extended version hmm! I thought theatric was too long

wasn't the imax version of apollo 13 actually shorter because imax could not accomodate a regular theatrical runtime?

Just back after watching The Dark Knight.
GRITTY!!
RICH!!!!
Surely amongst the best comicbook movies ever!!!

Heath Ledger is fantastic... but it's Heath Ledger who's fantastic, not the Joker character. This villain is no different from the scores of psychopath villains we've seen, though Ledger has portrayed the psychopath very well... but then, it's just the psycho who's been portrayed well... the film did not do justice to the Joker IMO. Nicholsan... now THAT was JOKER!

There's a bit of SHOLAY in THE DARK KNIGHT Those who know the series, would have already guessed

I saw this movie on an IMAX screen and noticed that the aspect ratio would change in the movie. The screen size in the outdoor scenes was bigger than the indoor scenes!

are you sure the AR changed? Or did the picture just become bigger but in the same AR?

confirmed by others it was changed!Affirmative!

i read somewhere that some scenes were actually filmed with an imax camera which is why the aspect ratio would have changed..

Here's a post about TDK IMAX (with images) Forum.Blu-Ray.Com

so imax portions of a 2.35:1 movie are really 16:9 or 1.85:1 -- as such, overall, imax portions have actually a smaller AR!!! So imax is less widescreen, technically, even though there's more picture in it. It's almost the same as full-frame 35mm sholay (eros dvd) versus matted sholay (dei/ultra/carlotta/etc.)

so which one is the director's vision? the images in imax or the images in regular? both can't be!!! and I am sure imax compromises the image composition. see here: http://www.michaeldvd.com.au/Articles/W ... imer2.html
(see "when less is more" -- scroll down to the scene of a man wearing a hat (from "Forever Young")

In this particular case, 'both' the IMAX and the non IMAX portions of the film are the director's vision. This is because the entire shooting of the film both IMAX and non IMAX, was pre-planned and was totally under the direction and supervision of the director.

are the imax shots different from the regular? or exactly the same with just some more picture added on top and bottom?

Depp will be joker of the next Dark knight!

zoran,

I heard the rumour that Depp is to play the Riddler, though somewhere else was saying Guy Pearce. Anyway the way how Dark Knight ended, perfectly sets up the Riddler for the next film.

So I finally saw the Dark Knight a few days back. And I'd have to agree it is the best comic-book movie out there, maybe because it appeals more to adult audiences and has less fantasy that it is being taken more seriously than any other comic-book/superhero movie so far. The only other comic-book related movie I can think of that was taken slightly seriously was "V for Vendetta". But TDK was more like a crime film and touched on more serious and ethical issues than many others. In the bank Heist scene you can clearly see the influence from Michael Mann's "Heat" as well as in the scenes of escalating tension. That first scene was so unlike a comic-book movie, I was wondering if the projectionist had put on the wrong film by accident.

Now most stuff has been already said about the film, so I won't go into that, but people always seem to be comparing Ledger's joker to Nicholson's joker and to be honest I think it really depends on which joker you prefer. Both delivered great performances, but Ledger's joker was like a joker we've never seen before on film and according to a friend who is familar with the comics more true to the character of the joker (in the Dark Knight series), whereas Nicholson's joker is Nicholson with face-paint. If you like Nicholson, you're gonna love his joker. Now as much as I like Jack Nicholson and this his joker was great, I'd have to say I prefered Ledger's joker. It's unlike anything he's played before and whilst being a little unintentionally funny is more sadistic like a real psycho. The joker is not supposed to be making the audience laugh, he's supposed to laugh at anything as he sees everything as a joke. I was told by my friend to read "The Killing joke" graphic novel, where Ledger based his character of the joker upon, so as to see that Ledger's interpretation of the joker has legitimacy. I'm not familar with batman comics but amongst fans it seems that particular graphic novel comes up in discussions on Heath Ledger's role of the joker.

I didn't think the film was too long at all, I didn't notice the time go by so quick and by the end I wanted more. One criticism I have of the film is that 2-face was given limited screen time. With his character there's so much more that can be done and knowing how this film went don't be surprised if he's back. Overall it was a great film. The best of the year and while I believe it should be high in the IMDB top 250, I don't think it deserves it's No.1 position. It is not better than the Godfather 1 or 2 or The Shawshank Redemption, but I'd say it's better than LOTR's trilogy and Star Wars.

I was just wondering how the audiences in India took to The Dark Knight. This film is very dark and gritty so I'm wondering how that went down. My own impression of Indian audiences is that they'd reject the film for not being "happy" enough or lack of comedy, etc. I think Indian audiences would much prefer Joel Schumacher's Batman films, even though those were the two I hate.

joel schu's batman movies were rejected in india too; tdk rules in india too...

morgan freeman's character was a bit like Q of James Bond