Iron man disses "dark knight"?

Question

http://movies.yahoo.com/feature/downey-talks-dark-knight.html

and so, I wanted to know people's comments&opinions about him.

I mean, I do agree that it took me a while to understand the movie, but I must be smarter than Downey, because I do understand it, whereas he's still probably wondering why batman had to become a bad guy.

Answer 1

Robert is just jealous cause TDK earned more money and better reviews.

Answer 2

wasnt confusing at all i loved it but i loved iron man to  

Answer 3

the movie was amazing and his remarks are totally opinionated. everyone has their rights.

Answer 4

Well Downy Probley Is Jellin Cause Dark Knight IS Better

Or

Marvel Paided Him To Diss DC Comics To Make Them Look Bad

Or

He Has A Bad Taste In Movies LOL

Answer 5

why would he defend the dark knight when hes the man of steel.....i mean iron.

Answer 6

The two movies went for completely different tones... and they were also the two best movies of the summer.

Dark Knight wasn't even really a superhero movie- it was an epic crime drama in which a superhero played a part.  That's what made it great- it was a movie that even people who aren't into superheros would appreciate.

Iron was much more a traditional superhero movie, and was more fun for audiences of all ages. Iron Man was like Lord of the Rings, the Dark Knight was like the Godfather. RDJ is saying he prefers Marvel's  approach to the genre (and getting some publicity, obviously)

Answer 7

While I wouldn't have used the "F" word, I have got to agree with Robert Downey, Jr.  I saw both "The Dark Knight" and "Iron Man", and the measure of whether I think a film is really, really good is if I decide to buy an original DVD of the film.  In this case, I am definitely, definitely going to get the DVD of IM.  I am not, however, going to get the DVD of TDK - despite the fact that I have the "Batman Begins" DVD (which, incidentally, I think is a far better movie than TDK).

TDK was a good movie, and Heath Ledger's performance was indeed compelling.  However, what I find very difficult to swallow about TDK is the relentless -- and I do mean "relentless" -- triumph of evil throughout the whole film.  Halfway through the movie, I began to wish it would end because I couldn't find a single "ray of light" to redeem it from its "darkness".  I also don't understand how the Joker even became so powerful, to the point that a mob boss could actually be wary of him.  Is the Joker omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent? It sure seems like he is, although we're never told why.  I mean, come on, how could he possibly have rigged up all those explosives at the Gotham General Hospital without a single security guard noticing that something was going on?  Sometimes I wonder whether the movie should've been called "The Joker" instead!

Like Robert Downey Jr., I don't understand either why Batman had to become the "bete noire" of Gotham City, just so the people could have someone like Harvey Dent to "believe in".  Is it really a good thing for people to believe in a "hero" -- i.e., Harvey Dent -- who was never really "heroic"?  Is it a step in the right direction for them to believe in a lie?  I'm sorry, but in the final analysis, what I see here is an advocacy of the very Machiavellian saying "the end justifies the means", and that is a very, very slippery slope indeed.

People may think that Batman triumphed in the end of the film because the Joker was apprehended.  But when you really think about it, it was the Joker who won.  Aside from the fact that he corrupted Harvey Dent, and murdered Rachel Dawes, he also succeeded in making both Batman and Commissioner Gordon suppress the truth and create a "hero" who doesn't really exist.  The thing about the truth, though, is that it has the tendency to reveal itself.  What will it do to the citizens of Gotham City if they ever find out the truth about Harvey Dent, and how Commissioner Gordon and Batman lied to them?  Will the Commissioner ever have any credibility left?  Will Batman?  Why couldn't Commissioner Gordon have been the hero?  Why not reveal to the people what happened at that final standoff, when Commissioner Gordon's family had been threatened, and both he and Batman were trying to find a way to save them?

So, I suppose Robert Downey and I aren't half as smart as everyone else who really liked TDK.  But see, I still don't believe that compromising on the truth is a viable way to serve a higher purpose.  How can you serve a higher purpose when you compromise on something as fundamental as the truth?  In fact, that's what the entire TDK movie was all about -- concealing the truth.  About the only time I found myself agreeing to it was when Alfred kept Rachel's letter from Bruce -- but at least in that instance, it was an issue that was between two people, and not something that would affect an entire city.  (There, see, I did say it was a very slippery slope!)

People may say that IM was a "fun movie", and yes, there was a whole lot of fun to it.  But it also told the story of a man's "redemption" -- you came out it with hope, hope in the capacity of the human person to see the error of his ways, and to make something better of himself.  Much of what I saw in Batman, however, was how everyone became a pawn in one man's psychopathic chess game, and how, in the end, the hero himself had to bow to the machinations of the villain.  I know reality is harsh, but do we honestly believe that evil will always triumph like this?

I came out of TDK feeling depressed and heavy-hearted; in fact, the entire theater was silent, because everyone was shell-shocked.  My friend said it was just too macabre for words, and I wished desperately that I'd already had the IM DVD so that I could watch it and feel better.  Sorry, but TDK is one movie that I can bear to watch only once.  Life is challenging enough as it is.  I don't think I need to see again a movie that seems to believe that we don't have too many choices in the face of evil.