|
 |
A Lost Scene from “The Dark Knight”25 Replies to “A Lost Scene from “The Dark Knight””Commenting at Satellite News
We are determined to encourage thoughtful discussion, so please be respectful to others. We also provide an "Ignore" button ( Comments are closed. |
|
Satellite News is a fan site for the Mystery Science Theater 3000 television and Netflix series. It is an independent publication written and compiled by Chris Cornell (msampo@aol.com) and Brian Henry (erhardt4@aol.com). Satellite of Love, LLC does not maintain this web site, nor is it responsible for this site's content.
All content posted on Satellite News is copyright © 2024 by Chris Cornell and Brian Henry, except where otherwise noted. This Date in MSTory is written and compiled by Steve Finley, Chris Cornell and Brian Henry. Copyright © 2024 All rights reserved. Please do not reproduce This Date in MSTory items in any form without express written permission from the authors. Items of MST3K news may be duplicated or reposted, as long as Satellite News is cited as the source. The views and opinions expressed herein are not necessarily those of Satellite of Love, LLC. No warranty is expressed or implied that the information given herein is completely accurate, and in fact this information can and will change at any time. So there. Mystery Science Theater 3000, its characters and situations are copyrights and trademarks of Satellite of Love, LLC. Banner image created by Larry Lee Moniz. |
|
) to help our users cope with "trolls" and other commenters whom they find annoying. Go to our
Better get used to Kevin’s Batman voice. I expect you’ll be hearing all throughout the Rifftrax. Personally, i think this skit goes on about a minute too long. Bill got the only real laugh from me.
^^^
Ditto, Bill as Alfred gave me a chuckle (not to mention a humorous mental image of Crow in a ‘lil butler vest). The rest….yawn. Too dry and too long as you said.
Kevin sounded like the Cookie Monster as Batman.
Agreed. Bill was great with all those pseudo British phrases and Kevin sounded like Regan from The Exorcist.
Personally, I thought it was really funny. I’m one of the six people in the developed world who hasn’t seen “The Dark Knight” yet, but considering how downbeat the movie reportedly is, I think I’ll wait for the Rifftrax to supplement my initial viewing.
I don’t think I’ll have to get used to Kevin’s Batman voice because I won’t be watching The Dark Knight Rifftrax anytime soon (and most likely anytime at all).
As for this sketch all I can say is… I miss MST3000, and am very glad for CT. Not even Bill helped this sketch. And I understand that they want to do movies like The Dark Knights because it is going to sell a bajillion DVDs, and that’s a lot of potential Rifftrax orders to be had, but the whole pretending that the movie isn’t good (which is evident in the horrendous Disembaudio intro and outros that mock the film) comes off as a little disingenuous, and also a bit arrogant. If they are going to play the role of not liking any of the movies they riff then they can’t go around picking good movies just because more people will order those Rifftrax. They can only pick genuinely bad movies. But if they are going to try to take advantage of the high DVD sales of some good movies like The Dark Knight, then they should drop that act, and just do a respectful, good natured ribbing style Rifftrax for it. And if they seriously think The Dark Knight is a bad movie worthy of riffing then I have to question their tastes.
Honestly I still like Bill, Mike, and Kevin a lot, but things like this sketch, and almost any Rifftrax other than the shorts do nothing for me.
I tend to agree with moonshot. The dark night is actually a good movie and heath ledger’s [spelling?] performance is why the oscar award was invented. Rifftrax jusy doesn’t do it for me, sorry.
I’m holding out for Meet Dave. Mike, Kevin, and Bill would have a field day with it (and it would be especially ironic since Bill wrote the original screenplay).
Skit was forced and too long. Trying to picture Bill as Michael Caine. “The child was playing with a ruby the size of a tangerine”.
Sorry guys, but DK is too much of a angry, depressing film to make fun of. For a dark movie to riff, try “The Chronicals of Riddick”, now that was a ridiculous movie.
