Slashdot Mirror


Batman Discussion

I won't be reading it because I haven't been able to go yet, but I suspect a goodly number of you have already partaken in the latest Batman flick that taunts me. Mocks me. And knows that I don't have time today or probably any time this week (unless there is a movie theater near the OSCON venue?) Anyway -- here is the official place to talk about the biggest geek movie out until the X-Files comes out next week, and I have similar frustrations.

53 of 967 comments (clear)

  1. Can Oscar's be given posthumously? by Amorymeltzer · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Because Heath Ledger deserves one.

    End of story.

    --
    I live in constant fear of the Coming of the Red Spiders.
    1. Re:Can Oscar's be given posthumously? by Gravatron · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Jack's joker wasn't nearly as Good IMHO, but he was playing the more comedic insane joker. What Heath plays is completely insane, very disturbing joker, with loads of very dark humor, and a ton of violence.

      It's pretty much what everyone was hoping it would be. You don't even recognize him as Heath, it's all Joker.

    2. Re:Can Oscar's be given posthumously? by Hausenwulf · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Nicholson played the Joker as crazy. Ledger played the Joker as a psychopath.

    3. Re:Can Oscar's be given posthumously? by cptnapalm · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Ledger's performance is not as over the top as Nicholson's. Having said that, Ledger's Joker is a far more frightening thing. He has no name, no history, no nothing. He is just a pure chaos.

      As for comic accuracy, both are accurate.

      Nicholson's is more akin to the Joker from the Detective Comics and Batman from the 70s and early to mid 80s. Over the top crazy and homicidal.

      Ledger's is more like the Joker from Batman #1 from 1940 as well as Miller's Dark Knight Returns (1986). Chaos personified. No redeeming qualities whatsoever. Pure evil and utterly creepy. Terror for no discernible purpose aside from causing terror. I, personally, don't think it is as much like the Joker from Killing Joke (1988) as many others do.

      The terror experienced by Gothamites which follows the news "The Joker is Free" in the comics I could not see Nicholson's inspiring. I can easily see Ledger's doing so.

    4. Re:Can Oscar's be given posthumously? by kestasjk · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Is he really, or are peoples judgment being clouded by his death? (I haven't seen the film, maybe he is excellent, but Oscars aren't usually given for Batman villains.)

      --
      // MD_Update(&m,buf,j);
    5. Re:Can Oscar's be given posthumously? by SputnikPanic · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Agreed. Over the decades, the Batman comics moved from dark to campy to dark again. Nicholson's Joker was some strange amalgam between dark and campy. Ledger's Joker on the other hand is indeed pure psychopath, the Joker as characterized by Frank Miller and Alan Moore.

      Of the people I know who are familiar with the Joker character from having read comic books, all who have seen Dark Knight agree that Ledger's Joker is the best interpretation.

    6. Re:Can Oscar's be given posthumously? by east+coast · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yeah, Sidney Poitier has always been a solid actor. Oddly enough he was in In the Heat of the Night too. Both performances were great and worthy of an Oscar nod but he was never even nominated. While he has gotten an Oscar and a boatload of other awards he always seems to be one of those actors who was under appreciated.

      --
      Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
    7. Re:Can Oscar's be given posthumously? by Hubbell · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Ledger's Joker is absolutely insane. I've NEVER in my life seen better acting. He has a psycho aura about him that cannot be recreated by any of today's actors. If you haven't seen the movie then you can't even begin to appreciate what people are saying about it.

    8. Re:Can Oscar's be given posthumously? by twalk · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I'd put this further as saying Nicholson played a great comic book Joker.

      Ledger played the Joker as a real human being. That gives a LOT more emotional shock value in the end, since you could actually imagine Ledger's Joker existing in the real world.

    9. Re:Can Oscar's be given posthumously? by cptnapalm · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The only things I've ever seen Ledger in were Knight's Tale and 10 Things I Hate About You.

      Those and Dark Knight.

      He deserves an Oscar for the Joker.

      Let me tell you how I described his performance to a friend of mine who was curious:
      Heath Ledger is not in this movie. The casting people traveled to Gotham City and got the Joker on a work release program.

      One thing a lot of people seem to be expecting is that Ledger is totally over the top. He's not. If you see the film, try not to have preconceptions for how you think he will act the part. Go in that way and I assure you that you will be impressed.

    10. Re:Can Oscar's be given posthumously? by TinCanFury · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Well, kinda...

