That's absolutely a definite yes!Still, at least we'll have Batfleck for years to come, right? Right?
That just seems wrong to say out loud. Where did the time go?It has officially been 10 years since The Dark Knight was released.
https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/h...anged-movie-business-but-at-what-cost-1126942Why is it important? Has it had a profound impact on pulp culture, technology, filmmaking?
I read about half way and it's begging the question. It says The Dark Knight is important because The Dark Knight is important, and then makes a lot of references that it never really ties to the movie.
Into the past, never to be seen again.That just seems wrong to say out loud. Where did the time go?
Seriously? It was the first (non-documentary) Hollywood movie shot even partially in IMAX.Why is it important? Has it had a profound impact on pulp culture, technology, filmmaking?
Yes, I'm very serious.Seriously? It was the first (non-documentary) Hollywood movie shot even partially in IMAX.
It helped usher in a large-format renaissance and rebranded IMAX as more than just a bunch of penguins (no pun intended) and astronauts.
It extended what Batman Begins did by urging people to take superhero movies seriously.
It made Heath Ledger's Joker an icon, arguably more iconic than Nicholson (and that's a tall order).
It made Christopher Nolan a household name... and a trusted one. (If his previous efforts didn't already do that.)
It became the second highest grossing film of all time, behind Titanic, until Avatar surpassed it in early 2010.
Its Best Picture snub forced the Oscars to expand the category to up to ten nominees, in order to honor genre films along with the usual Oscar fare. And this year, The Shape of Water (a genre creature romance from Guillermo del Toro) won Best Picture.
It arguably made movies like Watchmen, Captain America: Winter Soldier and Logan possible.
I read about half way
I'll give you this one. Transformers 2 is no more important than Transformers 67. But The Dark Knight was the first to do it. The first to do anything is important. The Dark Knight was groundbreaking and innovative for that alone.Yes, I'm very serious.
1) Transformers RF which came out a year later was also shot in imax. Does that also make Transformers important? No.
In 2008, digital hadn't kicked into overdrive the way it has since Avatar. A lot of movies were still being shot on film: Iron Man, Hancock, Frost/Nixon, even the Rob Zombie Halloween movies (2007, 2009). The last 70mm feature up to that time was Branagh's Hamlet (1996). Niche or not, there's an audience for large format, 70mm, and IMAX, and for celluloid, period. Enough to keep Kodak in the black. Without The Dark Knight, Michael Bay probably wouldn't have bothered with IMAX. Nor JJ Abrams. PTA probably wouldn't have been allowed to make The Master in 70mm. Who's to say whether Quentin Tarantino's The Hateful Eight would still have been shot in Ultra Panavision, a format last used in 1966?2) You're really reaching and even if that is true, so what? IMAX is still a niche.
You had Donner, Burton, and Raimi, but how many of those were prestigious, cerebral films with major awards buzz? How many of them transcended their genre? The Dark Knight is as much a crime drama (such as Heat) as it is a superhero movie. No less than Ebert said he'd be surprised if TDK didn't get nominated for Best Picture.3) Now you're joking. Raimi's Spiderman led to superhero movies being taken seriously. Without, it's doubtful BB would ever have been made. And Donner's Superman made a significant contribution as well. BB deserves more credit than Dark Knight.
Now, you're just trolling. The Joker, especially in The Dark Knight, is all about chaos, disorder, and anarchy. There's something punk rock about him.4) Meh, the Joker only has cultural significance among Batman nerds.
Trolling. Why don't you try it yourself.5) I bet 99 people out of a hundred on the street couldn't tell you who made DK or what year it came out. I bet if you asked a hundred more to name a C.Nolan movie, less than 80% would get one.
The two are not mutually exclusive.6) That is success, not cultural importance.
https://variety.com/2009/film/awards/oscar-expands-best-pic-noms-to-10-1118005322/7) You'll have to back that up. If true, I'll give you that one since a lot of people believe the Oscars are important.
What I mean is that these films, too, are taken more seriously than, for example, The Avengers, Deadpool, Suicide Squad, or Guardians of the Galaxy. The Dark Knight proved that a superhero movie can transcend the genre and become something more. Like I said, The Dark Knight is a crime drama. Captain America: Winter Soldier is a political thriller. Logan is a gritty drama that deals with mortality. Watchmen, while not necessarily transcending the genre, takes itself seriously and has deep, psychologically complex characters, especially if you've read the graphic novel.8) Marvel's success was due to Spiderman and Iron Man, Nolan had no part in that.
Have you not read anything I wrote? I explained everything quite clearly the first time.I asked how it changed pop culture, technology, or filmmaking.
If I take a bite of a meal and it tastes horrible, do I need to eat it all? No.Surely it makes sense to read the entirety of an article before refuting it?
Read what I wrote, I refuted all of your points except 2, neither of which you supported in your reply. You have confused what you like with what is important. Half your reply was "trolling." It boils down to this .. TDK didn't make a different to technology, culture, or anything else. If it hadn't been made, nothing would be different.I'll give you this one. Transformers 2 is no more important than Transformers 67. But The Dark Knight was the first to do it. The first to do anything is important. The Dark Knight was groundbreaking and innovative for that alone.
In 2008, digital hadn't kicked into overdrive the way it has since Avatar. A lot of movies were still being shot on film: Iron Man, Hancock, Frost/Nixon, even the Rob Zombie Halloween movies (2007, 2009). The last 70mm feature up to that time was Branagh's Hamlet (1996). Niche or not, there's an audience for large format, 70mm, and IMAX, and for celluloid, period. Enough to keep Kodak in the black. Without The Dark Knight, Michael Bay probably wouldn't have bothered with IMAX. Nor JJ Abrams. PTA probably wouldn't have been allowed to make The Master in 70mm. Who's to say whether Quentin Tarantino's The Hateful Eight would still have been shot in Ultra Panavision, a format last used in 1966?
You had Donner, Burton, and Raimi, but how many of those were prestigious, cerebral films with major awards buzz? How many of them transcended their genre? The Dark Knight is as much a crime drama (such as Heat) as it is a superhero movie. No less than Ebert said he'd be surprised if TDK didn't get nominated for Best Picture.
Now, you're just trolling. The Joker, especially in The Dark Knight, is all about chaos, disorder, and anarchy. There's something punk rock about him.
Trolling. Why don't you try it yourself.
The two are not mutually exclusive.
https://variety.com/2009/film/awards/oscar-expands-best-pic-noms-to-10-1118005322/
What I mean is that these films, too, are taken more seriously than, for example, The Avengers, Deadpool, Suicide Squad, or Guardians of the Galaxy. The Dark Knight proved that a superhero movie can transcend the genre and become something more. Like I said, The Dark Knight is a crime drama. Captain America: Winter Soldier is a political thriller. Logan is a gritty drama that deals with mortality. Watchmen, while not necessarily transcending the genre, takes itself seriously and has deep, psychologically complex characters, especially if you've read the graphic novel.
Have you not read anything I wrote? I explained everything quite clearly the first time.