, to be kind, stretched credulity rather too far for me, but I still find it to be very watchable.

I could go through a point by point discussion of what I like and don't like, but really, who would benefit from that?

[Setzer]

This is from a review I'm writing of Scorpion King 2, but I think it's relevant here:

So many movies try to have an underlying message or a pompous artistic motif or a philosophical statement. The picture itself is considered secondary. The true focus of the writer, director, actors, etc, is in spurring thought about the film. They dream of film critics praising the underlying symbolism of the film, of bookshelves filled with novels analyzing the movie, of film professors holding the picture up as an example of whatever concept it's an example of. They don't even try to hide it.

For example, the Dark Knight is not only a Batman vs Joker brawl. It tries to be a serious examination of the characters, devoting some time to monologuing about the characters, their nature, and their motivations. They do this at the expense of the film proper, stopping whatever is happening so that the characters can discuss the role of Batman in Gotham, or how thin the veneer of civilization is in our society, or how Batman isn't the hero Gotham wants, but the one it needs. While these are all very good observations in a very good film, I think the film ultimately suffers from its attempts to dissect the characters.This sort of thing is done all the time in comics, but the analysis should move along with the plot, rather then stopping it. A process can not be understood by stopping it. Understanding must flow with the process.

For example, in Alan Moore's famous comic The Killing Joke, when the Joker is giving his grand speech on the pointlessness of sanity and how foolish it is to live your life believing in law and order, he's doing it as an added mental torture intended to accomplish his goal of driving Commissioner Gordon insane. It moves with the story, he doesn't drop what he's doing to preach to the audience.

[Sarevok]

I dont give a rats ass about themes and motifs. The point is the Joker and Batman trips the this is impossible sensor. Why is everyone around them acting like idiots ? The Joker and batman are humans right ? Then how do they have the psychic ability to make everyone stupid at a great distance ?

[Havok]

I dont give a rats ass about themes and motifs. The point is the Joker and Batman trips the this is impossible sensor. Why is everyone around them acting like idiots ? The Joker and batman are humans right ? Then how do they have the psychic ability to make everyone stupid at a great distance ?

Yeah. OK, please point out all these instances. I'll let Mike slide saying this without calling him out because I have read what he has said about TDK before. You? I'm not sure you have even watched the fucking movie, so pretty please, with sugar on top, clean the fucking car.

[Marcus Aurelius]

I actually thought that Obadiah Stane's motivations were not just comprehensible, but realistic. How many successful big-businessmen would be willing to do what Stane did in order to make the sort of profits he was getting? (Hint: the answer starts with "almost" and ends with "all of them.")

Exactly and therein lies the problem with the character. Such characters belong to movies like Wall Street, not popcorn fantasy flicks. Admittedly ignoring the genre conventions can often be a good thing, but the very least you should then try to give the character some room to grow, which the Iron Man did not do. So he is just a one-dimensional greedy businessman who just happens to have access to a magic tech combat suit when he snaps and goes berserk. It provides a thin reason for the climactic "boss fight" in the end and that's it.

The ending, by the way, was the worst part of the movie and a good example of following genre conventions to the letter in a definitely non-creative way. I expected a more interesting ending after the first half of the movie. So, while ignoring conventions on a minor point (Stane's motivations), the writers decided to follow them on the major points, which made the minor point irrelevant and not really fitting to the whole.

[Setzer]

The two main examples I can think of are the funeral procession and the mafia meeting. Both are situations with large numbers of very paranoid and heavily armed people on the lookout for threats, and the Joker sneaks up on them anyway.

[offiox]

The TDK Joker reminded me of a Tyler Durden that subsumed his creator, mixed with a kind of activist, anarchist moot.

If he were the charismatic head of a Project Mayhem or Anonymous style grassroots movement or stand alone complex, made up of Gotham's bored and ignored, I can believe that he would have access to the infrastructure needed to kill the commissioner and the judge, to gain access to the penthouse, to arrange things so he could escape if captured, and even to blow up the hospital or the ferries.

But this is not the text we are presented with. Instead any of the Jokers followers we get to see are pathetically broken, mentally. An organisation made up of those kinds of people would not be able to pull this stuff, and if they were just cannon fodder for the Joker, then he would not be able to do it alone. Maybe if they went into too much detail on how the Joker does this stuff, the film would not have been as good, but I would at least have expected that the writers would have tried to work it out.

But still, the influence of Fight Club can be seen. Especially when he assigns homework to the whole city, 'kill the man who knows who Batman is'.