      Ledger's Joker is based more on the comic series which always had the Joker as more of a psychotic than a jokester. Perhaps it was the Adam West series's softening of the character that gave the Joker that impression in the general public. In the 70's when the Joker became even a bit more grittier, and through the Dark Knight and similar gn's, the "darkening" of the Batman universe came to influence Dini, etc. in how they developed the character for TAS, though a bit softer still since it was a kids show.

      Ledger's version is easily the closest to the original Joker concept of a true psychotic criminal, one who not only revels in his own altered version of the world, but finds the humor in the differences of what is considered our normal and what he considers normal, and uses that humor as part of his villainy.
      Nicholson's Joker, while following closely to The Killing Joke origin of the Joker (and in my mind a weak cause for the level of the Joker's psychosis as required for the original character), was more along the lines of the 50's and 60's prankster Joker.

      Either way, it will take a lot to find another actor who can come close to bringing the Joker to life in the same way Ledger did.

    11. Re:Can Oscar's be given posthumously? by h3llfish · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I've seen a lot of stupid comments get modded up in this thread, but this is one worth spending some points on. I don't have any atm, so I'm just commenting instead.

      I agree with your assessment that this Joker was more "real". A comic can never match the nuanced delivery that Ledger gave... in the comics, dialogue is just words on a page. You can make some words bold, some in caps, yadda yadda... but it doesn't come close to the power to convey additional meaning that a good actor has. In the comics, printed words and images are the whole show.

      That said, I felt that this Batman was mostly a failure. Once you make the Joker and Batman real people, they have to live in a world that's governed by logic. But this Batman was a total mess:

      - When did the Joker have time to plant all of those bombs? The Joker had dozens of spots wired to blow. It was a criminal conspiracy of epic proportions. No one ever discovered all of those drums of gasoline?

      - Why did the Joker's henchmen follow him when he was in the habit of shooting them? If your answer is because they are crazy like him, then how come these crazy people were so good at following the Joker's orders and executing his convoluted plans to the letter?

      - Why was it so easy for the Joker to turn cops evil? Ramirez loves her mom so much that's she's willing to help the Joker kidnap Gordon's family?

      - When the henchman had the bomb inside his body, why wasn't it discovered when the cops searched him before putting him in the cell? Even a rudimentary search would have found the apparatus, and the fact that it was all crudely sewn under the skin hid nothing.

      - H

      Also, I was unmoved by most of the action sequences. I felt like they were choppy and hard to follow. A well done action sequence has fluidity to it... the cause and effect relationships make a kind of sense. This version of Batman was more like a child playing with Batman action figures - random and totally free from logic, despite the more realistic renderings of the characters done by quality actors like Eckart and Ledger.

      I'm not saying I hated this movie. I guess I was just frustrated by the fact that it was so close to greatness, but messed it up with some thoughtless choices.

  2. It's not the latest Batman flick by SageinaRage · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's the latest Joker flick, Batman is just a secondary character.

  3. The Dark Knight by DocturKnowles · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I'll go ahead and comment here but keep it short and sweet. Pros - Heath Ledger was the epitome of psychosis. BRILLIANT acting. In the original Batman movie (think '60s) and later in the Burton films the Joker was more or less a silly villain. He was out for revenge or just doing it for the kicks but he wasn't crazy. He had his fun and went home. The Dark Knight's Joker was fantastically evil. I will see this movie again just to re-watch Ledger's performance. Cons - Some cheesey dialogue. The Bat-Bike was so-so. Scarecrow and Two Face seemed under used. All in all I'd give this movie a nine out of ten. Ten out of ten for acting and sheer awesome. Eight out of ten for cheese and missed opportunities.

  4. Re:"disappering pencil" by Broken+scope · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Never has a simple writing implement, been used to set the tone of a movie so effectively.

    --
    You mad
  5. Re:SPOILER - Really, it is... by RabidMonkey · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I agree with the voice comment - every time I hear it it just doesn't sound right. He's trying too hard.

    --
    We emerge from our mother's womb an unformatted diskette; our culture formats us. - Douglas Coupland
  6. Boats by Amorymeltzer · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The ethical dilemma on the two ferries toward the end of the flick was excellent. The Joker's rants are enough to make you think (if you haven't already) but that one line was really, truly excellent:

    "Well, we're still here, which means they haven't pushed the button."

    Above all else, the best thing about this movie was the trip into the different aspects of the human condition. Whether it's the chaotic Joker, fair Two-Face, pure Fox, kind Alfred, or incorruptible Batman, or any of the others, we get, as The New Yorker paraphrased, a rare glimpse into the abyss.