See, here’s the thing: not everyone *does* think this is a good movie. (I’ve never seen it, so I can’t say one way or another.) That’s the subjective nature of art. Just as some of you think that Rifftrax is bad art, there are many who think this (or any other movie they make a Rifftrax for) is bad art. If you think it was a good movie, then you don’t have to buy the Rifftrax, but I think to say that they should only do Rifftrax for movies that YOU think are bad is sort of silly.
Also, I’m not sure that I agree with only riffing “bad” (whatever that means) movies. Even “good” movies have the potential to be laughed at. For example, I liked the Lord of the Rings movies, but I also like watching them with riffs. I think it’s a good thing to be able to see the humor in any movie, and not take it so seriously. Maybe I just have an overdeveloped sense of the absurd, but I think that *any* movie can stand to have fun poked at it, even ones that I treasure.
I am just Glad that in some form, The issue was finally adressed of Batmans fake growly voice. It was so fake through the whole movie- Batman can have a deep voice but not a hormone imbalanced one :lol:
“They can only pick genuinely bad movies.”
No no. *Clearly* bad. *Obviously* bad. Not “genuinely” bad – that’s too subjective. What I’m getting at is that we have to acknowledge the need to distinguish between horrendous movies and movies that are merely unpopular.
As was mentioned, the subjectivity here is a major issue. Some movies are so universally reviled that they’re safe to just call “bad,” but for everything else there will always be mixed opinions – some unpopular movies will have their hardcore fans, and some widely enjoyed movies will have their perpetual detractors. Subjectivity cannot be escaped here because there’s no agreed-upon standard, no unequivocal convention of what does and does not constitute a good film.
Granted, the vicious-mockery style could easily be toned down for those films that are generally held to be well-made without losing the ability to riff the film itself. Brutal sarcasm is a fun element to have for films that are mostly disrespected, but it’s not vital for humor purposes. And it might be good marketing strategy to appeal more broadly to *both* those who loved and who hated the movie, not just those who hated it.
That being said, it is ultimately up to the consumer to decide what they watch. I know of movies that I enjoy too much to stand watching them riffed in that fashion. I also know of ones that I can enjoy while also enjoying the riffing. And of ones that I’d never sit through without some sort of riff-treatment. RiffTrax covers such a diversity of films that I can avoid the ones that would be uncomfortable and still have plenty of options.
And that’s why I encourage the RiffTrax team to keep doing all sorts of movies – big-budget, no-budget, popular, unpopular, “good” and “bad.”
Well, if all the doors are open to movie riffing, i’d just love to see them do Taxi Driver or Salo: 120 of Sodom. Or maybe Cannibal Holocaust. :roll:
Personally, I think making fun of the goofy Christian Bale voice never gets old. Mike could really have gone on for twenty minutes with inventive descriptions of just how absurd that voice was, and I’d laugh for the full twenty minutes.
“Gargled with pottery shards instead of water.” Perfect.
“Well, if all the doors are open to movie riffing, i’d just love to see them do Taxi Driver or Salo: 120 of Sodom. Or maybe Cannibal Holocaust.”
Ahem.
“keep doing all *SORTS* of movies”
As in, a wide variety. Not literally any film selected at random.
Obviously they’re not going to riff Schindler’s List or what have you – or porn, for that matter – but that’s because of the *content* of those films, not the quality. Subjectively percieved “quality” is not a good criterion for determining whether a film should or should not be riffed. People’s reaction to content (too grave, too offensive, whatever), however, is – especially in regards to marketing.
As I said, not budget nor popularity nor “quality” should get in the way of determining RiffTrax titles. Avoiding potentially offensive or otherwise undesirable content, on the other hand . . . that’s just smart business practice.
Oh yes Raptorial Talon. What an idiot I am for using the word “genuinely” instead of the even more vague and subjective words “clearly” or “obviously”. It now seems so “obvious” to me that when something is “clearly” bad, or “obviously” bad that it is absolutely LUDICROUS to imply that it is “genuinely” bad. I mean “clearly” and “obviously” bad are absolute facts, and not at all debatable based on any individual opinion, but “genuinely” bad, well only a fool could ever hope to find two people who could agree on such a preposterous claim.