Meanwhile, Iron Man was a fairly standard action film, while I loved the fight scenes and RDJ's portrayal of Stark, franchise-itis made it a bit of a let down for me. The sequel looks like it's shaping up well, though.

[Anguirus]

They do this at the expense of the film proper, stopping whatever is happening so that the characters can discuss the role of Batman in Gotham, or how thin the veneer of civilization is in our society, or how Batman isn't the hero Gotham wants, but the one it needs.

You present some sort of inherent difference between the speechifying of Killing Joke Joker and Dark Knight Joker where none exists. Both characters do things that they can't be reasonably expected to get away with in the real world (in fact, the feats of the Joker in TKJ in switching himself with a paid impersonator in the middle of Arkham, purchasing a large theme park within city limits without anyone noticing, rigging it up into an elaborate audiovisual theater, shooting the police commissioner's daughter and dragging off the police commissioner, etc., are far more out-there than what the TDK Joker is able to accomplish with the full resources of the city mob and while remaining largely unknown to the police and Batman). Both characters loudly proclaim that the only reason for his particular crime spree is to make a particular point, one which he eruditely explains to Batman in-between or during action scenes.

In fact, Alan Moore fully utilizes that odd trait of comic writing wherein characters will have philosophical discussions while trying to kill one another in hand-to-hand combat. At least in the movies, because on a fundamental level they are shot with real people in front of cameras, don't depict this.

For example, in Alan Moore's famous comic The Killing Joke, when the Joker is giving his grand speech on the pointlessness of sanity and how foolish it is to live your life believing in law and order, he's doing it as an added mental torture intended to accomplish his goal of driving Commissioner Gordon insane. It moves with the story, he doesn't drop what he's doing to preach to the audience.

In Christopher Nolan's famous movie The Dark Knight, when the Joker gives his grand speeches (to Batman about killing, and to Two-Face about chaos), he's doing it to directly manipulate the characters into doing what he wants, intending to accomplish his goal of demonstrating the fragility of law and order. See, I can do it too.

About the only time you can say he's just pontificating, it's after Batman's caught him (which is precisely the point at which the TKJ Joker talks to Batman about how their struggle must continue despite its futility), and it certainly qualifies as "added mental torture" given the circumstances. Complain all you want that the Joker's schemes in TDK are convoluted and unrealistic, but he NEVER drops what he is doing.

Bottom line: you have demonstrated no difference between the two incarnations of the Joker on any basis that you bring up.

As for all the questions about his infrastructure, none of you seem to remember that his three most complex schemes were executed with manpower, planning, and material support from the Mob, including the aid of two of the highest-placed cops in the city. All that he did without their aid was plant bombs in weird places, send threatening messages, rob banks, taunt, and knife people. The aforementioned complex schemes were all fully in line with things that the comic book character has done with only his own poorly-explained, ill-defined genius and followers. So perhaps blame should not be laid at Nolan's door for recreating elements of the comic character with a little bit of added plausibility.

[Darth Fanboy]

I know the thread is older, but I hope believe I have a point.

I was actually at the time of TDK's release firmly in the camp of "Iron Man was an amazing movie, but TDK was even better!" I still think that for the simple reason that TDK was more entertaining to me. The Joker/Batman dynamic probably being the tiebreaker.

Then Iron Man 2 comes out.

Now look at the Iron Man movies combined against the two Batman films, I would have to say that the Iron Man movies are overall better. Somehow, and I can't explain it, Iron Man 2 improved my impression the first movie. I don't like TDK any less than when I first saw it, and still list is as one of my favorite movies, but I am not certain that a third Batman movie will be as good whereas another Iron Man film will have me jumping up and down like a kid who just chugged a pot of coffee.

[Guardsman Bass]

"Iron Man 2" makes "Iron Man" look a lot better.

As for all the questions about his infrastructure, none of you seem to remember that his three most complex schemes were executed with manpower, planning, and material support from the Mob, including the aid of two of the highest-placed cops in the city. All that he did without their aid was plant bombs in weird places, send threatening messages, rob banks, taunt, and knife people. The aforementioned complex schemes were all fully in line with things that the comic book character has done with only his own poorly-explained, ill-defined genius and followers. So perhaps blame should not be laid at Nolan's door for recreating elements of the comic character with a little bit of added plausibility.

That's a good point. The movie even mentions the above near the beginning, when Harvey Dent criticizes Gordon for having "scum like Ramirez" and some other guy on his force, and Dent replies that he has to work with the people he's got. Mob contacts, people, and resources play a huge role in making the Joker's schemes happen (he was only able to capture Dent and Rachel because the Mob had Ramirez under their thumb).