    --
    I live in constant fear of the Coming of the Red Spiders.
    1. Re:Boats by DarrenBaker · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Tiny Lister had a great role in that scene, convincing the warden (or whomever he was) to give him the detonator. What great writing.

    2. Re:Boats by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I thought this was the best scene in the whole movie! To me, it distinguished between the common criminal (Tiny) and the truly evil one (Joker). Even the common criminal has rules, where Joker played by no rules what so ever.

      It also showed the Common Criminal has the balls to do what should have been done. But that was the point, wasn't it. Awesome!

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    3. Re:Boats by bornyesterday · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Does anyone else think that the triggers would have set off their own boat?

    4. Re:Boats by Duradin · · Score: 2, Insightful

      To use a Vimes quote: "Once you had a good excuse, you opened the door to bad excuses."

      Batman doesn't operate under the law. LEOs have laws that say they can kill. Bats doesn't have the law to say when he could and could not kill.

      For Batman to remain Batman, he can't become the Executioner.

  7. Re:Holy editing Batman! by m93 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Yes. This is also a flaw in Batman Begins. However, if you think about it, the pacing and framing of each scene is akin to what you would see in a comic book. In essence, each scene is a frame. Am I the only one who thinks this?

  8. Harvey to Two Face felt forced by SirLurksAlot · · Score: 5, Insightful

    First I want to say I loved it, easily the best movie I've seen this year. Nolan did a great job at keeping it dark and gritty, and I can be satisfied with that alone. Some of the aspects of the movie really did seem forced though. For one thing it seemed like Harvey made the transition to Two Face very quickly. Yes, there he went through a lot, but his character never gave off a sense that it affected him all that much until the end. There was only one scene to really show that he might've been unhinged somewhat before becoming Two Face, and even then he seemed to be very much in control. It just seemed like there wasn't enough foreshadowing that he was capable of being a true monster. Aaron Eckhart gave a great performance, but I think if Harvey had been given more a backstory (such as how they introduced him in Batman: TAS, talking to a shrink) the overall effect would've been more profound.

    --
    God, schmod. I want my monkey man!
    1. Re:Harvey to Two Face felt forced by SirLurksAlot · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Hmmmm, you have a point. Still, even with "just a little push," it didn't seem like his personality up to that point was that fragile. Of course, my argument goes against my other nitpick about the movie, which is that the Joker spent a lot of time explaining his motivations to the audience rather than leaving it up to them to deduce. Can I have my cake and eat it too? ;-)

      --
      God, schmod. I want my monkey man!
    2. Re:Harvey to Two Face felt forced by SirLurksAlot · · Score: 2, Insightful

      So in other words you are here to troll in a discussion specifically about Batman. Seriously man, if you don't have the "time or interest" to actually come up with something interesting to say why even bother? Also how would you know what I watch or don't watch? If you're trying to make a statement about the quality of cinema today then make it already.

      --
      God, schmod. I want my monkey man!
  9. Doing the right thing doesn't make you popular... by stankulp · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Anybody else catch that?

    Anybody else think of Bush when they caught it?

    --
    We must be alert to the danger that public policy could become captive to a scientific-technological elite. - Eisenhower
  10. Ledger doesn't deserve it for this. by DarrenBaker · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Don't get me wrong, he's good - very good - but it's not Academy Award level acting. If he had lived, nobody would be discussing an award.

    Certainly, it will get nominations for cinematography for Pfister (who will win), writing for the brothers Nolan, and production design for Crowley (who will also win), but that's it.

    If the Academy chose to recognise the efforts of the only people who actually knowingly risk their lives for film, stunt people, then this would win as well. But, the Academy is blind to this irony, so they won't.

    1. Re:Ledger doesn't deserve it for this. by JCSoRocks · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I'd say that Ledger's complete redefinition of who the Joker is and what he's about represents some pretty amazing acting. At no point in time was his character anything other than an amazing combination of completely insane and coldly calculating. He was good enough that despite all the hype I never found myself even thinking about the fact that he was acting. I was completely engrossed in the character. (Bale's "Batman Voice" on the other hand... was really distracting.)

      --
      You are using English. Please learn the difference between loose and lose; they're, there, and their; your and you're.
  11. Re:I wonder who will play Aunt Madge by pragma_x · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The Joker simply took advantage of Dent's vulnerability after having lost the love of his life. He explained to Dent that this happened due to the corrupt elements within the police force; that the "good guys" weren't all good.

    The Joker also explained himself as little more than a "dog chasing cars" that "wouldn't know what to do once he caught one." He has no motivation for the destruction of Gotham other than sheer nihilism. As others have explained: he is a force of nature.