Sarcasm aside in my opinion your idea that it’s okay for anything to be riffed because quality is completely subjective is “genuinely” wrong. By those standards we shouldn’t have anything like awards or even art museums. I mean, who is to say that any work of art is worthy of respect, since obviously there will never be a unanimous declaration across the whole of the human race as to the quality or value on any art? The great and cantankerous Harlan Ellison once said something on the matter that is dead on correct. I’m paraphrasing (and the emphasis is mine) but what he basically said was, “Not everyone is entitled to express their own opinion, they are entitled to express their own INFORMED opinion”. I myself listen to a lot of music, and I know about the stuff I like, but I’m not a huge music historian or anything, and I don’t know much about actually making music either. And I absolutely can’t stand listening to Blues music. But if my cousin, who is an outstanding and well known Blues guitarist, told me that some Blues music I probably wouldn’t enjoy is actually incredibly good I would definitely respect that opinion, because it is coming from someone who knows what he is talking about on the subject, and FAR more about blues music than I ever will. The overwhelming consensus on The Dark Knight by people who actually know a lot about film in general is that it is an exceptionally good film. So forgive me if I don’t respect the “opinions” of every single person out there, including those of whom’s favorite movie was whatever last Saw movie they went to, and those who have absolutely no interest in ever watching a movie that is more than twenty years old, or in black and white, or GHASP that you might actually have to read subtitles to understand! Yes some people didn’t like The Dark Knight, and until they can bring some real reasons forward I will happily say that their ilconsidered opinion is wrong. Petulent whining like “It was too long” or “I didn’t like Batman’s voice” doesn’t cut it.
And as for the idea that quality doesn’t matter, and even “good” movies can be riffed, well that is equally as wrong in my opinon. It throws away the very foundations of what made MST3000 so brilliant. Riffing only really means anything when it is taking trash and turning it into gold. Trash as in movies with little to no redeeming value, that most people could not seriously enjoy as a work of film art on their own. MST3000 focused on those types of films. So did The Film Crew, and so does CT. But with Rifftrax they seem to have given in to the lure of making more money off of movies that sell a lot of DVD copies, rather than making good riffing comedy out of movies that actually deserve to be riffed, but might not sell as many copies (i.e. less people who might buy the Rifftrax for it). I’ve seen a couple of Rifftrax for movies I enjoy (mainly because they were a few of the only movies they’ve done that I own on DVD, and so those were the ones I tried), and I didn’t enjoy them. And it wasn’t because of the quality of the writing. Yes I chuckled here or there, but no matter how funny some of the riffs COULD have been had I had less respect for the film, I actually enjoyed watching the movies themselves FAR more, and after about five minutes felt like just turning the annoying Rifftrax off and watching the movie (I didn’t do that in the hope that I would enjoy it more as it went, which is a testament to how much I like Mike Kevin and Bill, and how much I WANTED to like the Rifftrax). And that is the exact opposite of what makes MST3000, Film Crew, Cinematic Titanic, and the Rifftrax Shorts work so well. I would never dream of turning the riffing off while watching those movies. But when the riffing gets in the way of watching a good film to me it becomes pointless. Remember when MST was on TV, and the easiest way to describe it was to say “that show where they make fun of BAD movies”? Remember how the ENTIRE SERIES was focused on the idea that Joel, Mike and the bots were being forced to watch “BAD” movies that they didn’t like watching? It was the entire point of the show. Yes it could be said “well Rifftrax is not MST3000”, and I would agree with that. And that is the problem. Rifftrax is pushed as if it’s “like” MST3000, but for the most part (Rifftrax Shorts aside) it has lost the main ingredient that kept MST3000 going strong for so long (even after it’s “death”). Making fun of BAD movies.
Cronkite, the point I was making was that I feel that it’s a bad thing for us to take ourselves (and our opinions) so seriously that we cannot consider things from a different perspective.
Clearly, you disagree.
Ummmm…Cronkite Moonshot, you seem to have put WAY too much thought into this whole Rifftrax film selection thing. Do you really care that much about which films Rifftrax skewers? Unless you have a financial stake in either Rifftrax or their targeted film, I don’t see a reason to get that worked up???