One other thing - we don't know how long the Joker was planning and recruiting before the events in TDK. When the movie begins, it starts in mid-scheme, with the Joker robbing a Mob bank for resources and to put additional pressure on the Mob, driving them into his grasp.

I was actually at the time of TDK's release firmly in the camp of "Iron Man was an amazing movie, but TDK was even better!" I still think that for the simple reason that TDK was more entertaining to me. The Joker/Batman dynamic probably being the tiebreaker.

TDK draws me in more than "Iron Man", which is fun to watch but not as emotionally intense.

I always saw them as exact opposites. "Iron Man" is an amusing, tongue-in-cheek movie with all kinds of cool explosions and actions, along with the egotistical Tony Stark main character and the greedy Obadiah Stane guy as the villain. TDK, on the other hand, was a much more grim movie with heavily flawed protagonists and a total psychopath for a main villain.

[Rye]

I know the thread is older, but I hope believe I have a point.

I was actually at the time of TDK's release firmly in the camp of "Iron Man was an amazing movie, but TDK was even better!" I still think that for the simple reason that TDK was more entertaining to me. The Joker/Batman dynamic probably being the tiebreaker.

Then Iron Man 2 comes out.

Now look at the Iron Man movies combined against the two Batman films, I would have to say that the Iron Man movies are overall better.

I've got to disagree there. The first Iron Man, as it involved the origin story, was great. There were all sorts of twists and turns, decent, memorable characters, and Stane was a powerful, understandable villain up until the computer game boss fight where it sort of fizzled. The second Iron Man was a valiant attempt to cover the same ground in a new way, but ultimately wasted the villains, had unnecessary subplots and was generally a mish-mash of cool action scenes desperately searching for a plot to justify them. No mystery, deus ex machina laser whip thing, dull drone fights and an adequately foreshadowed boss fight were dramatically nowhere near TDK, which, as you recall, was a post-origin story movie.

I liked Ivan, he was fun, but there was no moment where he and Tony really clicked with the heroes like the Joker or Two-Face did.

Somehow, and I can't explain it, Iron Man 2 improved my impression the first movie.

Me too, mainly because it wasn't as good as the first film.

[Darth Fanboy]

I don't think Iron Man 2 on its own is as good as TDK by any stretch. However between the two Batman films and the Two Iron Films I think the Iron Man movies combined are better, and are going to continue to be good, whereas I don't have the same optimism for the Batman series. I could be proven wrong and I hope that I am. Maybe it's because I think TDK was so good that it will be hard to top, or maybe it's because I think that the reason TDK was so good is because of HArvey Dent and the Joker, and both of those characters are now out of the picture. Batman Begins was good but didn't thrill me, and I have it in my head that a third Batman movie is going to need a very good villain to be nearly as successful.

I would say the part where Iron Mang 2 did suffer was the fact that there were some spots where the movie was trying to do too much within the time frame. As if they couldn't decide if the movie was going to be more of a sequel to the first film or more of a tie-in with the upcoming Thor/Captain America/Avengers projects.

[Stofsk]

I actually think I agree with you Fanboy. Iron Man 2 made me appreciate Iron Man a lot more. As far as TDK is concerned, I found Heath Ledger to have given a powerful performance in it, especially in comparison to Christian Bale. The problem I have with the Nolan Batman films is Bale as Batman. Bale as Wayne, I think he pulls it off decently. But as Batman? It's the raspy voice he puts on that gets me. It sounds way too forced. In comparison I found Michael Keaton overall better, aside from the physicality of the role.

Where it would go after TDK is anyone's guess. Strangely enough, I wonder whether it might be time to introduce someone like Robin or Huntress. The latter might be a good idea as Gotham gets another vigilante who instead blows away the bad guys out of revenge - which you could show as Batman going right where Huntress went left, since he had the same childhood trauma inflicted on him. Or Barbara Gordon as Batgirl, who gets shot and crippled. Although with Heath dead, who would you get as the Joker?

[Darth Fanboy]

The problem I have with the Nolan Batman films is Bale as Batman. Bale as Wayne, I think he pulls it off decently. But as Batman? It's the raspy voice he puts on that gets me. It sounds way too forced. In comparison I found Michael Keaton overall better, aside from the physicality of the role.

I think Bale is an awesome Bruce Wayne, the voice thing is lame but to me it is far from a dealbreaker, although somekind, any kind of change could be an improvement. I really like the way they have gone with the Wayne character too, where he poses as dumber or more airheaded than he actually is.