    So, in that moment it was laid out for Harvey. The good weren't all good, and the bad not all bad.

    Dent decided that this applied to himself as well. He then went on a vendetta, using his "lucky" coin as judge and jury, since sheer fate was the only form of justice left to him.
    --

    For as we all know: money can't buy knives.

  12. Re:Biggest geek movie until X-Files? by jonnythan · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "Geek" doesn't mean being into the latest gadgets and computers.

    Comic books and tabletop gaming are, and always have bee, geek.

  13. Re:Holy editing Batman! by foniksonik · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Personally I thought that was part of it's brilliance... the director didn't feel the need to explain everything. I hate it when movies try to wrap everything up in neat little bows so the audience doesn't have to think (a little.. not like the independent films where the entire story is a brain puzzle).

    --
    A fool throws a stone into a well and a thousand sages can not remove it.
  14. Re:I hate... by JCSoRocks · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I agree about the actor switching... I understand that you can't make actors come back for a part but it ruins the continuity of the series. As for Rachel... I actually enjoyed that part because of how the other characters changed in response to it. Also, there's the whole "finally, the bad guys did something right" thing. I get so tired of the cliche "you must choose between your two friends." "I choose BOTH - oh look I saved them both I m amazing! yay!" In this case he *did* choose, he was just deceived.

    --
    You are using English. Please learn the difference between loose and lose; they're, there, and their; your and you're.
  15. Re:Good movie by raftpeople · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I'm sure there'll be much debate about Ledger vs. Nicholson

    I doubt it.

  16. Re:Why didn't they just kill the lawyer? by Anpheus · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Because then the Joker says, kill 10 people or I'll blow up a hospital.

    Or kill 100 people or I'll blow up a hospital.

    Or kill 1000 people or I'll blow up a hospital.

    The moment you accept killing one innocent person is OK to save many more innocent people, then how do you propose we weigh their lives? Does society even work when we permit such madness to reign?

  17. Re:What no discussion of the Bambi movie? by twistedsymphony · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Maybe you should pick and choose the filmmakers you support instead of just generalizing that Hollywood = bad

    There are still quite a few US filmmakers who hold the integrity of their vision above that of the studio's greed for profit.

  18. Re:One Word by Endo13 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    He really did. I can't imagine that it's possible for anyone to ever play the Joker better. I was expecting a good movie, but frankly it surprised me by how much it exceeded my expectations. He should certainly win an Oscar for that. Easily the best supporting actor role of the year, even without seeing the films from the last half of the year.

    --
    There is no -1 Disagree mod. Slashdot.org/faq defines mod options. USE IT.
  19. Re:One Question by rnelsonee · · Score: 3, Insightful

    There was a (probable, but subtle) allusion to Catwoman in TDK. When Fox gives Batman his new suit, he makes it a point to say it will protect against cats.

  20. Re:You BELIEVED the maniac?!? by Gravatron · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I think that was part of the Experiment. People didn't want to die, so they believed what the villan said at face value. In all likelyhood, it was indeed their own detonator, and the jocker was waiting to see which group would get up the nerve to murder the other first.

  21. Re:Basically 9/11 Imperial Propeganda by sm62704 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Although I think he (and the other responders to your comment, especially the one who said you were trolling) completely missed your (and Dawson's) point, I see no difference between the 3,000 victims of Bin Laden and the thousands upon thousands of other murder victims and their survivors.

    The difference is, the other victims and survivors weren't exploited for political gain nearly as much.

    Why were we able to catch and kill Saddam Hussein, who never attacked the USA, but we can't bring Bin Laden to justice? Someone is terribly incompetent, and I think it's the entire government of the US.

    --
    mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
  22. Re:Three Words by porges · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Actually, if I remember it right, Lucius totally effed up. The accountant only said that he knew that Wayne Enterprises had created the Batmobile; he hadn't necessarily concluded that Wayne was Batman! Obviously the script doesn't realize this. Or maybe I heard it wrong.

  23. Something we can actually discuss: by Rhesusmonkey · · Score: 2, Insightful

    So for all you people out there talking about how dark it was, and lordie it certainly was, (I haven't enjoyed a movie that much since young Alex went cavorting with his droogs, but I'm a twisted sort who's digressing) how about the fact that this movie and Indiana Jones had the same rating? Seriously, how completely misleading and worthless is a system that ranks those two levels of intensity as comparable?

    --
    You need more psychedelic art in your life. rhesusmonkey.deviantart.com
  24. Re:I wonder who will play Aunt Madge by sapphire+wyvern · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Right, but the Joker's a liar. Two mutually exclusive stories for the scars on his cheeks... probably neither of them close to the truth.