I thought Cronkite Moonshot stated quite perfectly the thing that always bothered me about Rifftrax but I couldn’t quite pin down. Thank you.
I don’t think we should belittle him for putting some thought into something he truly cares about. If he didn’t care, it wouldn’t bother him and he wouldn’t have written about it.
“Unless you have a financial stake in either Rifftrax or their targeted film, I don’t see a reason to get that worked up???”
I don’t know that this applies to his comments. If you don’t see a reason why he shouldn’t get worked up, why bother saying anything at all? Just let it go. A patronizing attitude doesn’t help. And, in fact, it just makes folks angrier.
I am not that emotional about the subject, but I think riffing movies like DARK KNIGHT and RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK crosses a line for me, and I much prefer the sense of moral “they deserved it” satisfaction you used to get watching something horribly dated and sexist get torn apart on MST3K, like MANOS for example, or most of the Corman films.
I’ve bought several RIFFTRAX, and I haven’t enjoyed them as much as the SHORTS or FILM CREW. It’s just my two cents, but I don’t see the point in riffing movies that are even arguably “good.” For example, I hate FORREST GUMP but you can at least appreciate that it was competently made and had a point to it. I think they should stick to movies like GLITTER or ROAD HOUSE and find some way to VOD them. I loved that INCREDIBLE HULK riff, for example.
I wish they’d do more obscure movies, there’s so many obscure movies from my childhood that’d be gold. As an example, I’d love to see Mac and Me riffed. A rifftrax for that movie would be right up there with Pod People. Youtube “Mac and Me scary” for some serious kicks.
“What an idiot I am for using the word “genuinely” instead of the even more vague and subjective words “clearly” or “obviously”. It now seems so “obvious” to me that when something is “clearly” bad, or “obviously” bad that it is absolutely LUDICROUS to imply that it is “genuinely” bad.”
Look, I wasn’t attacking you personally. At the time it struck me that “genuinely,” as in “legitimately, actually,” was not strong or clear enough a term to serve to distinguish between absolute dreck and stuff that’s merely not widely liked. That’s why I said “what I’m getting at is . . .” in case the words *I* chose were *also* not quite sufficient. And even then I was just using that as a lead-in to my main point.
So calm down.
“Sarcasm aside in my opinion your idea that it’s okay for anything to be riffed because quality is completely subjective is “genuinely” wrong.”
No, actually subjectivity means that anyone’s perception can be different from anyone else’s for more or less wholly arbitrary reasons. The fact that commonality of opinion exists between humans at all only indicates certain shared pyschological traits/life experiences between individuals.
“By those standards we shouldn’t have anything like awards or even art museums. I mean, who is to say that any work of art is worthy of respect, since obviously there will never be a unanimous declaration across the whole of the human race as to the quality or value on any art?”
Those places exist because a tiny fraction of the human race has decided amongst themselves that *they* appreciate those particular artifacts enough to preserve and promote them. The rest of the species doesn’t care (just like the art people would ignore the car people, or the cat people, or the fossil people, or whoever else feels some set of objects besides artwork is most worthy of praise and preservation). And if we removed that fraction of humanity, some other subset would put forth a different idea of what constitutes “high” art. In fact, different schools of art *already* disagree about what is and is not “highest,” as it were, and new styles supplant old ones in popularity based on the culture of the society around them, demonstrating that no single universal standard of what is “best” exists.
“but what he basically said was, “Not everyone is entitled to express their own opinion, they are entitled to express their own INFORMED opinion”. ”
That’s good advice regarding something like politics or science, where courses of action have real consequences and where evidence and careful reasoning can demonstrate that some given course of action is preferable. But art is subjective. One’s perception of art relies heavily – I cannot stres this enough – *heavliy* on the life experiences and culture ones grows up with. To some random New Guinea tribesmen or a rural Peruvian or a Taliban militiaman, a movie like The Dark Knight has few or no themes that really speak to them and their personal experiences – or the perceptions derived from those experiences. Therfore whether TDK is “good” in their eyes is subjective – as in, *subject* to their particular set of biases and interpretations of what constitutes enjoyment or worthiness.
