The Dark Knight: unqualified masterpiece

[Terrifel]

@Alessan

You’ve got it exactly backwards.

The quote is from Kill Bill 2 (although it probably showed up before that - Tarantino isn’t one for originality). The point was the Superman was differentv from all other superheores in that his “normal” persona - Clark Kent - was a disguise, with Superman being his true, original self.

Kill Bill 2 was wrong about that, though. Tarantino apparently hasn’t read a comic book since the 1970s.

The modern take on Superman is that Clark Kent is indeed the character’s ‘true self,’ and Superman the facade. His heroism derives from his upbringing, not from his intrinsic Kryptonian nature. Clark Kent appears mild-mannered because that’s how he really is, despite all his powers.

Batman, on the other hand, has allowed his vigilante career to consume his identity as Bruce Wayne. That’s really nothing new though. Bruce Wayne has always been an empty shell in the comics.

[Marley23]

@Terrifel

Kill Bill 2 was wrong about that, though. Tarantino apparently hasn’t read a comic book since the 1970s.

Or rather, the character Bill hasn’t. And I thought that in the movie, the character credited the theory to whoever came up with it.

[FriarTed]

@Terrifel

Kill Bill 2 was wrong about that, though. Tarantino apparently hasn’t read a comic book since the 1970s.

The modern take on Superman is that Clark Kent is indeed the character’s ‘true self,’ and Superman the facade. His heroism derives from his upbringing, not from his intrinsic Kryptonian nature. Clark Kent appears mild-mannered because that’s how he really is, despite all his powers.

Batman, on the other hand, has allowed his vigilante career to consume his identity as Bruce Wayne. That’s really nothing new though. Bruce Wayne has always been an empty shell in the comics.

And that’s the way I heard it. I don’t know from where though. It wasn’t a misremembering from Kill Bill 2.

[NDP]

@Pushkin

For once I know what it means to phone your performance in, Gyllenhaal really didn’t seem like she was all there, made me wonder if they had CGIed the people she was speaking to back in. It was like listening to a really poor kid actress trying her best.

Actually, the problem really wasn’t so much in Maggie Gyllenhaal’s performance but rather with the fact that Rachel Dawes is simply a weak character (especially when compared with the others in the story). She’s just there to be a damsel-in-distress/distracting-love-interest until she’s killed at which point she becomes the causing agent for Dent’s reckless rampage of revenge. In fact, Gyllenhaal did considerably more with the role than Katie Holmes did in the previous film. Now there was someone who really looked like she was “a really poor kid actress trying her best.”