I'm sure a number of people have read what MDS had to say about his opinion of the movie, and some of the users have responded in kind. I was going to, but I only got around to it recently and I want everyone to read what was said on both ends and decide for themselves.
Okay, here goes...
Okay, so... let's go for another round.
This time I've left off the two points that I conceded..
Gordon should have been looking the other way, and Freeman needed more time to flesh the character out some more. But, let's go ahead and look at the remaining topics that I have, because so far no one seems willing or able to convince me that I'm wrong on these topics. I'll even be nice and remove all the fanboy reverences, and fanboy slams and just present my points for consideration on The Dark Knight film itself. I'll bring up the fanboy problems later on and in a slightly different format.
While the film is an enjoyable film, it's still not the greatest movie filmed. Sure, it might be the biggest money-maker movie, and sure it's going to be popular with people for various reasons. However, I still find the following flaws that prevent me from saying it's the greatest movie ever.
I'm still having an issue with the director choices that Nolan made in regard to the action scenes. While some of you believe they were great (or good), I found them to be lackluster because they never clearly showed how wonderful the Batman Character is at fighting. I'll provide a clear cut example on this one.....
In the party-crashing scene, there is a fight between Batman and the Joker's Henchmen. Well, sorry to say that I find this fight as poorly filmed. There's one brief second where we cut from the Joker scrambling and grabbing Rachel, to a fast cut to Batman that LOOKS like he's barely touch a Henchman the goes down. Another Henchman is 'flipped' by Batman and somehow or another this is enough to completely remove that Henchman from the fight, and somehow remove him from the floor because he's not there for the remaining footage of the party. Sorry, but just 'flipping' a guy isn't enough to make him disappear, NOR is it enough to cause someone to not try to get back into the fight. The action scenes were poorly handled, or poorly edited. Every director has his/her strong points and weak points. In Nolan's case, his weak point of directing is action scenes.
(Poor directing choices for fight scenes)
Point #1 isn't even a point. It's an opinion, and since I'm of the opinion that there is no such thing as a single "greatest movie ever made" I agree. That said, I don't see any point to singling this out as something to discuss. Your 2nd point is easily contested though. One, this isn't the kind of movie that features the type of fight scene that should be shot any other way than how they are presented here. They are not confusing or disorienting thus making them effective. As for the flip, this is some poor nitpicking on your part. The maneuver used is accompanied by a cracking sound effect thus allowing us to know that it wasn't a simple flip. Batman broke a bone on that guy. He's out of the fight. You're already off to a bad start. Two, your opinion is valid. I have to ask since you disapprove of the way the fight scenes were shot if you have an idea of how you would do it though. It's only fair as you can't simply make such a statement without pointing to how it could be corrected. And since the example you gave was not only misinformed but had nothing to do with directing (no seriously, your complaint here is a choreography issue and that's not Nolan's job), this leaves you at square-one.
The script is filled with examples of people telling you what you've just seen, or will see. It never allows the characters actions to tell the story. Another example to prove the point....
The part where Joker is finally captured, and he's going on and on about how Batman will not kill him because of some "Misplaced sense of self-righteousness, and I won't kill you because you are so much fun". Well, hell's bells we've alone sat through an entire MOVIE of Batman's self-righteous rules regarding killing and not killing, as well as
an entire MOVIE watching the Joker not killing Batman. So, I ask you... why do the writers feel a need for the character to VERBALLY sum up the movie we've just WATCHED to that point?
(Poor scripting of telling us verbally of what we see)
If you haven't noticed yet, I'm taking these point-by-point. Unfortunately, your 3rd point is more bullshit. If you want to make it valid, then you'd better come up with a better example than the one you used here. This portion of The Joker's line was meant to illustrate his take on the relationship that he and Batman now have. It's coming from a character that is new to this reality in a sense. He doesn't know a single thing about Batman and vice versa, so his saying that is not stating the obvious. If anything it points to the character's intelligence and depth of thought, but it's more than that as you conveniently left out the rest of the line to suit your needs (something that I personally don't respect in a debate of any kind). He adds "I think you and I are destined to do this forever." That sentence alone carries a lot of weight, but coupling it with the previous sentence makes the entire line very poignant. You're 0 for 3 at this point in my book...
