Why does almost everybody have a notion that dark = better

[Leo656]

I'm not 100% with ya on Catwoman. I know that "popular interpretation" has long since changed how we view the character, but initially the "cat" in "Catwoman" was for "cat *burglar*", not "lady with a creepy cat fixation and a speech impediment."

I'm okay with her costume and equipment being "cat-like" to play into the name, and am even okay with her owning one or two cats, but I draw the line at the Eartha Kitt-style purring, using giant feral cats as "weapons" against her opponents, or having some obsession with saving endangered cats like in The Animated Series. That's cartoon stuff. I know all of that has been projected onto the character over the years through a few different interpretations, but it's still NOT the character. It's just stuff that got pasted on over time by writers too lazy to look past the first three letters of her name. She's a *cat burglar*, her motives are stealing shiny expensive things, not saving endangered mountain lions or whatever. As stripped-down as it was from what we expect, Dark Knight Rises was the most faithful version of the character ever done so far, and I appreciated that. The Michelle Pfeiffer version was fun and iconic, but it was as far from the source as it gets aside from the costume and the whip.

I'm with ya on the other stuff though.

[Tortuglio]

Originally Posted by JYX

I think what some people confuse is the notion "darker = deeper" which is not always the case. Of course in "darker" storytelling, you deal with issues that can be more appropriately handled by adults in regards to violence, sexual topics, and drugs. But... it doesn't necessarily mean the movie deals with those topics in the most mature fashion.

For me, when movies excessively glamorize the "adrenaline thrill" of violence to the point that it ignores the emotional weight of it's fatal aftermath, then it's obviously not that mature because the movie's tone is in a "state of denial" in willingly ignoring the emotional consequences of committing such acts.

One example of this (and I'm sure I'm gonna get flamed here) is most of Quentin Taranatino's films, some would go so far to say his excessively seductive violent movies are nothing but a medium for "self-gratification" of adolescent males for their excessive thirst of violence. There's perpetual violence but rarely any introspective look into the emotional toll of the violence.

On the other extreme end, you would have the movie "Saving Private Ryan" that deals with the emotional magnitude of war and death, and has both darkness and depth.

So as for "why" almost everyone has the notion that "dark = better", I think it more or less has to do with the stage of people's lives and their maturity. The group you would consider "everyone" is most likely teenage and young adult males, and if you compare that demographic to middle aged or elderly males who have had many more years of experience and tragedies/hardships, they would most likely disagree.

I have to agree with you except on the Tarantino stuff. If anyone thinks that gore or extreme violence or stylized violence is dark or serious then doesn't understand it at all. It's just entertainment, and if you enjoy it, a pretty amusing too. But you have to take it for what it is, an exaggeration of reality just for kicks. And Tarantino most of the times, does it well. On the other hand, he can also be serious, have you seen "django unchained"? The scene where he has to shoot a man who is with his son, is pretty serious (or dark if you want, albeit it's broad daylight ).
Tim Burton's Batman was not 60's Batman, but was it THAT serious? You still have kinda lame jokes ala Avengers, Joker has a large big revolver inside his pants and blows batman's ride with it. And let's not go into "Batman returns", dj wayne's cd scratch anyone? I like all of this movies, although the later i've come to enjoy only in small dosis.
Regardless of their nature, all we want, is just a good movie. NOT Transformers... sorry, had to say it.

[FlogginMcMurryZombiePizza]

Tarantino really is overrated on the whole. I seen his movies, others I still haven't seen (including Django). I just dont think he's that good... and I get tired of movies where we get huge long takes of nothing but non-stop talking that really doesn't do anything for the characters or stories.
One good example is from a movie that Tarantino is saying is his worst anyway... but Death Proof in any of it's cuts runs too long where we have the girls from both group chatting non-stop, setting things up for whatever reason when, in the end, nothing build up on the character's means **** because they either died abruptly or the story said "we're in a car chase".
I have owned the Kill Bill movies on DVD since they released and I havn't seen them more than 2 times on DVD, each.

Originally Posted by chrisdude

I don't mind Batman stories being "serious," and the Dark Knight trilogy was a cool "What if this were real?" scenario, but parts of these villains were sacrificed for the sake of making them mesh with reality. I feel like Bane should have his venom, Joker should have his gas, and Catwoman should have a stronger connection with cats than what her goggles look like when they're flipped up. If they'd used Penguin, he would've just been a short dude named Cobblepot...

I'm not saying I want camp. I just don't feel Gotham fits, or can fit in the real world.

Originally Posted by Leo656

I'm not 100% with ya on Catwoman. I know that "popular interpretation" has long since changed how we view the character, but initially the "cat" in "Catwoman" was for "cat *burglar*", not "lady with a creepy cat fixation and a speech impediment."

I was about to point this out as well. Catwoman really does and should exist as an anti-hero cat burglar. And I'm ok if she puurs once in a while... And by that I mean, like, once in a movie. She shouldn't have special powers over cats. That's just weird.
Likewise, Penguin was able to control the zoo penguins in Batman Returns? Why? How? I dunno... I never really cared for that movie too much largely because Penguin is so gross and I didn't care enough for the rest of the Cobblepot storyline as Burton presented it. Penguin is usually portrayed about more... with class and taste with a vicious side, in the comics.

