"YOU'RE TEARING ME APART BLACKBELT JONES !"
The Spill Movie Community
If it's crap ... We'll tell you
Follow Spill!
Latest Activity
Illegal Swede posted a blog postDesign for PS4 pieced together.
PS4 console pieced together from teaser clipPlayStation 4 has yet to be revealed in its final…See More
The Cocaine Princesses
we are the True descendants of our lord Greedo sent to destroy all those unholy scum that claim to…See More
Music
DEBATE: Did "The Dark Knight" Get Gotham Right?
A stylized interpretation of Gotham, far from Nolan's vision.
In the late 80s, Tim Burton met with legendary comics author Alan Moore to discuss his upcoming Batman movie. Moore had only one piece of advice: "Get Gotham City right."
Looking back at the 1989 Batman, Burton's hyper-stylized, punk Gotham is as colorful as it is decrepit - as much a character in the movie as Batman himself. Burton tapped into an aspect of the Batman universe that Moore was keenly aware of: Gotham City is more than just concrete and glass; it is a personality. Equally rotten as it is salvageable, Gotham is the wayward child in need of Batman's tough love. Gotham - not Rachel Dawes, not Vicki Vale, not anyone else - is who Batman is truly saving.
With The Dark Knight, however, Nolan took the visual look of the city in a drastically different direction. Filming on location in Chicago, the director seemed more interested in eviscerating personality from the city rather than engendering it. Instead of Burton's warped, twisted sets, we are treated to shots of stock skyscrapers and everyday streets.
Burton's brooding Gotham is a far cry from present-day Chicago.
Previously, Gotham had always been a step beyond reality: a city too stylized, too bizarre, too morbidly artful to truly exist. Burton himself described its look "As if Hell came sprouting out of the concrete and kept right on growing." But with Nolan's Gotham we get a blank slate: a cityscape that could stand in, interchangeably, with any American metropolis of our day.
I am not so sure this is an improvement.
Then again, I'm not so sure it isn't.
So, with some distance to the film's release between us, I invite you all to use our limited hindsight to engage in a debate: Did The Dark Knight get Gotham right?
A shot of Gotham from The Dark Knight. Too real?
There are good arguments for both sides. Those who say yes are likely to cite the franchise's newfound realism. By portraying a city that could reasonably stand in for any urban landscape of our day, Nolan brought Gotham down to Earth and the possibility of a psycho supervillain to our front door. There's a certain power to the fact that the city The Joker is terrorizing is, more or less, recognizable as a real city you might live in.
Those who say no are likely to cite the important role Gotham has always played in the franchise as a stylized distortion of reality. Sure, The Dark Knight is super realistic, but the inability to adapt a wacky, dark Gotham to its world may just be due to a lack of imagination. After all, the Joker was brought down to Earth without losing his exaggerated edge. Gotham's personality is an integral part of Batman and losing it is like losing a part of the franchise's soul.
Nolan/Ledger's Joker feels simultaneously real and exaggerated. Could
Gotham have been handled similarly?
These aren't the only arguments, and they probably aren't even the best ones. I'm interested in hearing what you think. But, give some good thought to both sides. In the wake of The Dark Knight's awesomeness, I suspect we all might have a hard time objectively evaluating it.
So tell me: Did The Dark Knight get Gotham right? Or did it sacrifice the city in achieving so much else?
Views: 3071
Comment
-
Comment by Richard on August 6, 2008 at 1:19pm -
I would have liked to see this set in a Dark Deco city, but Chicago is an alright replacement, I did really enjoy the narrows though.
-
Comment by DoctorWitten on August 6, 2008 at 8:59am -
When i think of Gotham city in movies. i always think of tim burton's.
but gotham city aside, i like chicago. it's a nice city.
-
Comment by Señor Chaken on August 6, 2008 at 4:06am -
nolan did it best. TB did a decent adaption to gotham. but the more realistic it is the better feel you have for the story and characters.
plus there was The Narrows in begins, so he didn't completely abandon it.
-
Comment by Luis on August 6, 2008 at 3:09am -
I think both those Gothams are good for their own reasons in their own films. If we switched the two Gothams, put Nolan's Gotham into Burton's film and Burton's Gotham into Nolan's film, I think it would that it wouldn't work. It all depends on the story, characters, and realism to make Gotham the "right" one.
-
Comment by NYMETSFAN2191 on August 5, 2008 at 8:55pm -
nolan wanted the world of batman to feel real but the way gothem was in the comics it felt like it had its own character and thats what burton had personally i think burton made batman like the comics the only thing he missed was that batman doesnt kill and nolan got that right like i say keaton was the best batman but bale was the best wayne
-
Comment by Meier Link on August 5, 2008 at 7:59pm -
No matter what we say everyone is going to have a vision how Batman and his surroundings should be. Even the characters in the comic books had different opinions about Batman. If you have seen Gotham Knight, the kids each told different stories how they see Batman. What we are doing is no different.
People should not bash Tim Burton. He did a good job when he directed Batman & Batman Returns. They are not anything like Batman Forever and Batman & Robin. These two films are utter rubbish. Remember, Mr. Burton did a good job back in the day when CGI was not very visually stunning. Most of his stuff was practical and you got praise him for that.
In all truth and fairness, I prefer The Dark Knight (favorite!), Batman Begins and Tim Burton's version of Batman (Batman Returns & then Batman) in that exact order. Oh yeah, That Kansas boy (Clarke Kent) has nothing on Bruce Wayne. Wayne (alter ego Batman) is a more exciting character.
-
Comment by DeathMetalMike on August 5, 2008 at 7:47pm -
I loved the use of Chicago as part of Gotham City in Nolan's universe because I felt that it was closest to Chicago in landscape, personality and look ... besides I'm sick of every Superhero city either being New York City or LOOKING like New York city
Then again I'm just a fan of realism over fantasy
-
Comment by JAGR on August 5, 2008 at 7:24pm -
I get the reasoning of the real life setting but Nolan did not follow his own creation of the Gotham City in Batman Begins. Maybe he did that to give us that sense of real life danger that is brought to us by Heath's performance of a psychopath. But im with Charlton "Normalman". I was hoping to see more of the Narrows or the train system or something new that could have been brought up. Dont get me wrong, I loved the hell out of TDK but since we are on the subject Gotham should have stayed like it was in BB and not be just Chicago.
-
Comment by Zero on August 5, 2008 at 6:18pm -
Look Mr. Peanut, one is like a cartoon
(1989) batman
and one isn't
(2005)(2008)
Thee End.
-
Comment by Maciek of Poland on August 5, 2008 at 6:16pm -
I prefer Burtons movies, to Nolans films. Burtons Gotham was wonderfull, Nolans Gotham was simply Ok...
© 2013 Created by The Spill Crew.
You need to be a member of The Spill Movie Community to add comments!
Join The Spill Movie Community