For Your Consideration: The Dark Knight

Collector Freaks Forum

Help Support Collector Freaks Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
But didn't the best cut of Bladerunner only recently get released? Surely the oscars could only go on the original theatrical cut which, as I understand it, was ruined by studio meddling? I've never seen Bladerunner in full - like the look of it but could never seem to enjoy the film.

True. There were problems. But even like that it became an instant classic. And so important and relevant that influences the science fiction genre forever. It' s some of these filme everybody has to see before dying. It's a classic. Buy it, rent it or google it. but see it.

Some clarification on the avaiable cuts of the film are here:
https://www.dvdtalk.com/reviews/31757/blade-runner-four-disc-collectors-edition/
 
In all honesty the Dark Knight should be nominated for

Best Picture
Best Director
Best Screenplay
Best Score
Supporting Actor - Ledger
 
Actually Blade Runner did not get any serious recognition until a decade later. When it was first released, it was too way ahead of its time and people just can't accept it. Only when they released it during the 10th anniversary of the movie did it finally got noticed cause by then, audiences have finally caught up with the movie.
 
Was one of those films that gained notice when it came out on video and on TV and became a cult hit.

Don't think it's original advertising helped, the studio billed it as more of an action adventure movie than the slower more introspective film it is.
 
In all honesty the Dark Knight should be nominated for

Best Picture
Best Director
Best Screenplay
Best Score
Supporting Actor - Ledger

And special efects... Two-face sfx is mind blowing if I can say so... IronMan was really great but to me TDK is hands down...
 
..What kind of freak are you? :D

:lol

I loved the movie, but it had a few significant problems with it. First is the length. Second is pacing, some scenes should not bumper each other the way they did. Prime example is when Batman dives off the roof to save Rachel, and they land on the car and cuts away from that entire scene. What happened to Joker and his thugs in Bruce's pad? How did they get out of there?

I think it deserves to be nominated without question, but I don't think its the best of the year.
 
It needed to be tied up a bit better, yeah. Or atleast cut to a different scene than the one they decided to in the editing room..
 
:lol

I loved the movie, but it had a few significant problems with it. First is the length. Second is pacing, some scenes should not bumper each other the way they did. Prime example is when Batman dives off the roof to save Rachel, and they land on the car and cuts away from that entire scene. What happened to Joker and his thugs in Bruce's pad? How did they get out of there?

I think it deserves to be nominated without question, but I don't think its the best of the year.

Speaking of that--there was a weird cut when Gordon was asked about his nickname by Dent and he says "I wouldn't know about that" it just kind of started fading off and then quickly cut to a shot of the city. Or when Batman was going to his Batpod to go get Rachel and they ask him who he's going to get and you can barely tell he says Rachel.

Still think it's a contender for Best Picture though. Haven't seen Benjamin Button yet, but I saw Frost/Nixon and it's better than that.
 
Its obvious he left. Does that really need to be shown?
I agreed. I was talking with my film lecturer about this scene and my argument was the same, after the scene with Rachel below, it doesn't make sense to actually cut to a scene to show the Joker running away just for the sake of doing so. That's unnecessary exposition.

Nolan gives the audience a lot of credit, you guys do not need a redundant scene to tell you the obvious.

Also I was watching the DVD again last night you can actually see Joker running out of the frame when Batman was diving out the window. He immediately left the scene of crime after pushing Rachel out the window.

I have been a fan of Nolan's since Memento and he is a director that will not leave anything unexplained. There will always been an explanation for everything in his movies. We just got to look for it.

An example being Gordan saying Dent killed five people. And for months it bugged me cause I only counted three (Wurtz, Maroni, his driver). Only recently I discovered during the scene when Maroni was entering his limo, at the far left of the frame you see one of his goon being grabbed (and presumably killed by Dent) while Maroni and another guy was entering from the right and for a long time I though that was the driver and then I rememeber, in the states, the driving position is on the left so make's in three person not including Dent in the car instead two.

Another cool scene is when they brought the "dead" Joker to Gambal. While Gambal back was facing Joker they were two of his henchmen next to Joker and it has also always bugged me how come they didn't do anything when Joker suddenly "wakes" up. Turns out, Joker stabbed they both as he was getting up.

Nolan's the man I tell you. He is never a sloppy director. Every single one of his scenes are meticulously planned and executed.
 
Speaking of that--there was a weird cut when Gordon was asked about his nickname by Dent and he says "I wouldn't know about that" it just kind of started fading off and then quickly cut to a shot of the city.

Another odd cut is when Harvey's in the back of the SWAT van and they close the door to cut on the coin in Rachel's hand. But I'm just splitting hairs.

Or when Batman was going to his Batpod to go get Rachel and they ask him who he's going to get and you can barely tell he says Rachel.

Has anyone addressed this? Bats says he's going to get Rachel, so Gordon shouts something about him and his men going after Dent, and then they all show up at exact opposite locations. :confused:
 
Simple explanation. Joker was lying about the locations.

Yeah, that's pretty clear. The Joker was in control of everything all along. He knew that Batman would be able to reach one of them in time and that he would go after Rachel, so he gave him the opposite addresses. There never really was a "choice". The Joker wanted/needed Rachel to die as party of his plans for turning Dent.
 
Yeah, that's pretty clear. The Joker was in control of everything all along. He knew that Batman would be able to reach one of them in time and that he would go after Rachel, so he gave him the opposite addresses. There never really was a "choice". The Joker wanted/needed Rachel to die as party of his plans for turning Dent.

Exactly. He knew Dent loved her, and if he was to show Gotham that the White Knight could be corrupted, dent needed to live. With Batman already establishing a willingness to pur Rachel above all else, he Joker knew what he'd do and screwed with him.
 
The thing is in an odd way, the Joker gave such a massive hint that he'd do it because before that he said he thought for a moment he was Dent "The way he threw himself after her"
 
Back
Top