So having an “informed” opinion about movies makes little sense. Many movie critics have “informed” opinions about films, and can still totally, utterly disagree with other “informed” critics (and, frequently, with the general public) because their views *are subjective.*
“The overwhelming consensus on The Dark Knight by people who actually know a lot about film in general is that it is an exceptionally good film.”
A consensus proves little other than that a consensus exists. Reasoned evidence is needed to prove something, and that’s difficult with something that differs in the mind of one person to the next (i.e. is subjective).
That said, I have no reason to personally think of TDK as “bad.”
“Yes some people didn’t like The Dark Knight, and until they can bring some real reasons forward I will happily say that their ilconsidered opinion is wrong. ”
But what others consider “real reasons” may not be accepted as “real reasons” by you. I dislike a great many popular films, so I know that my justifications are not often accepted by other people – mostly because, while they make sense in the context of my life and personality, they may not in that of other individuals.
“And as for the idea that quality doesn’t matter, and even “good” movies can be riffed, well that is equally as wrong in my opinon.”
It’s not wrong. I’ve seen it done. I enjoy the Lord of the Rings movies and I enjoy the riffing of those movies. Neither detracts from the other to me. So from a given person’s point of view (mine in this case), it is unequivocally possible to have both.
“It throws away the very foundations of what made MST3000 so brilliant. Riffing only really means anything when it is taking trash and turning it into gold. Trash as in movies with little to no redeeming value, that most people could not seriously enjoy as a work of film art on their own.”
I basically agree about this. I prefer riffery of the really terrible (or goofy) stuff over other sorts of films. That doesn’t mean, however, that I can’t also enjoy riffing of the better-liked movies. And in order to reach as broad a set of tastes as possible, I think it makes perfect sense for RiffTrax to give the treatment to a wide range of movies, including those that are liked by a bigger subset of the viewing public. That’s essentially niche marketing on their part – and it’s all the rage these days, for better or worse.
“I would never dream of turning the riffing off while watching those movies. But when the riffing gets in the way of watching a good film to me it becomes pointless.”
Yeah, but again, different individuals are bound to have different perceptions about which movies are more interesting than the riffs and which are not. The fact that you want to turn it off for a particular movie does not, in itself, make the movie “good,” nor does it mean other people would have the same opinion.
I for example really enjoy Army of Darkness. Amongst the general public, that film is considered kind of hokey and dumb. But I think it’s awesome. So the fact that I would most certainly NOT watch a riffing of that movie does not and *should* not prevent other people from deciding that they’d like to do so, any more than a movie being generally *popular* should prevent some subset of the population from deciding that they’d enjoy seeing it riffed.
“Making fun of BAD movies.”
. . . is preferable, certainly, but it’s not the only acceptable avenue for humor purposes.
I’ll shut up now.
again with the “they can’t,should’nt riff this or that movie”. let the market place decide.
as for the batman voice, it drove me up the damn wall all through the movie. god bless mike and the boys for ripping it mercilessly.
could anyone blame them for wanting to spend time riffing a “good” movie after watching total garbage movies for over a decade? remember they had to and have to watch these movies how many times in a row? and some complain about disliking even some mst3k episodes. imagine having to sit through them over and over.
I really enjoyed TDK.
In fact, it is the first non-MST related DVD I have purchased in over a year.
That being said, I watched the rifftrax of it and thought it was great.
I don’t understand why so many people are acting like it is sacreligious to riff it.
What makes this movie untouchable?
It’s a fictional story about a masked vigilante. Very entertaining, but not life changing.
I personally wish rifftrax could make a deal with the major studios to have their audio tracks be an option on DVD releases(both “good” and “bad”). I would definitely buy more DVD’s if that was the case.
Just repeat to yourself “It’s just a movie,
I should really just relax….”
Sorry about the double post.
I forgot to say that I do think that Heath Ledger should be in the running for an Oscar for his performance.