Where it would go after TDK is anyone's guess. Strangely enough, I wonder whether it might be time to introduce someone like Robin or Huntress. The latter might be a good idea as Gotham gets another vigilante who instead blows away the bad guys out of revenge - which you could show as Batman going right where Huntress went left, since he had the same childhood trauma inflicted on him. Or Barbara Gordon as Batgirl, who gets shot and crippled.

I don't know, I would hesitate to add too many new characters into the mix, the next film is already going to have a lot of new faces without adding in new heroes. I'd probably go in a direction similar to Batman REturns where Batman is up against someone who has public popularity (not necessairly Penguin, but similar to what Penguin had) but his private persona is far from altruistic. I'd pit that against Batman who is now public enemy #1 in Gotham. Definitely not Barbara Gordon, she is too young as of TDK unless she wasn't the daughter seen on screen and was off at boarding school or something...

Although with Heath dead, who would you get as the Joker?

You don't. You don't use the Joker for a long time, and not ever again unless a suitable replacement is found. Not just because of the immediate problem of duplicating Ledger's performance, but if the Joker gets overused it would be a detriment. HAve the Clown Prince of Crime stay locked up or on the run for a while and a few years down the line when it's time to make a shitload of bank bring in someone who can replicate the role as best as possible for the next Joker film.

[Faqa]

I actually think I agree with you Fanboy. Iron Man 2 made me appreciate Iron Man a lot more. As far as TDK is concerned, I found Heath Ledger to have given a powerful performance in it, especially in comparison to Christian Bale. The problem I have with the Nolan Batman films is Bale as Batman. Bale as Wayne, I think he pulls it off decently. But as Batman? It's the raspy voice he puts on that gets me. It sounds way too forced. In comparison I found Michael Keaton overall better, aside from the physicality of the role.

I've never really gotten the love everyone has for Keaton. In both Batman and Returns he's something of a blank non-entity. He just quietly says his lines and puts on the suit. Add to this the fact that he does not even remotely look like somebody who beats up criminals in his spare time.... yeah, I never liked him. Bale may veer too far in the other direction, but at least he's doing SOMETHING.

Where it would go after TDK is anyone's guess. Strangely enough, I wonder whether it might be time to introduce someone like Robin or Huntress. The latter might be a good idea as Gotham gets another vigilante who instead blows away the bad guys out of revenge - which you could show as Batman going right where Huntress went left, since he had the same childhood trauma inflicted on him. Or Barbara Gordon as Batgirl, who gets shot and crippled. Although with Heath dead, who would you get as the Joker?

I've always thought it would be awesome to have the next villain just blow up Arkham Asylum(and the Joker with him) to solve the issue.

[ray245]

Where it would go after TDK is anyone's guess. Strangely enough, I wonder whether it might be time to introduce someone like Robin or Huntress. The latter might be a good idea as Gotham gets another vigilante who instead blows away the bad guys out of revenge - which you could show as Batman going right where Huntress went left, since he had the same childhood trauma inflicted on him. Or Barbara Gordon as Batgirl, who gets shot and crippled. Although with Heath dead, who would you get as the Joker?

I've always thought it would be awesome to have the next villain just blow up Arkham Asylum(and the Joker with him) to solve the issue.

Or they can have the joker being locked up without any chance of escape?

[Sarevok]

Ironman 2 was not as good as the first Ironman movie. But it is still heaps better than TDK. The biggest problem with Nolans Batman movies is that it is impossible to suspend disbelief. TDKs underlying themes requires a city of mentally ill retards so only a guy in a rubber suit can save them from a clown who is a unstoppable city wide menace. If TDK was a light hearted film I could buy the nonsense plot. But I cant buy a 2 hour long montage of everyone being fucking stupid to make the contrived bat/joker dynamics work as being some great piece of film writing. It offends every sense of disbelief as one impossible sequence of events after another happens; without explanations like honestly admitting the Batman and Joker are actually chaos cultists with telepathy and reality warping powers.

[Ghost Rider]

Ironman 2 was not as good as the first Ironman movie. But it is still heaps better than TDK. The biggest problem with Nolans Batman movies is that it is impossible to suspend disbelief. TDKs underlying themes requires a city of mentally ill retards so only a guy in a rubber suit can save them from a clown who is a unstoppable city wide menace. If TDK was a light hearted film I could buy the nonsense plot. But I cant buy a 2 hour long montage of everyone being fucking stupid to make the contrived bat/joker dynamics work as being some great piece of film writing. It offends every sense of disbelief as one impossible sequence of events after another happens; without explanations like honestly admitting the Batman and Joker are actually chaos cultists with telepathy and reality warping powers.

