The Dark Knight (spoilers)

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

The first part of Sin City was good. I thought it lost steam. 300 was better.

I can agree with that premise.

I enjoyed the three quarters of Dark Knight and the last quarter simply dissembled.

The resolution was too simplistic, not lifelike enough.

The problems with science fiction and comic incarnations is making the suspension of belief both fun and plausible; they don't have to comply with the rules of science, but the premises must be plausible to some degree.

The ferry boat scene was so contrived, and there was no fear that it would happen.

Science fiction does a better job IMHO.

Battlestar Gallactica, not a show I've seen very often, had a wonderful episode I happened upon, where the humans became terrorists against the superior creatures called Silons. It humanized the inhuman response. It made the issue more gray.

Dark Knight has some gifted actors, with some great integration of music, light and some story, but in terms of reaching down into your soul, it fails.

The scene needs to be plausible, but contrived by the Joker, otherwise wonderfully played, fell flat for me.

[MikeWaters]

For me, when Rachel Dawes, the person whom Batman cared about most, blew up, I knew this was a different kind of comic book film.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by Sleeping in EQ

The power and limitations in Western comics are often in their reliance on archetypal characters and narratives.

Sometimes drawing on and then subverting the archetypes can be very revealing.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

Ok, for those of you who think that The Dark Knight does not bring up any important moral issues, let's talk about Munich. Or did that not bring up important moral issues either?

The fall of Michael Corleone may be a better made example than Munich of the point you're making.