Better on the Small Screen?

Only seen it on the big screen, not the small. But I'd think that a network TV broadcast would do wonders for TDK. Commercial breaks would neatly divide the episodic structure, concealing the jumpy plot structure.

Short answer: wrong.

Longer answer: if you have a 52 inch widescreen LCD and a surround sound system, and watch in the dark from the exact correct viewing distance to simulate a movie screen, it might be OK. But generally, no.

Cranky

IMAX, agreed.

I disagree with him. The scale of the picture can't be appreciated on a smaller screen - we have a 42 inch HD TV. I own the movie and have watched it twice already.

Also, although I have a decent sound system, the theater's much better.

As far as Ledger's fantastic performance, it comes across bigger than life, even imposing, at the movies.

By the way, I don't understand this, but both times I've wacthed it at home, the "pencil trick" that the Joker does doesn't come across very well; it's as if you don't really see what happened.

The correct way to see it is on the IMAX, actually.

And I saw it on IMAX ... twice. Great for the action scenes, not so much for the dialogue. (Although, as I noted in a post I linked to in the one Kevin linked to, the integration of the IMAX scenes into normal ratio was artfully seamless.)

watch in the dark from the exact correct viewing distance to simulate a movie screen

Cranky---if I may---which seat in a theater do you simulate yourself sitting in at home? Because sometimes I sit in crap seats and have to play telephone with people on the other side of the theater to know what's going on. (Not really, but you see my point.)

By the way, I don't understand this, but both times I've wacthed it at home, the "pencil trick" that the Joker does doesn't come across very well; it's as if you don't really see what happened.

Psyberian, I'm not sure how to say this, but in that scene you're not supposed to really see what happened. That's the, er, joke.

I won't deny that the movie is 1) bigger, 2) louder, and 3) seemingly more action-packed on the big screen (or IMAX), but that doesn't necessarily means it's better. The Dark Knight---which, Kevin doesn't mention, we both expressed strong reservations about last time we talked---is a flawed film, and plays to the strengths it has far better on the small screen.

Let me get this straight, you're seriously listening to a guy who named his blog, "acephalous?"

One day I'll live in a world where people don't think to use my own self-deprecating conceit of a blog name against me. Until then, I suppose I'll have to settle for an Obama in the White House.

I am sure the movie makers designed the film for the big screen. All the FX stuff looks better on the IMAX, but Heath Ledger's Joker is transcendent. Far and away the best acting I have seen in the last 5 years. I watched TDK on the small screen and his acting stands up.

His death was a great loss for movie lovers everywhere.

Oh, the movie is horribly cut. When you watch it on the small screen you pick up the really bad editing job.

Am bessen.

The mouth, talking by Heath in TDK, teaches us a few things.

Since when is "dumb" reason for deletion/excision/moderation?

The thing that really stands out in my memory of the film, seen in IMAX, is the feeling of disorientation, caused in large part by the vertigo-inducing clarity of the high-altitude IMAX shots (the Hong Kong sequence in particular), and how it meshed so perfectly with the sense that, with Ledger's Joker, all bets were off. It gave me the unique sensation of feeling that I didn't know where the movie was going (a separate and distinct sensation from being wrong about where a movie is going).

I found the sensation thrilling. I don't expect to recapture it on a second viewing, either at home or on a big screen. But I don't believe that I would have felt the same had my first viewing been at home.

The two-disk set has the IMAX sequences at their proper aspect ratio. I found that the extra screen up and down seems to mimic the eye better, making the movie seem like it's actually happening in front of you. The wide screen shots don't seem as natural.
The opening bank robbery and the armored car chase seem to work particularly well.

If I see one more comic book superhero movie, I think I'll go ga-ga.

Virginia,

So somebody is kidnapping you and forcing your eyes open to watch the film as in "A Clockwork Orange?" I'd call the cops.

I've seen the movie IMAX, regular big movie screen, and 62 inch blu-ray home theatre.

Without surround sound the Batman voice definitely loses a lot of its creepy startle sound.

I haven't watched it on a 4:3 TV because ugh, I know the cinematic scenes would suck.

Is Ledger 'better' on small screen? Nope. He is awesome, period.

Would the cinematic action sequences be worse on a small screen? I'd bet money on it.

And I normally don't get into arguments over 'taste' but anyone who says the movie is deeply flawed is deeply wrong. And if you can't handle the plot jumps, um, watch it again and lay off the sauce beforehand.

Kevin,
Are you saying TDK needs to be downsized to be enjoyed? Is this a metaphor for our current predicament?

The joker is WAY creepier in my dreams.

i didn't think the movie was that interesting. either tv or big screen, its still not that great.

I tend to prefer movies at the theatre simply because it's easier to get lost in the world the movie creates, way too many distractions at home. That said, Ledger's performance was a bit too transparent (i.e. it's obvious he's a mix of jack nicholson and richard nixon) but that is down-played on a smaller screen as the personality traits of his character aren't so exaggerated. I liked him better on the small screen but the film itself better on the big screen. I still only give the movie a B- though, it just wasn't that great imo (DK is still way better than all the previous incarnations of batman).

Heh. In this experience, size doesn't matter. Ledger's performance is simply amazing, some of the best acting I've ever seen.

I'm with Virginia and Poly. I can't believe this movie is rated so highly .

To the poster who asked who was forcing Virginia to watch it, I think you miss the general point.

The national "zeitgeist" about this film is clearly that it's fantastic. When I looked at IMDB, the rating for this film was above 9 with a sample size of 10s of 1000s of viewers, this is unheard of, how can any movie lover resist seeing a film with that sort of buzz?

Based on all of the buzz, I think it would therefore be logical even for a person who was not typically a comic-book action-hero movie fan, to conclude that this was an instance of the genre (like "Iron Man") which should be on their "must see" list.

But in my case, I found it a major disappointment.

1. It's steeped in scenes of graphic violence many or most of which also had some element of torture, i.e. we're being asked to watch someone suffer pain that is being inflicted on purpose, for pleasure, etc. and so much of it is gratuitous. And yes, I watched "Batman" on TV as a kid, and I'm familiar with the franchise, and frankly that ain't it.

2. I don't see Heath Ledger's performance as all that phenomenal, then again I didn't see Javier Bardem's performance that way either. I'm guessing that if Ledger (a good actor no doubt, his performance in "Brokeback Mountain" was outstanding) had not tragically died, the buzz about his performance would be diminished.

I'm not an actor (but then there's a good chance you aren't either if you're reading this) but is the role of a sadist really so difficult a stretch for an actor by default? I don't think so, so what is it about Ledger's specific performance here that is so distinctive?

3. Regarding the movie itself, the plot was complex but complex in a formulaic way, i.e. a bunch of scriptwriters sitting around running through a standard repertoire of double, triple, quadruple dealing, then mixing in a lot of highly technical effects to cover up the wild implausibility of everything.

Yes, it's a movie based on a comic strip, but don't comic strip writers make some effort to render their plots plausible in context, i.e. yes there is some super-hero, but no there's not a room of 1000 very important and presumably heavily protected New York glitterati sitting there quietly while one man armed with a knife psychologically torments a woman and then disappears right? For my taste, I would have been happier if the Joker had only had to escape 3-4 times from situations that required the complete idiocy and ineptness of every human being in a 20-mile radius, rather than 300 times.

Oh well, that's quite a rant, but Virginia and Poly you've got company.

Jon