I'm still not sure why it seems that no one is capable of explaining the whole 'bullet fragment' scene to me where it makes sense. Pointing out the clearly obvious part of fingerprints are never found on the 'slug' of a bullet but on the bullet casing itself. Nor has anyone been able to explain why the SWAT team feels a need to tie themselves to each other.
(Poor logical approaches to "crime fighting" techniques)
Point 4 is nitpicky too, but also may point to your determination to find something wrong with this movie. One person in the last discussion tried to explain it to you, and the truth is it never came across as a matter that requires much scrutiny. A fingerprint could wind up just about anywhere on a bullet since there is no telling where someone might place their finger or thumb while loading. So that's not a very valid argument if that's your only complaint. Your comment about the SWAT team doesn't really make sense at all. Could you be a little more clear on what you mean?
Heath Ledger. I'll be willing to concede this point as purely personal opinion. But, I'm sorry I still don't think that his performance as the Joker was 'better' than Oldman's performance of Gordon, or anyone else's. I think that the writers finally got the psychopathic aspects of the Joker properly done. He's not a 'clown', he's instead someone that has no sense of moral or ethical guidelines that is able to laugh at society, and laugh at breaking the social rules regarding several views. However, Ledger himself wasn't that 'great' of an actor, because it's not that difficult to be filmed as a 'psychopath' in movies. Look at the long line of 'crazy' or 'insane' psychopaths on film and you'll find a long list of actors that did as well.
( Overrated actor)
Now your 5th point is just plain fuckin' stupid. There's no comparison to be found between Ledger and Oldman's performances. What criteria would you apply considering that their characters are nothing alike? And why are you trying to make comparisons in the first place? None of the roles in this movie are truly comparable to one another, so your comparison between Ledger and Eckhart later on can fuck right off. As for your claim that Ledger wasn't a great actor, this points to two possibilities. You either aren't familiar with his body of work at all, or you really don't know shit about acting. Based on your last couple of sentences I'm leaning towards the latter. You're entitled to your opinion, but that doesn't mean an opinion can't be wrong...
Aaron Eckhart has become almost a side note in The Dark Knight. With a character that goes through as much change in a movie that Harvey Dent was forced to go through, you would assume that people would want to praise an actor for being able to go through that change convincingly. Instead, whenever The Dark Knight is mentioned, it seems that no one is willing to properly congratulate how well Eckhart did. Instead, they want to stick with Ledger's performance as the 'Best' performance of the movie. Yet, The Joker never changed as a character where Dent did. Sorry, I'm fully aware of the desire for people to praise Ledger, but when an actor has to change both physically and emotionally in a single film, he (or she) will be the better actor when it's done convincingly as Eckhart was.
Point #6 has nothing to do with the film. That's an issue you have with public reception, and there's only one response to that. So the fuck what? As long as you know that Eckhart's performance was a solid one, what does it matter that others don't appreciate it as much right now. As time progresses, I assure you that he'll get the recognition that he deserves for this film. So out of your "6 points of conflict", only 3 actually have anything to do with the movie. But what unmakes your position completely is that those 3 "points" are a mishmash of misguided bullshit.
Now, those are the 6 points of 'conflict' that I have regarding the Dark Knight movie. While points 5 and 6 are mostly personal opinion-based points, no one has yet been able to convince me to at least reexamine them. It's all been a matter of "Drinking the Kool-aid" and "Follow the crowd". When you can present a reasonable arguement regarding WHY I should look at these two performances again, I will do so.
Let's move onto the aspects that the fanboys have caused. While these have nothing to do with the actual film, it does have to be mentioned because it's the aspects that prevent me from being able to join in the 'fun' of discussing the movie with people.
The endless rumors and endless desires to start casting Batman 3. While it's still NOT even been signed on by anyone, it's just assumed to be granted a sequel, there is this overwhelming desire to pick people for roles. We've seen it range from Catwoman, The Riddler, and the Penguin all the way to Mr Freeze and Bane. However, I'm sorry but I can't enjoy (or even partake) in a conversation about "who-should be in ...... movie" when there is no official word that the "....... movie" is even going to happen. Until it's announced that Batman 3 will be started, and these are the Characters the story is about, only THEN will speculation regarding who will be cast be worth any energy.