Bane should have had his venom, I agree... but then that is hard to adapt realistically with an actor playing the part. Then you have to explain the venom in some degree to the audience. You would need to change out the actor to a body builder or get a CG creature in, like Hulk... which might not have been a bad idea but, eh. As far as getting the story across and keeping the focus on the story, they did fine enough but I didn't think they ever fully gave Bane reason enough to wear a mask. And if we really wanted to go on about what they should or shouldn't be in a movie... he should have shown signs of being a wrestler, not just being some kinda mastermind mercenary.= (which he was smart in the comics).

Joker doesn't NEED his gas though. It's not an end-all, be-all tool for him. Most times he doesn't use any gas in the comics. But a lot of stories deal with him using a toxin of some kind. Joker should be insane and unpredictable.
Saying he needs his gas is like saying he needed a flower that shoots acid.

Originally Posted by Leo656

I'm okay with her costume and equipment being "cat-like" to play into the name, and am even okay with her owning one or two cats, but I draw the line at the Eartha Kitt-style purring, using giant feral cats as "weapons" against her opponents, or having some obsession with saving endangered cats like in The Animated Series. That's cartoon stuff. I know all of that has been projected onto the character over the years through a few different interpretations, but it's still NOT the character. It's just stuff that got pasted on over time by writers too lazy to look past the first three letters of her name. She's a *cat burglar*, her motives are stealing shiny expensive things, not saving endangered mountain lions or whatever. As stripped-down as it was from what we expect, Dark Knight Rises was the most faithful version of the character ever done so far, and I appreciated that. The Michelle Pfeiffer version was fun and iconic, but it was as far from the source as it gets aside from the costume and the whip.

I'm with ya on the other stuff though.

I'm agreeing here too.
Pfeiffer is iconic and will always be iconic as Catwoman. I always loved her sarcastic "Meow" she says at some point in it film too... but her Catwoman had mental problems and that came across in both of her "lives". The newest Catwoman didn't show that same personality. She was quick and collected, smart and on her feet.
And I agree on the Catwoman we got in Rises. When Hathaway was cast, and everyone was groaning, I was thinking "Ok... I can see this working". And what we got was more-or-less true to her source material. Moreso than Bane or Talia Al Ghul/"Miranda".

[Tortuglio]

By no means i am saying that Tarantino is the greatest thing that ever happened to cinema. I only enjoy SOME of his movies, or parts of them. "Death Proof" is boring, the only important parts are the accident and the car chase fight at the end... and the intro credits scenes maybe. Robert Rodriguez's "Planet Terror" was a much more rewarding movie, it is so hilariously over the top, it's great. "Kill Bill"...only saw it once and that's fine by me, good actions secuences, that's all (and always hated Bill's monologue about Superman at the end, ugh, an example of what McMurry was talking about). In "Inglorious Bastards" there's a lot of dialog, but it's functional to the story and the characters, it sets a mood, the first scene it's a clear example. In a movie like "Reservoir dogs", the dialog described the characters, their personalities. I watched it recently and it wasn't THAT good, but it has some really strong points.
Tarantino, as everybody has cons and pros, and i understand the reactions he produces because there's people that likes to glorify everything and everyone and can't take a critic (as if they were the ones that made the movie). On the other hand, bashing just for the sake for it without facts it's just the same (not that that happenned here! ).
Anyways, sorry for the deviation on subject. Actually, I agree with JYX and re reading my earlier post seems i was kinda confused when i wrote it haha

To sum up my own thoughts:
Dark-gritty-serious = excessive or stylized violence? No
Tarantino is always stylized violence when it comes to treating the subject of violence? Mostly, but not always.
Dark = better? No, it all depends on the movie, it can be the total oppositte and be awesome.
So why does people think that? Nolan's Batman (being the second one, the only really really good one).
Why do we want a serious TMNT movie? Cause we already have one that was kinda dark but mostly fun, two that were only "fun" and one that tried to be dark, but wasn't.

Sorry!

[Shark_Blade]

Harry Potter gets darker and darker as it progresses. Lord of the Rings, etc.

So of course it's good. If its safe and dandy it'll be boring and pointless.

[Coola Yagami]

Originally Posted by FlogginMcMurryZombiePizza

Joker doesn't NEED his gas though. It's not an end-all, be-all tool for him. Most times he doesn't use any gas in the comics. But a lot of stories deal with him using a toxin of some kind. Joker should be insane and unpredictable.
Saying he needs his gas is like saying he needed a flower that shoots acid.

Maybe not his gas, but at least... SOMETHING. Unlike the comics where the Joker used his gas more than enough times that he can have entire storyarcs without using or mentioning it, you only have one shot in a movie. He needed at least the razor sharp throwing cards. Or some kind of Joker trademark.

[ryukenden]

A good balance of comedy and drama is the way to go. If it's too campy, it can't be taken seriously. If it's too dark, it gets depressing. Personally, I say keep all the lighthearted stuff during calm situations such as kicking back at the lair and the serious stuff in the midst of battle.