    Not a schemer, my foot. As a friend of mine said, he's the schemiest of the lot - and they're all pretty schemey.

  25. Re:What no discussion of the Bambi movie? by Rhesusmonkey · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Raging nihilism, intense, disturbing images, anarchy, mutilation, and you call foul if Batman drinks sprite? That's the line? I'm flabbergasted. By all means, I'm sure there's a million better things to do than to see a movie, go run in a park or something... but product placement? Really? Wow.

    --
    You need more psychedelic art in your life. rhesusmonkey.deviantart.com
  26. Re:One Word by IndustrialComplex · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I'd argue that the Joker was the real 'star' of this film. I suppose he was a supporting actor, but he stole the show.

    --
    Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
  27. not a schemer or a planner by phorm · · Score: 2, Insightful

    And for all the talk about being "not a schemer," the setup with the bomb-in-stomach in the police office, as well as the two ferries, obviously took a fair bit of forethought and planning.

    1. Re:not a schemer or a planner by Repossessed · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I thought of his rant more as an abstract, Joker had plans, but no Plan. If one plan failed, he just switched to another, nothing phased him, and no result was actually a bad one.

      --
      Liberte, Egalite, Fraternite (TM)
  28. any chance of an unrated dvd release ? by Brigadier · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I get the impression the director preferred to show much more gore, but was edited back due to the need to make sales with the PG-13 rating.

    As a rated R movie this movie coudl have as much fear factor as teh original psyco

  29. Re:SPOILER ALERT! by cptnapalm · · Score: 2, Insightful

    No wonder he was so depressed... If I was Kaiser Sose and was meaninglessly employed, married to an unfaithful shrew and had an ungrateful bitch of a daughter, the opportunity to boink a pretty teen would make me happy too.

  30. Re:One Question by zippthorne · · Score: 3, Insightful

    So.. basically the animated series Freeze?

    (which btw.. I thought was a pretty compelling character)

    --
    Can you be Even More Awesome?!
  31. Re:Since when by tgd · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Have you ever seen a 70mm print of Lawrence of Arabia? Its an entirely different experience from watching it at home. You get a whole different view of the movie, the way it was intended to be seen.

    Suggesting otherwise is like suggesting that looking at the Sistine Chapel on a webpage is no different than seeing it in person. Its just ridiculous. You see the image, but not the detail.

  32. Re:Why didn't they just kill the lawyer? by boss_hog · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Here's how I saw this one come out:

    The dude was going to blow Batman's identity on broadcast TV, then the Joker flips the script on him. Now he's freaking out realizing that half the people in the city might be crazy enough to wax him(with or without the Joker's motivation). He manages to walk away from the biggest attempt on his life, and what's the first thing he sees as he's doing that? Mr. billionaire playboy sitting in his wrecked $500,000 car, having just saved his ass. You know, RIGHT AFTER he had just been moments away from spilling the man's secret.

    I'd like to think that if I were in that guy's shoes, I'd take that secret to the grave with me, after that kind of self-sacrifice in the face of my own selfishness. Or at least, I'd hope it'd take a little bit of torture, maybe a good beating, to get me to cough it up. :)

  33. Re:Why didn't they just kill the lawyer? by nEoN+nOoDlE · · Score: 2, Insightful

    There were a bunch of people trying to kill the lawyer, including the one cop that had his wife in the hospital. The problem with just killing that guy to satisfy the Joker is that the Joker has lied about everything since the beginning of the movie. Why would anybody (especially law enforcement) trust him to keep his word and not blow up the hospital? It makes sense that they didn't just kill the lawyer - we don't bow down to terrorist demands. As for the lawyer giving up Batman's identity; Bruce Wayne saved the lawyer's life when he drove his car in front of the van that was going to crash into the lawyer's vehicle. The lawyer saw what Bruce Wayne did and I took it that he at that point realized that he shouldn't give up Batman's identity since Wayne saved his life even in spite of him about to give away his identity. That's what I got out of it anyway. Sure they could have had a newscast or something at the end with the lawyer saying he was gonna keep Batman's identity a secret, but what would be the point?

    --
    Don't trust a bull's horn, a doberman's tooth, a runaway horse or me.
  34. Speaking of rubbish writing... by raehl · · Score: 2, Insightful

    ...it always bothers me when characters that have been portrayed as smart suddenly become especially stupid for the sake of plot.

    The Joker has threatened all means of transport other than ferries - that must mean the ferries are safe!