Behold we have the classic ignorance. If TDk was a light hearted romp...no sweat! That's because he has to gloss his hypocrisy in some way, because everyone will agree Iron Man 1 & 2 were light hearted venues of cinema.

TDK is too hard to suspend disbelief, but a man can build a device that power a suit of armor with bits of weaponry his company builds. Build said armor to have such durability without a smelter of any sort. And of course, let's not forget his glorious tank/slamming/inertia ignoring shock asorbation gel!

In IM2, we have RUSSIAN version of him! Oh and Tony's lifesaver is killing him by introducing a killing element into his blood stream! Oh wait...he just needs an electromagnet. So why is this thing leaking into his blood stream? And oh yeah, just like in IM1 he makes do with a primitive set up to do the impossible...again.

We'll ignore some of the other more insane plot points, because at this point we should admit Tony is not from this universe and can bend reality to his whims, and Vanko's and Stane's only problems were they didn't have Tony's plot armor.

But TDK is too hard to suspend disbelief but Iron Man 1 &2 aren't? Seriously, if you dislike one set of movies, cool. But dressing it up as TDK pushes the envelope too far and comparing it to a movie that may as well go "SUPER SCIENCE!" is just a new level of either ignorance or hypocrisy.

[Darth Fanboy]

Or they can have the joker being locked up without any chance of escape?

Either that or he eventually escapes and is on the lam, or blown up and believed dead but no confirmation. Leave the option open to bring the character back later on.

Or perhaps a Riddler movie where Riddler is using voice recordings of the Joker to lure Batman in.

"Where's the Joker?"

"He was never here!"

*fight ensues, Batman wins*

"Why pretend to be the Joker to lure me in?"

"Because it got you to follow the trail...JUST LIKE HE SAID YOU WOULD." *cue ominous music with a faint echo of laughter*

[ray245]

Or they can have the joker being locked up without any chance of escape?

Either that or he eventually escapes and is on the lam, or blown up and believed dead but no confirmation. Leave the option open to bring the character back later on.

Or perhaps a Riddler movie where Riddler is using voice recordings of the Joker to lure Batman in.

"Where's the Joker?"

"He was never here!"

*fight ensues, Batman wins*

"Why pretend to be the Joker to lure me in?"

"Because it got you to follow the trail...JUST LIKE HE SAID YOU WOULD." *cue ominous music with a faint echo of laughter*

Why do we even have to mention the joker in the sequel?

[Darth Fanboy]

Never said it had to be the sequel there sport.

[ray245]

Never said it had to be the sequel there sport.

Yes, but the point still stands. Why do we have to leave the option to bring the joker back open?

[Ghost Rider]

Never said it had to be the sequel there sport.

Yes, but the point still stands. Why do we have to leave the option to bring the joker back open?

*sigh*

Because Fanboy believes the character is strong enough that with a competent actor to be used again. It is not that hard to follow where his logic leads. There is no need at all, just a desire based upon personal thoughts.

[Rye]

Ironman 2 was not as good as the first Ironman movie. But it is still heaps better than TDK.

We'll have to agree to disagree on that one.

The biggest problem with Nolans Batman movies is that it is impossible to suspend disbelief.

IM had a man build something out of missile parts that is better than every prosthetic and power generation company in the history of the Earth. IM2 had the same man build not only a mini-CERN, but an entirely new element with stuff from his home. Suspending disbelief isn't really co-defined by how "serious" a work is. Swashbuckling in Pirates of the Caribbean 3 was crappier than the seriousness in Dark City, for instance.

TDKs underlying themes requires a city of mentally ill retards so only a guy in a rubber suit can save them from a clown who is a unstoppable city wide menace.

Uh no, actually, TDK's underlying themes requires a city of people who don't stand up to do the right thing or do the wrong thing out of human nature.

If TDK was a light hearted film I could buy the nonsense plot.

What part didn't make sense? I can't think of a scene in TDK that made less sense than, say, a man walking into a Monaco GP track to attack Tony Stark with electric whips. If you're a super-engineer with access to the pits and you want to take out Tony Stark (how did Vanko know Stark was going to race, btw? It looked like a last minute change by how surprised everyone else was), why not just sabotage his car?

It offends every sense of disbelief as one impossible sequence of events after another happens; without explanations like honestly admitting the Batman and Joker are actually chaos cultists with telepathy and reality warping powers.

Be careful you don't get hit by the walls of your house with that selective blindness.