The endless attempts to bring in Plot-lines or characters that will obviously NOT work with Nolan's version of Batman is also an aspect of the Fanboys that I dislike. Why would you ever assume that someone like Bane (Who gets his 'super strength' from a mythical formula of chemicals) would ever really appear to be anything other than a "Roid-Rage filled weight lifter" in Nolan's reality-based movies? How can people assume that gun-packing, crime-organizations will be willing to take orders from a 'puppet' (Scarface) when it's more likely he would have been shot and killed LONG before he became a 'mad-man'? I'm sure that whatever they opt to do for the 3rd movie will have something more believable than what the fanboys are pushing for. However, with things being mentioned as far as Plot-lines and Characters, it seems to be more out of 'fantasy' than what will be logical.
Combining the Character, the Plot, and the Casting of Batman 3 being more of the 'discussion' than The Dark Knight with people..... why does it feel that people are no longer interested in The Dark Knight? Instead of actually taking the time to enjoy the fact that a HIGHLY successful movie isn't even a year old yet, it was rather disrespectful to start assuming which characters and which plot would be used for a 3rd movie when the SECOND movie was still BEING SHOWN IN THE THEATERS. What the hell people? How can you actually take time to ENJOY The Dark Knight's success as a film, when you are trying to shift focus on a movie that isn't going to be able to be released until at least 3-5yrs from now? That's almost like asking to marry someone on the first date, it just doesn't make sense at all.
The assumption from people that the Popularity and money-making ability of The Dark Knight should be enough to silence anyone that has a problem with the movie. I'm sorry, but please point to actual examples of how something is good and not just it's popularity. Norbit made money, it wasn't good. Britney Spears is popular, but not good. Paul Blart is making money and currently popular, but it's not good. Meet the Spartans made money, but it wasn't good. Popularity ALONE is never reason to attempt to silence people that have problems with something. Money-making ability should never be 'justification' to silence critical analysis of a property. If that was enough, then Wal-Mart would never be criticized for anything ever again.
The fanboy reaction to the Oscars. Well? Can you please tell me a SINGLE year that the Oscar Nominations didn't piss SOMEONE off because some movie was either left off the list, or another movie was nominated for an award that people felt was unjustified? I'm sorry, but the Oscars are nominated by people inside the industry, and are generally for the industry to pat themselves on the back. I'm sure that EVERYONE can name at least 5 movies off the top of their head that is loved (or highly enjoyed) that either wasn't nominated at all, or lost a nomination. It's nothing to get worked up about, and nothing at all to hold personally against the Academy. So, why the outrage about The Dark Knight/Nolan not getting nominated? Why the clear case of using the Ledger Nomination as 'justified' feelings? It's something that the Industry gives to people inside the Industry. If you really enjoyed a movie, and can mention it to 5 friends to watch, that's the best praise of any sort you can give a movie. When it's so well loved that people automatically have to mention it to other people and make THOSE people watch it so they can spread the enjoyment to OTHER people, that's the enjoyment of movies. People who solely work for Oscars are never going to be as well loved as people that are working solely to entertain the audience.
These 5 aspects from the Fanboys of The Dark Knight have been enough to make me dislike the Fanboys the most. I have other issues with Fanboys as well, but these 5 are the biggest ones, or at least the most vocal ones. While I'm sure that these 5 aspects can be resolved over time, they will forever leave a bad impression on me of anyone who claims to be a "Fan" of The Dark Knight.
As for your "aspects" related to the fans, I don't fucking care. The only thing wrong with any of this is you. You seem to take offense to other people enjoying themselves. Your first "point" was based on how much other people like the movie which is why there really is no point there. You bitch about how other people reacted to the performances in this movie. Your entire argument is based around some pseudo-counterculture bullshit that has nothing to do with the actual merits of the film. The one point you tried to make that was related to the movie was a reach at best, and extremely vague at worst. Even if it were valid, could you really discredit an entire film for one inconsequential segment? The arguments presented are piss-poor and quite frankly, anyone that agrees with them is full of shit.