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.

30 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 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.

    5. 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.

    6. 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.

    7. 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.

  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. 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.

  6. 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?

  7. 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!
  8. 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
  9. 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.
  10. 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.

  11. 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.

  12. 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.
  13. 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.
  14. Re:Good movie by raftpeople · · Score: 4, Insightful

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

    I doubt it.

  15. 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.
  16. 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.

  17. 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.

  18. 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
  19. 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?!
  20. 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)